Trump MAGAthread VIII: Make the MAGAthread Great Again

[Ism]

The idea that the current President of USA colluding with Russians to helped his nomination would obviously turned the so-called "Anti-Russia" slogan that used to be part of US's life.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[AiliailiA]

My favorite argument recently, FROM the guy who praised Mueller for being a good guy for the investigation (New Gingrich), is that Mueller can't be partial because the Grand Jury is in a place Trump lost overwhelmingly

He's right I think, but it hardly matters. The grand jury can't convict Trump of anything.

Also, nice job spelling the name of the Capital, Newt.

[Gim]

My favorite argument recently, FROM the guy who praised Mueller for being a good guy for the investigation (New Gingrich), is that Mueller can't be partial because the Grand Jury is in a place Trump lost overwhelmingly

He's right I think, but it hardly matters. The grand jury can't convict Trump of anything.

Also, nice job spelling the name of the Capital, Newt.

Isn't Gingrich's first name, "Newt"?

[AiliailiA]

Trump saying others cried like a baby is rich

Blumenthal did lie, he said during a speech "I served in Vietnam" when actually he was in the Marine Reserves and didn't leave the US.

Interesting to watch Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about hoax Russian collusion when he was a phony Vietnam con artist!

Fair enough Donald. "Phony" and "con artist" can't really be justified, but you're hitting back.

Never in U.S.history has anyone lied or defrauded voters like Senator Richard Blumenthal. He told stories about his Vietnam battles and....

Never in US history? Well that's bullshit

...conquests, how brave he was, and it was all a lie. He cried like a baby and begged for forgiveness like a child. Now he judges collusion?

That sentence you completed about Blumenthal "telling stories" is now revealed as actually you lying. That's not stretching the truth, it's lying Donnie.

Clearly you went looking for something against him, to hit back with, and in his long career as CT attorney-general then CT Senator that pitiful little lie was all you could find. It's not worth three tweets you jackass.

I think Senator Blumenthal should take a nice long vacation in Vietnam, where he lied about his service, so he can at least say he was there

Make that four tweets.

[AiliailiA]

He's right I think, but it hardly matters. The grand jury can't convict Trump of anything.

Also, nice job spelling the name of the Capital, Newt.

Isn't Gingrich's first name, "Newt"?

In his tweet, Newt Gingrich spelling "Washington DC" with an extra i.

Yes, it's his first name. Newton Leroy Gingrich, the surname is from his step father.

[Oil exporting People]

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

If you're seriously suggesting NATO should pick a fight with Putin right now, I don't want to hear you complaining when the T-72 reach the English Channel.

[Gauthier]

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

If you're seriously suggesting NATO should pick a fight with Putin right now, I don't want to hear you complaining when the T-72 reach the English Channel.

Nah, he'll blame the EU and Britain for that.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Are you implying that we should bomb Russia like we did Nazi Germany or even Imperial Japan?

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

Invasion is not part of those option. You cannot really expect the European armies to survive without US. Sure, Russia's military is outdated and not whole modernized, but they are Russians. They have huge military.

[New haven america]

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

Invasion is not part of those option. You cannot really expect the European armies to survive without US. Sure, Russia's military is outdated and not whole modernized, but they are Russians. They have huge military.

Actually they only have about 200,000 more fighters than the US' total armed forces. (2.5 mil vs 2.3 mil respectively)

However, when you take NATO into account, we're more than 2x the size of them (Let's change that number to 2.5 mil vs 7.4 mil (With 3.5 mil ready for deployment)).

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

Invasion is not part of those option. You cannot really expect the European armies to survive without US. Sure, Russia's military is outdated and not whole modernized, but they are Russians. They have huge military.

TEM ultimately fails to realise the biggest culprits in the state of affairs that the European armies are in right now is peace dividend, austerityism and unbridled profit maximisation which resulted in the consolidation of nearly all competitors in the European and American defence markets and the complete dismantling of a state run defence R&D service. But alas, market fundamentalism must win.

[AiliailiA]

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

Invasion is not part of those option. You cannot really expect the European armies to survive without US. Sure, Russia's military is outdated and not whole modernized, but they are Russians. They have huge military.

Huge underpaid military: like most undeveloped/developing nations, the social status of being military makes up for poor wages. Russian patriotism is different from Soviet pride, but in their respect for military they are the same. Perhaps there is a real danger there, to civilian government in Russia and to every other nation, in that nostalgia for Soviet times has that one (now) legimate outlet: the military being "strong".

The Soviet Union was indisputably a great military power, second in the world, and the enormous gap back to third place is why so many nations were forced to pick a side in the Cold War. But back then, the military was backed by a much greater population and much greater industrial/primary production capacity than the Russian Federation has now. Also, the Soviets dedicated so much of their production and their planning to military strength (too much, if arguing from a position of sympathy for Communism). A greater percentage of Soviet GDP (hard to measure I know) went to military in the Cold War, than the US ever spent, and probably more than is politically possible in any large democracy.

In short, Russia is heir to a magnificent war machine built by the Soviets, but which they do not have the economy or even the political will to support indefinitely.

The nuclear weapons are fine: with some scaling down in numbers but technical improvements, those are very cost effective deterrents and I don't expect Russia to ever give them up. In conventional forces though, they can't keep pace with greater economies like the US, China, India ... and France, Brazil, Japan, etc, countries you don't usually put in the same sentence with Russia as military powers, but who have the economic and population base to easily build large militaries.

The Russian economy is actually quite small. About the same size as that of Australia, ranked 16th or 17th which is a long way down considering the wide gaps at the top. In the long term, after the head start the Soviets gave to Russia has worn off, Russia can be expected to rank down there as a military power.

Unless they're prepared to repeat the mistake of the Soviets and spend too much of what they have on military, Russia will gradually fall further and further behind the US militarily, and be overtaken by bigger economies who can outspend them without breaking a sweat. It's actually not a pretty picture for Russia, if they try to keep up the pretence of being a great power (or superpower lol). Just about now, they should be making friends rather than enemies, and deciding if they want to align with a democratic Europe near the long top of its economic power (likely to decline somewhat), or the rapidly growing South East Asia region (likely to become unstable, particularly due to Chinese expansionism). Being besties with the US is not an option, because most of what Russia has to offer is massive nuclear weapon capability and the US has that already.

Apologies for the rant. I'm moody.

[The Flutterlands]

The idea that the current President of USA colluding with Russians to helped his nomination would obviously turned the so-called "Anti-Russia" slogan that used to be part of US's life.

I look at it with Occam's Razor. Seems more likely that Trump is guilty of money laundering with Russia than of "colluding" with Russia to "hack" the election. He's a corrupt and unscrupulous (and mediocre) business man, not a great Criminal Mastermind capable of pulling off one of the greatest schemes of the decade.

Also, what slogan are you talking about? MAGA?

[Vassenor]

The idea that the current President of USA colluding with Russians to helped his nomination would obviously turned the so-called "Anti-Russia" slogan that used to be part of US's life.

I look at it with Occam's Razor. Seems more likely that Trump is guilty of money laundering with Russia than of "colluding" with Russia to "hack" the election. He's a corrupt and unscrupulous (and mediocre) business man, not a great Criminal Mastermind capable of pulling off one of the greatest schemes of the decade.

Also, what slogan are you talking about? MAGA?

Only because you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming whenever someone tries to demonstrate that yes, the cyberattacks happened.

[AiliailiA]

Invasion is not part of those option. You cannot really expect the European armies to survive without US. Sure, Russia's military is outdated and not whole modernized, but they are Russians. They have huge military.

TEM ultimately fails to realise the biggest culprits in the state of affairs that the European armies are in right now is peace dividend, austerityism and unbridled profit maximisation which resulted in the consolidation of nearly all competitors in the European and American defence markets and the complete dismantling of a state run defence R&D service. But alas, market fundamentalism must win.

Well there is France, a country with a big enough economy to procure its own weapons. If Germany (bigger economy, and still with serious industrial base) would just spend like France or Italy do, they could produce European weapons to be bought by other European nations. Europe as whole could make its own weapons, and if they were a common market for weapons (as supposedly for everything else) those weapons would be excellent. Europe (by the widest definition) is actually a larger economy than the US, and way larger than China, and Europeans actually have a better record of managing mega-projects than the US does.

Also of course, Britain should be mentioned. They never really were part of Europe, as their entry included the right to keep their own currency (absolutely fundamental to Union is economic union, the UK never did it), but they were and still are very important members of NATO, who do procure some of their own weapons and systems.

Y'know, considering how well government procurement of high-tech weapons has served the US economy (as a protracted stimulus to a particular part of the manufacturing sector), Europeans may have been missing out all these years. Without NATO, without the interoperability which makes it so easy to buy American off the plan, without the assurance that as a NATO ally the US manufacturers will provide parts and replacements if other NATO members get into a war ... basically without NATO itself ... I think Europe would be richer now, and the US would be poorer.

The "military-industrial complex" which President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech, has actually served the US well. Corporate welfare if you will, or the masters of war building the big guns, but I am grown out of my hippy times when I thought the weapons were the cause of war. War is still bad, and arms races can be bad (that's complicated), but I simply cannot deny that US military spending far beyond the needs of defending the US, has helped the US economy significantly. It's very targetted stimulus spending, towards high tech R&D and manufacture, and unlike other high tech stimulus it isn't easily copied, due to military secrecy. That's near ideal systemic stimulus, since the only distortion it introduces to the arms market, is a government distortion which would be there anyway, for national security reasons.

Europe in total is a huge economy, and if it could manufacture high tech weapons for its own use, even at 2% of GDP NATO guideline spending, that would boost up their economies.

Donald Trump trying to renegotiate the NATO treaty might be just the kick in the pants Europe needs, to realize that depending on the US to defend them actually costs them money, and enriches the US, and fuck that treaty anyway.

[Neo Balka]

Having the euros depend on us also costs us a fuckton.

[Vassenor]

I'm still not convinced this is just about getting more cash for US defence contractors.

Does Trump own stock in any of them?

[Neo Balka]

I'm still not convinced this is just about getting more cash for US defence contractors.

Does Trump own stock in any of them?

also a good thing.

[The East Marches II]

I am saying that all options should always be on the table when the people are firmly behind a man like that.

If you're seriously suggesting NATO should pick a fight with Putin right now, I don't want to hear you complaining when the T-72 reach the English Channel.

Oh no, old T-72s, whatever will we do?

[Neo Balka]

If you're seriously suggesting NATO should pick a fight with Putin right now, I don't want to hear you complaining when the T-72 reach the English Channel.

Oh no, old T-72s, whatever will we do?

>T-72s.

Oh no, the SOviet army of the 1970s is coming!

[The East Marches II]

TEM ultimately fails to realise the biggest culprits in the state of affairs that the European armies are in right now is peace dividend, austerityism and unbridled profit maximisation which resulted in the consolidation of nearly all competitors in the European and American defence markets and the complete dismantling of a state run defence R&D service. But alas, market fundamentalism must win.

Well there is France, a country with a big enough economy to procure its own weapons. If Germany (bigger economy, and still with serious industrial base) would just spend like France or Italy do, they could produce European weapons to be bought by other European nations. Europe as whole could make its own weapons, and if they were a common market for weapons (as supposedly for everything else) those weapons would be excellent. Europe (by the widest definition) is actually a larger economy than the US, and way larger than China, and Europeans actually have a better record of managing mega-projects than the US does.

Also of course, Britain should be mentioned. They never really were part of Europe, as their entry included the right to keep their own currency (absolutely fundamental to Union is economic union, the UK never did it), but they were and still are very important members of NATO, who do procure some of their own weapons and systems.

Y'know, considering how well government procurement of high-tech weapons has served the US economy (as a protracted stimulus to a particular part of the manufacturing sector), Europeans may have been missing out all these years. Without NATO, without the interoperability which makes it so easy to buy American off the plan, without the assurance that as a NATO ally the US manufacturers will provide parts and replacements if other NATO members get into a war ... basically without NATO itself ... I think Europe would be richer now, and the US would be poorer.

The "military-industrial complex" which President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech, has actually served the US well. Corporate welfare if you will, or the masters of war building the big guns, but I am grown out of my hippy times when I thought the weapons were the cause of war. War is still bad, and arms races can be bad (that's complicated), but I simply cannot deny that US military spending far beyond the needs of defending the US, has helped the US economy significantly. It's very targetted stimulus spending, towards high tech R&D and manufacture, and unlike other high tech stimulus it isn't easily copied, due to military secrecy. That's near ideal systemic stimulus, since the only distortion it introduces to the arms market, is a government distortion which would be there anyway, for national security reasons.

Europe in total is a huge economy, and if it could manufacture high tech weapons for its own use, even at 2% of GDP NATO guideline spending, that would boost up their economies.

Donald Trump trying to renegotiate the NATO treaty might be just the kick in the pants Europe needs, to realize that depending on the US to defend them actually costs them money, and enriches the US, and fuck that treaty anyway.

Upon further review I've decided I agree with the whole thing. Minus the costs them money but enriches us. It costs us both money.

Invasion is not part of those option. You cannot really expect the European armies to survive without US. Sure, Russia's military is outdated and not whole modernized, but they are Russians. They have huge military.

TEM ultimately fails to realise the biggest culprits in the state of affairs that the European armies are in right now is peace dividend, austerityism and unbridled profit maximisation which resulted in the consolidation of nearly all competitors in the European and American defence markets and the complete dismantling of a state run defence R&D service. But alas, market fundamentalism must win.

That is their own problem their pursuit of the peace dividend and austerity.

[AiliailiA]

The idea that the current President of USA colluding with Russians to helped his nomination would obviously turned the so-called "Anti-Russia" slogan that used to be part of US's life.

I look at it with Occam's Razor. Seems more likely that Trump is guilty of money laundering with Russia than of "colluding" with Russia to "hack" the election. He's a corrupt and unscrupulous (and mediocre) business man, not a great Criminal Mastermind capable of pulling off one of the greatest schemes of the decade.

Well at least you're no longer insisting he's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty yet.

Not much of step now, you just have to admit that going along with a criminal mastermind's plan, knowing it is illegal, is actually collusion.

Oh, and admitting that the GRU are actually criminal masterminds. It's not so hard if you consider the average educational level of Russian citizens (higher than the US), the obvious laxity of internet law in Russia, the weak private sector of online business (legal business: it does not thrive because it is not protected by law), and the massive corrupt privileges of anyone who works for Putin or for the kleptocrats. The best Russian hacking talent goes to government, that's the only way which is lucrative AND safe.

By the way, our own democratic security services aren't spotless either. Free range hackers, criminals, are given immunity and given a job when they're caught. Only very rarely are they caught and then charged with a crime. It's pretty much the perfect contract for security services: you work for us, we pay you well and give you some privileges, but don't ever forget that open-and-shut case of hacking. We have that over you.

Ultimately, I think you'll be left defending Trump (on presumption of innocence, to your credit), with nothing more than "yes he did collude, he must have known he colluded, but the poor fellow is too naive to understand that collusion with a foreign government in a presidential election actually matters ... much" and after all putting most of the blame on some foreigners, not on Trump himself.

Which I can sort of see. Donald Trump is hopelessly lightweight, he's a babe in the woods. It is his fault if he knowingly accepted help in his campaign, from agents of a foreign government (because that is blatantly illegal, anyone running for President should know it is), but after all it can be excused as him being a small person, out of his depth, and basically being stupid. It's technically a crime, but despite the law I have some sympathy for people too stupid to know they're breaking the law.

No sympathy from me, for the Trump voters. Nearly half of the voters, about a fifth of the entire US population, voted for that fart in a suit. If you were one of them, I wish you nothing but heartbreak and disappointment, and a hard lesson learned.

[The East Marches II]

Oh no, old T-72s, whatever will we do?

>T-72s.

Oh no, the SOviet army of the 1970s is coming!

That's the shit thing, old tanks are better than no tanks. Europe let's itself get bullied by a country with the GDP of Spain. We should all be on suicide watch.

[Neo Balka]

>T-72s.

Oh no, the SOviet army of the 1970s is coming!

That's the shit thing, old tanks are better than no tanks. Europe let's itself get bullied by a country with the GDP of Spain. We should all be on suicide watch.

Nah, they should really be looking at their fucked priorities.

[AiliailiA]

Having the euros depend on us also costs us a fuckton.

Since that was presumably a reply to the post before (mine) I will reply to it.

Here is my reply: you are on my Ignore list for a reason.

[Neo Balka]

Having the euros depend on us also costs us a fuckton.

Since that was presumably a reply to the post before (mine) I will reply to it.

Here is my reply: you are on my Ignore list for a reason.

"I dont want to debate people so i put them on my ignore list blah blah blah blah blah blah"