OT: 17 Day Vacation!!!!

nolaegghead

SemolinaPilchard said:

nolaegghead said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

Amazing how much someone is obsessed with Trump says about them.

I don't understand your statement.  

If I think of a better way to explain I will let you know, Bunker Boy.

Sounds like a plan, propeller cap boy.

SemolinaPilchard

How did you know I like propeller caps? This was a pic of me on vacation last month.

Hibby

nolaegghead said:

Hibby said:

Do you guys switch hands from time to time? This must get tiring.

Yeah, we got your mom to pitch in.

In retrospect, totally not worth it.

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/08/01/president-donald-trump-relationship-golf-more-complicated-now

Amazing how much character can be revealed by how someone plays golf.

Interesting read.

I'd certainly agree with him that "This Russia stuff is nasty business. Much nastier than trying to make a three-foot putt."

JohnInCarolina

SemolinaPilchard said:

Amazing how much someone is obsessed with Trump says about them.

lol man you're posting in the thread 

SemolinaPilchard

@JohnInCarolina I am simply posting about someone's obsession, which is obvious in this thread, as it is also obvious in many other threads. 

nolaegghead

SemolinaPilchard said:

@JohnInCarolina I am simply posting about someone's obsession, which is obvious in this thread, as it is also obvious in many other threads. 

Oh, that's what you're doing?  What you posted didn't make sense.

TheToast

I do love when this forum takes a break from talking meat to debate politics. Seriously. Shame the Mods always delete these threads. 

I'm a Brit and the thing that I find absolutely baffling is that there is no doubt that Russia has a hand in the current Presidency. To what extent will be proven in time. Russia very likely swung the election. They probably have dirt on Trump and are using him as a puppet. Russia is gaining power in the world and the West is losing power, thanks to things like Brexit (Britain's own stupid fault) and Trump turning against old allies - Europe, NATO etc.  The thing I find baffling is that even if you voted for Trump and like the guy's swagger, why most Trump supporters aren't even a little angry that Russia are clearly influencing American politics. A foreign nation and once sworn enemy, making a complete fool of this terrific country that's been built by so many great people, but Trump supporters are happy to watch Russia so easily influencing it for Russia's benefit. It's weird when America has the reputation of being one of the most patriotic countries in the world that patriots are cool with Putin deciding your future. 

Screams of 'fake news' are the defence, but surely that's just a coping mechanism. 

Foghorn

@TheToast, would you say that those who continue to support Trump must just actually not like - maybe even hate - the U.S.?

nolaegghead

Foghorn said:

@TheToast, would you say that those who continue to support Trump must just actually not like - maybe even hate - the U.S.?

Seriously, no one can believe that.  Hate the government, yes.  The country, no.

TheToast

@Foghorn I wouldn't imagine it's a conscious thing. It looks like a Trump supporter loves Trump, loves America, but doesn't want to believe or think about the actual damage being done to the USA. 

Maybe from inside America it's not so easy to see the damage. I know US media is often v left or right wing, which is where the 'fake news' cries come from. In the UK, newspapers are often left or right wing but Radio and TV has to be impartial by law. But from seeing news from around the world (outside USA), America is the laughing stock of the world right now. A soap opera.  Which - as someone who really loves the US - is just sad to see. 

DoubleEgger

While I definitely don't like the rhetoric or tone, Trump has brought up some very valid points about members of NATO not spending 2% of GDP on defense as ratified. Of course European feathers will be ruffled when you get called out for not pitching in your agreed upon amount. 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

nolaegghead

If I had voted for Trump and had a handful of ganglia left that still fired properly, I would maybe start seeing this guy for who he really is.  I'm not going to get into "who he is" because it's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention and with more than a nanogram of curiosity, and it has been obvious for decades.

But if I were that person who supported him and saw the real person, I would feel a profound sense of shame, in myself and the entire bleating group of easily fooled sheep that have supported this world embarrassment, and how he has lost the status of America as a world leader.   

nolaegghead

DoubleEgger said:

While I definitely don't like the rhetoric or tone, Trump has brought up some very valid points about members of NATO not spending 2% of GDP on defense as ratified. Of course European feathers will be ruffled when you get called out for not pitching in your agreed upon amount. 

Every president pitches the same complaints.  If you mean ruffle the feathers by not recognizing article 5, or with all his rhetoric about how NATO is a waste of time, then yes, that scares the crap out of all the members, and the Russians are stroking it furiously on the wings.  

HeavyG

TheToast said:

I do love when this forum takes a break from talking meat to debate politics. Seriously. Shame the Mods always delete these threads. 

I'm a Brit and the thing that I find absolutely baffling is that there is no doubt that Russia has a hand in the current Presidency. To what extent will be proven in time. Russia very likely swung the election. They probably have dirt on Trump and are using him as a puppet. Russia is gaining power in the world and the West is losing power, thanks to things like Brexit (Britain's own stupid fault) and Trump turning against old allies - Europe, NATO etc.  The thing I find baffling is that even if you voted for Trump and like the guy's swagger, why most Trump supporters aren't even a little angry that Russia are clearly influencing American politics. A foreign nation and once sworn enemy, making a complete fool of this terrific country that's been built by so many great people, but Trump supporters are happy to watch Russia so easily influencing it for Russia's benefit. It's weird when America has the reputation of being one of the most patriotic countries in the world that patriots are cool with Putin deciding your future. 

Screams of 'fake news' are the defence, but surely that's just a coping mechanism. 

So many puzzling things about the events of the last couple of years. I too am really confused by the seeming indifference to Russian machinations in the US (but also in Europe lest we forget) by the same sort of folks who, not too many years ago, would hate "the Roooskies" and "the Commies" but now, if it is not just considered "FAKE NEWS" it's a big "eh, so what".

Strange times. 

TheToast

@DoubleEgger The 2% GDP is a suggestion, not a rule. It's up to every country to decide what they put in.  Trump has decided to spin it (fake news!) to make out countries have underpaid but that's not how it works. Truth is: the West has enjoyed a very peaceful and prosperous world since WW2, thanks to the NATO alliance. It's kept Russia in check. No wonder Russia would love to see it fall apart.  

DoubleEgger

TheToast said:

@DoubleEgger The 2% GDP is a suggestion, not a rule. It's up to every country to decide what they put in.  Trump has decided to spin it (fake news!) to make out countries have underpaid but that's not how it works. Truth is: the West has enjoyed a very peaceful and prosperous world since WW2, thanks to the NATO alliance. It's kept Russia in check. No wonder Russia would love to see it fall apart.  

It was agreed to by all NATO countries in 2006 so you can call it what you like. With so many members thumbing their nose up at it (I'm looking at you Merkel), it feels as strong as an OPEC deal. 

JohnInCarolina

I can't imagine why Germany isn't spending 2% of their GDP on defense...

TheToast

@nolaegghead I think it's that assumption that Trump supporters should be ashamed that cause many to stick their head in the sand. We shouldn't expect them to be ashamed, we should expect them to say 'Hey, this isn't what I voted for. I want you to put this right'. If more of his supporters were dissatisfied of his golfing weekends, his collusions with Russia, him falling out with old allies, etc, it may force Republicans in power to make change. 

It used to be common for people to hold to account those they previously supported. But now it seems people are too headstrong to admit their own mistakes and will stubbornly just say 'this is exactly what I voted for' rather than admit that they've changed their mind / backed the wrong horse. 

HeavyG

DoubleEgger said:

TheToast said:

@DoubleEgger The 2% GDP is a suggestion, not a rule. It's up to every country to decide what they put in.  Trump has decided to spin it (fake news!) to make out countries have underpaid but that's not how it works. Truth is: the West has enjoyed a very peaceful and prosperous world since WW2, thanks to the NATO alliance. It's kept Russia in check. No wonder Russia would love to see it fall apart.  

It was agreed to by all NATO countries in 2006 so you can call it what you like. With so many members thumbing their nose up at it (I'm looking at you Merkel), it feels as strong as an OPEC deal. 

If I recall, the goal was to work towards that level by 2024 - perhaps too early to really be concerned about an essentially made up number. An interesting read about the whole 2% thing from a few years ago:

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

One pertinent section:

FINDING A METRIC: THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF 2 PERCENT

A heavy burden thus rests on the 2 percent pledge. It serves as a proxy through which a much larger geopolitical issue is being tackled. Is the concept strong enough to do that? Serious doubts have been cast over the value of 2 percent as a useful metric. A look at the conceptual weaknesses of the target reveals why it is so vulnerable to criticism.

The most frequent and perhaps most substantial critique leveled against it is that it measures input instead of output. Spending at 2 percent says very little about a country’s actual military capabilities; its readiness, deployability, and sustainability levels; and the quality of the force that it can field. It also is mum about a country’s willingness to deploy forces and take risks once those forces are deployed. It does not assess whether a country spends its limited resources wisely.11 And finally, it says nothing about the investment or research and development ratios in the budgets, which are usually counted among the most valuable indicators of whether a country is serious about its defense effort.

Another criticism is that a useful spending metric should not come in the shape of a percentage of GDP but of overall government spending. Only then would it really be an indicator of political will. Yet another analyst claims that the target neither does “a good job of measuring burden sharing” nor is particularly useful to “quantify risk sharing,” both of which would be closer to the debate that NATO really needs.12

It is certainly a weakness of the 2 percent metric that it is such an arbitrary standard. Why 2 percent, and not 3 or 5 or 1.5? A convincing answer cannot be found, even though a high-ranking official in NATO’s Defense Policy and Planning Division has repeatedly claimed that, almost by coincidence, spending at 2 percent would generate enough money to buy NATO and its member states all those capabilities the alliance has identified in its own internal capability-gap assessments as lacking.

In general, the 2 percent metric looks weak when held against qualitative standards. It says nothing about the ability of a country to absorb the funds in such a way that produces concrete additional military capability. It also falls short in relating to actual threat assessments and other strategic requirements a government might define. For any of these requirements, the 2 percent metric is simply too static and too simplistic.

nolaegghead

TheToast said:

@nolaegghead I think it's that assumption that Trump supporters should be ashamed that cause many to stick their head in the sand. We shouldn't expect them to be ashamed, we should expect them to say 'Hey, this isn't what I voted for. I want you to put this right'. If more of his supporters were dissatisfied of his golfing weekends, his collusions with Russia, him falling out with old allies, etc, it may force Republicans in power to make change. 

It used to be common for people to hold to account those they previously supported. But now it seems people are too headstrong to admit their own mistakes and will stubbornly just say 'this is exactly what I voted for' rather than admit that they've changed their mind / backed the wrong horse. 

I said I would be ashamed if I were that person, not that they should be, or are.  They aren't that type of person that they would be, ever.  Also, that hard core base isn't going to change.  They could be huddled in a fallout shelter in a not-to-distant dystopian future and they'd still manage to blame Hillary.  You're right about that. 

nolaegghead

Here is Obama reminding the UK about the 2% defense spending back in 2015.  You can go back in the news and see this happens like clockwork.  

https://www.defensenews.com/2015/02/11/obama-warns-uk-about-nato-spending-targets/

Trump just repeated, endlessly, about this through the whole campaign, and all those supporters, who normally know very little about geopolitical workings, all of a sudden (@doubleegger) know about it, and think Trump is the first one to stand up to Nato. 

nolaegghead

PS - get off my lawn!

Eggdicted_Dawgfan

TheToast said:

@nolaegghead I think it's that assumption that Trump supporters should be ashamed that cause many to stick their head in the sand. We shouldn't expect them to be ashamed, we should expect them to say 'Hey, this isn't what I voted for. I want you to put this right'. If more of his supporters were dissatisfied of his golfing weekends, his collusions with Russia, him falling out with old allies, etc, it may force Republicans in power to make change. 

It used to be common for people to hold to account those they previously supported. But now it seems people are too headstrong to admit their own mistakes and will stubbornly just say 'this is exactly what I voted for' rather than admit that they've changed their mind / backed the wrong horse. 

By "change their mind" and "backed the wrong whore" do you mean we should feel like we should have voted for hillary? 

Eggdicted_Dawgfan

While I'm not crazy about trump by any stretch, he's a VERY long ways from making me wish I would have voted the other way. 

nolaegghead

That's really funny.  Now I think it's time for milk and cookies before bed.

Eggdicted_Dawgfan

They gave us a pile of shît and a pile of sand and told us we had to eat one of them. Some ate the shît and some ate the sand. I would eat the sand again if those were my options.

nolaegghead

"Again"?  I think you ate the sh!t the first time, son. 

Eggdicted_Dawgfan

Nite nite

Eggdicted_Dawgfan

No daddy I ate the sand. Lick your lips. That ain't chocolate.