Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 324K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:


“…
During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

The two men discussed the goal of peace on the European continent and Trump expressed an interest in follow-up conversations to discuss “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon,” several of the people said. …”
Click to expand...

I said I would be keeping score as we go along. If Trump was indeed this firm with Putin, then that is unexpected and I will give him props for that. However, final grades are based on what is actually achieved.
I hope Trump is able to help bring about an acceptable resolution. Zelenskyy was wise to love bomb Trump, as that is how you get on Trump’s good side.
 
Paine said:
Seems like some other factions are already freaking out over it. A whole “Stop Pompeo!” movement just to end up with Rubio. The neocons are back, baby!
Click to expand...
Military hawks and neocons are two different factions. Iraq War basically in the public consciousness intermixed these two interest groups, but historically speaking these two weren't necessarily aligned on the same interests. It might be hard to believe but the old school neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were against the Vietnam War, which just goes to show how these people work. Military hawks are almost always pro-war because war justifies their existence along with the entire MIC apparatus, whereas neocons are basically power hungry psychopaths who run think tanks, but because of their obsession with power (and how power often shifts in America according to the issue of the day) the neocons will change shirts all the time, which explains why so many have also become Democrats in the Trump era. They sell their soul to glom onto power and have no problem finding or inventing ways to justify why they should control the conversation / institutions / levers of power. In many ways they're for oligarchic totalitarianism, that is their fundamental ideology. Military ends aren't their primary avenue for achieving total oligarchy, so in many ways a person like Pompeo is a more trustworthy figure because at least you know where he stands whereas a Rubio (which btw, I dont think he's necessarily a neocon, he's more of just a straight up prostitute who will be controlled by whomever controls him at any one point in time, so it used to be the neocons who controlled him and now its Trump who will) isnt someone smart enough to create a neocon-friendly agenda on his own. The choice of Rubio seems to be a signal more about how Trump intends to focus on Latin America above anything related to neocons.
 
AlbionAmerican said:
Military hawks and neocons are two different factions. Iraq War basically in the public consciousness intermixed these two interest groups, but historically speaking these two weren't necessarily aligned on the same interests. It might be hard to believe but the old school neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were against the Vietnam War, which just goes to show how these people work. Military hawks are almost always pro-war because war justifies their existence along with the entire MIC apparatus, whereas neocons are basically power hungry psychopaths who run think tanks, but because of their obsession with power (and how power often shifts in America according to the issue of the day) the neocons will change shirts all the time, which explains why so many have also become Democrats in the Trump era. They sell their soul to glom onto power and have no problem finding or inventing ways to justify why they should control the conversation / institutions / levers of power. In many ways they're for oligarchic totalitarianism, that is their fundamental ideology. Military ends aren't their primary avenue for achieving total oligarchy, so in many ways a person like Pompeo is a more trustworthy figure because at least you know where he stands whereas a Rubio (which btw, I dont think he's necessarily a neocon, he's more of just a straight up prostitute who will be controlled by whomever controls him at any one point in time, so it used to be the neocons who controlled him and now its Trump who will) isnt someone smart enough to create a neocon-friendly agenda on his own. The choice of Rubio seems to be a signal more about how Trump intends to focus on Latin America above anything related to neocons.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.

If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.

I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.

If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.

I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.
Click to expand...
Hard to imagine anything stupider than kicking willing members out of our own mutual-defense pact
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.

If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.

I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.
Click to expand...
NATO 2.0. Lol.

Who would be in that group? Hungary, Russia, and us?
 
rodoheel said:
Hard to imagine anything stupider than kicking willing members out of our own mutual-defense pact
Click to expand...

It's not like those folks are free. We pay a lot of tax dollars to protect the Lithuania's And Montenegro's of the world. And in return we get some half willing but not particularly useful allies. The US lost over 2,000 soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Lithuania lost one. And it's not just a story of relatively poor or developing countries. Belgium lost one soldier. Portugal lost two soldiers. These were all countries that sent a token force and limited them to things like logistics and training the Afghan army, not infantry operations. They aren't the only NATO allies. I can't imagine a war where we protect Lithuania where the US would lose one soldier proportional to our population.

So while some of these countries might be willing members of a defense pact, they don't really consider it a mutual defense pact.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
You are literally trusting Russian propaganda in making that comment, yet one of your revered sources of information publishes a story where trump is being firm, direct, and strong with Putin and that is your take on the info nycfan has provided so far? Score. Trump 1. Putin 0
Click to expand...
You don’t get points for pre-game smack talk.
 


“… In recent days, allies of Trump adopted an approach that is not novel for the president-elect and his followers: Make life extremely uncomfortable for anyone who dares to oppose him. The swarm of MAGA attacks that Sen. Joni Ernst has experienced is a warning of what’s in store for others who express skepticism of his personnel choices.

… People in Trump’s orbit believed that if Hegseth’s nomination was “sacrificed” to Ernst, it would become a “feeding frenzy” with the president-elect’s other controversial picks, like Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Patel.

And Vance over the last week was “super instrumental” in consolidating support among his Republican Senate colleagues behind Hegseth and getting Trump’s team to stay in the fight, said a person with knowledge of the transition process.

“(Vance) saw the game that was being played where these senators believed themselves to be more powerful than they are,” the person said. “There’s a widely understood belief that [Matt] Gaetz dropped out on his own — he knew there were going to be certain senators that were just not going to budge on him.”

With Hegseth, the person continued, Trump allies knew they had to “draw a red line here” to send a message to senators.

… after a frenzy of criticism from MAGA activists late last week and over the weekend, Ernst on Monday expressed optimism about Hegseth, while signaling willingness to confirm other Trump nominees also seen as potentially problematic, posting her support for Patel and another photo of her smiling with Gabbard. …”
 
I have no idea about the risks of vaccines and believe they are good based entirely off my casual observation. WTS I would like to see some research done by those who are not connected at the hip with big pharma. People do get rich off war and sickness.
 
tar pal said:
I have no idea about the risks of vaccines and believe they are good based entirely off my casual observation. WTS I would like to see some research done by those who are not connected at the hip with big pharma. People do get rich off war and sickness.
Click to expand...
That’s going to be an issue as long as our current system remains in tact. The people with the education and expertise to conduct research into pharmaceuticals tend to be the same people who work for pharmaceutical companies or have worked for them in the past. This isn’t a very large group of people we’re talking about.

If someone goes to school for this, likely taking on massive amounts of debt to do so, they’re basically forced to work for big pharma at some point in their career to pay it back. Maybe they can go into government service after that at a severe pay cut.

I get what you’re saying about the “revolving door” though.
 
Trump called Trudeau a governor. Add that to the comments about making Canada the 51st state and his general complaints about the northern border, I am beginning to wonder if there isn't something there to the joke I made about Trump invading Canada.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Trump called Trudeau a governor. Add that to the comments about making Canada the 51st state and his general complaints about the northern border, I am beginning to wonder if there isn't something there to the joke I made about Trump invading Canada.
Click to expand...
Trump doesn’t need to invade Canada to assert America’s dominance over them, the DOD already has de facto control over Canada due to them falling under the umbrella of NORTHCOM’s strategic command responsibilities for all matters related to air, sea and land defense.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
It's not like those folks are free. We pay a lot of tax dollars to protect the Lithuania's And Montenegro's of the world. And in return we get some half willing but not particularly useful allies. The US lost over 2,000 soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Lithuania lost one. And it's not just a story of relatively poor or developing countries. Belgium lost one soldier. Portugal lost two soldiers. These were all countries that sent a token force and limited them to things like logistics and training the Afghan army, not infantry operations. They aren't the only NATO allies. I can't imagine a war where we protect Lithuania where the US would lose one soldier proportional to our population.

So while some of these countries might be willing members of a defense pact, they don't really consider it a mutual defense pact.
Click to expand...
The value in having Lithuania and Montenegro and not that we need or want their troops to defend us. The value to US interests is in having as many friendly partners who depend on us as possible. Adept use of "soft power" through things like NATO, foreign aid, etc is hugely beneficial to US foreign policy (something that easily pays back the relatively paltry sums we spend) and is one of the major reasons we have historically succeeded in spreading our influence around the world. Kicking countries out of NATO, on the other hand, will (1) turn happy partners into disgruntled non-partners at best (and ultimately enemies at worst), and (2) send those countries elsewhere to look for partners, protectors, and friendly relationships. It is a really bad, self-defeating idea. Even when leaving aside the strategic implications - that these countries are strategically located next to Russia, one of the major potential foreign antagonists with the possibility to start a global conflagration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top