USA Election

[Johnuk123]

They do look after themselves. But those countries simply can't compete with the resources of Russia if Russia is minded to take them on. There are still only three global powers with vast resources in terms of man and firepower - the US, Russia and China. (And second tier like UK, France etc. that contribute but simply don't have the population at the same tier)

Their contribution is negligible and really if countries would rather not try and defend themselves properly then can you blame Trump if he tells them to stick it.

 

[northwichcat]

Snork!



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37921376

The idea of Americans decamping to Canada, where liberal PM Justin Trudeau is in power, if Trump wins has been bubbling along throughout the election.

In February, the island of Cape Breton on Canada’s Atlantic coast marketed itself as a tranquil refuge for Americans seeking to escape should Trump capture the White House.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ashes-as-donald-trumps-us-election-lead-grows

 

[TheKnightWho]

Their contribution is negligible and really if countries would rather not try and defend themselves properly then can you blame Trump if he tells them to stick it.

So you'd have no issue with Russia annexing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania because they weren't spending 2% of their GDP on defence?

 

[miami]

So you'd have no issue with Russia annexing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania because they weren't spending 2% of their GDP on defence?

The question is why should america pay 2% of its GDP to defend these countries?

 

[DarloRich]

The question is why should america pay 2% of its GDP to defend these countries?

because that arrangement keeps the peace in the Western world including the USA! It has done for 60 years. Russia, for instance, knows (knew?) that invading one NATO country would start a war with all NATO countries, led by the United States. That brings a moment of pause and reflection. Without that arrangement they may well be emboldened to take precipitous action knowing the response would be fractured and easy to defeat. Look at the Ukraine.

That Trump withdraws from these arrangements and makes the USA isolationist is the biggest concern in my mind.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The question is why should america pay 2% of its GDP to defend these countries?

Because there's more at stake than money.

 

[Johnuk123]

because that arrangement keeps the peace in the Western world including the USA! It has done for 60 years. Russia, for instance, knows (knew?) that invading one NATO country would start a war with all NATO countries, led by the United States. That brings a moment of pause and reflection.

Without that arrangement they may well be emboldened to take precipitous action knowing the response would be fractured and easy to defeat.

That Trump withdraws from these arrangements and makes the USA isolationist is the biggest concern in my mind.

Trump has said that if another NATO member gets attacked he will weigh up whether America should get involved.
I don't agree with America deciding which countries are worth saving whilst they are still in NATO as they have signed a treaty.

If they leave NATO which is a distinct possibility, if any European/Baltic countries do get attacked and they haven't beefed up their defence it's hardly Americas fault.
You have to look at it from the American viewpoint which is why should they put American cities under nuclear threat by defending a country that won't defend itself.
America has lied for years and years because they never would have put the whole of North America at risk of being wiped out defending Poland for instance, it has always been a lie.

 

[Johnny_w]

Either way it's a done deal. Just like Brexit.

I do wonder if he might actually surprise people? Stranger things have happened.

 

[DarloRich]

Trump has said that if another NATO member gets attacked he will weigh up whether America should get involved.
I don't agree with America deciding which countries are worth saving whilst they are still in NATO as they have signed a treaty.

If they leave NATO which is a distinct possibility, if any European/Baltic countries do get attacked and they haven't beefed up their defence it's hardly Americas fault.
You have to look at it from the American viewpoint which is why should they put American cities under nuclear threat by defending a country that won't defend itself.

They have been under nuclear threat since 1945. That wont go away by being an appeaser and shirking your international responsibility. And the USA does have such responsibilities as the most powerful nation in the western alliance. They, de facto, lead the "free world"

 

[NSEFAN]

This.

There are winds of change blowing across the world, and now it's time for the boot to be on the other foot.

Brexit and Trump may be the result of the normal working person being fed up with current government, but unfortunately, as a wealthy businessman, Trump is unlikely to change things positively for those most affected by the issues he claims he will solve. Rather than try to positively solve the problems, he's riding on the back of nationalism and fear, which is scarily similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the early 20th century. You talk about the winds of change in such a positive light, but can you really not see why people have concerns about the resurgence of fascism?

 

[Johnuk123]

They have been under nuclear threat since 1945. That wont go away by being an appeaser and shirking your international responsibility. And the USA does have such responsibilities as the most powerful nation in the western alliance. They, de facto, lead the "free world"

Trump has indicated that is about to change. His "America first" policy if he carries it out means the days of America being the world's policeman may be coming to an end.

 

[miami]

Because there's more at stake than money.

In that case theres no problem in the rest of NATO increasing their expenditure. The UK spend 1.9%, which doesn't need much bolstering. The US spends 3.3%. Russia spends 5% and that's a lot higher than it was for the first 10 years of the decades.

That said, Estonia 2%, Poland 2.2%, Turkey 2.1%. They should still be in the 'club'

It's Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czechia, and the bulk of the western EU countries that aren't paying their membership fees.

the US isn't saying they won't pay for any european defence, just that it wants european countries (especially the rich ones like Germany, France, etc) to chip in for their own defence. After all there's more at stake than money.

 

[DarloRich]

Trump has indicated that is about to change. His "America first" policy if he carries it out means the days of America being the world's policeman may be coming to an end.

Indeed - but that will have negative impacts for America as much as those of us reliant on American support.

 

[miami]

Trump has indicated that is about to change. His "America first" policy if he carries it out means the days of America being the world's policeman may be coming to an end.

That already ended with Syria. Those of a liberal persuasion complaining about things like waterboarding are in for a rude shock.

Russia will not invade any country. It will simply secure parts of a country that want independence. It didn't invade the Crimea, it didn't invade the Ukraine. When a Latvian independent movement starts up, how will that be dealt with under article 5?

 

[Johnuk123]

The countries that won't pay have been piggybacking on the US and been allowed to, it's perfectly reasonable for Trump to ask them to pay up.
I imagine if Trump does threaten to pull America out it will come as a shock to the countries not pulling their weight and some may splash some cash keeping the Alliance intact.
Those that won't can go their own way.

 

[DarloRich]

That already ended with Syria. Those of a liberal persuasion complaining about things like waterboarding are in for a rude shock.

But it hasn't! He has already indicated a willingness to work closer with Asad & the Russians rather than the "moderate" rebels the USA are currently supporting

Russia will not invade any country. It will simply secure parts of a country that want independence. It didn't invade the Crimea, it didn't invade the Ukraine. When a Latvian independent movement starts up, how will that be dealt with under article 5?

That is a very naive view of Russian policy. Whilst I agree they wont invade Poland they are very happy to stir up dissent and use it to justify a military incursion. And yes, it did invade Crimea and Ukraine. They just sent soldiers in without uniforms and pretended they were some kind of revolutionary freedom fighters.

At least they have a useful friend in the White House now!

 

[Trog]

They have been under nuclear threat since 1945.

1949 surely, I know the Americans have a reputation for being a bit trigger happy, but nuking their own cities would be going a bit far even for them.


In the sticking two fingers up to the political class stakes have the Americans just Trumped Brexit?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Brexit and Trump may be the result of the normal working person being fed up with current government, but unfortunately, as a wealthy businessman, Trump is unlikely to change things positively for those most affected by the issues he claims he will solve. Rather than try to positively solve the problems, he's riding on the back of nationalism and fear, which is scarily similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the early 20th century. You talk about the winds of change in such a positive light, but can you really not see why people have concerns about the resurgence of fascism?

And yet I don't actually buy that this was anything to do with the "normal working person".

 

[miami]

That is a very naive view of Russian policy. Whilst I agree they wont invade Poland they are very happy to stir up dissent and use it to justify a military incursion. And yes, it did invade Crimea and Ukraine. They just sent soldiers in without uniforms and pretended they were some kind of revolutionary freedom fighters.

I know that, you know that, Putin knows that, Trump knows that, but even if Ukraine had been in NATO I suspect there's enough plausible deniability to prevent article 5 being invoked with an isolationist president

It's been a generation since "Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And yet I don't actually buy that this was anything to do with the "normal working person".

Where did those stats come from?

Remember that polls have been widely discredited as the work of experts, who are today's witches, and need burning/drowning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1949 surely, I know the Americans have a reputation for being a bit trigger happy, but nuking their own cities would be going a bit far even for them.

Have you seen "Fail Safe"?

In the sticking two fingers up to the political class stakes have the Americans just Trumped Brexit?

Indeed. Oh what a year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Trumps acceptance speech was very different to his normal speeches, hopefully the time for divisive rhetoric has finished.

However look at May's first speech.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Where did those stats come from?

Remember that polls have been widely discredited as the work of experts, who are today's witches, and need burning/drowning.

Exit polls. And the problem is that polls are rapidly getting a bad reputation because they haven't predicted 3 results which are well within the margin of error.

However, that 12% and 9% on there are well outside the MoE.

 

[Butts]

As well as the Presidency I see the Republicans have retained control of both Houses of Congress as well, although Hilary may win the popular vote.

I can remember when Ronald Regan was elected there was similar scaremongering about how a mere Actor could ever be fit for office.

He didn't turn out that badly

 

[NSEFAN]

Wasn't it Reagan's economic policy which has resulted in the US having the level of debt that it does?

 

[DarloRich]

As well as the Presidency I see the Republicans have retained control of both Houses of Congress as well, although Hilary may win the popular vote.

and an open seat for a justice of the supreme court. It currently has 4 republican appointees & 4 democrat appointees with one vacancy following a death in February.

Trump promised an ultra conservative constitutionalist.

I know that, you know that, Putin knows that, Trump knows that, but even if Ukraine had been in NATO I suspect there's enough plausible deniability to prevent article 5 being invoked with an isolationist president

It's been a generation since "Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall"

But had Ukraine been a member of NATO I doubt Putin would have intervened in the way he did. It isnt worth the risk.

 

[PermitToTravel]

And yet I don't actually buy that this was anything to do with the "normal working person".

The "other/no answer" column is interesting too

 

[swt class 450]

Well the USA is now more messed up than ever before. The election results are terrible. The USA is going to have a racist as their president. The USA is already a messed up country and it is just going to get worse. The USAs relations with foreign countries are going to get very bad. Donald Trump is going to be the worst president that any western country has ever seen. I thought that David Cameron and Theresa May were bad but Donald Trump is a million times worse.

 

[WelshBluebird]

but I do think his victory is another one in the eye for the Global Elites

How exactly?
He IS one of the "Global Elites".

 

[Richard_B]

Democrats always win the poorer voters. Republicans always win the richer voters. What happened this time was that Trump ran 16% closer with the poorest voters than Romney 12 and actually slightly worse with richer voters. But he stopped the democrats running up huge margins in poor areas, even though they still got some lead, but small enough that the suburbs then inched him ahead.

 

[miami]

and an open seat for a justice of the supreme court. It currently has 4 republican appointees & 4 democrat appointees with one vacancy following a death in February.

Trump promised an ultra conservative constitutionalist.

Yes, it will be 5-4 by the end of January, and I suspect by 2020 it will be 6-3 or even 7-2, unless the Dems win at least one of the houses in 2018.

But had Ukraine been a member of NATO I doubt Putin would have intervened in the way he did. It isnt worth the risk.

With Clinton II or Obama or Bush II or Clinton I or Bush I I'd agree, but with Trump? Not so sure, lets see. He's not president yet (electoral college doesn't meet until next month)

 

[ac6000cw]

I can remember when Ronald Regan was elected there was similar scaremongering about how a mere Actor could ever be fit for office.

He didn't turn out that badly

Yes - one of the better presidents in the end.

Wasn't it Reagan's economic policy which has resulted in the US having the level of debt that it does?

He started down that path with tax cuts to boost the economy, but later on slowly increased taxes again (but not to same level). It's 27 years since he left office so you can hardly blame him for the economic situation today. The UK debt situation is hardly stellar either...

 

[Abpj17]

But had Ukraine been a member of NATO I doubt Putin would have intervened in the way he did. It isnt worth the risk.

Yes - Russia invaded the Crimea.

Even if Ukraine had been a member of NATO, Russia may still have annexed the Crimea. It's an unusual arrangement - Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine and self-identifies more with Russia than the rest of the Ukraine (in terms of language, culture etc.).