The General Political Thread

[Duuring]

President Macron of France has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the U.S., China and Russia. Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly!

So
1. Trump thinks we don't have a militairy? I know, splitting hairs here, but he really says 'build' instead of 'build up' or 'expand'.
2. He apparantly thinks that the geographical continent is some form of a political entity.
3. Wait, we get money from the US to pay for our militairy? Sweet.
4. Somehow spending money on our (apparantly as of yet practically non-existent militairy) is not the same thing as investing in NATO.

I'm just continuously confused at this point.

[TheBoberton]

You’re just really bad at reading English TBH

[Duuring]

Yeah, that might be a plausible answer to 1, perhaps even to 4, but really not to 2 and 3.

If I were to dive into this statement more serious, I could say something about the already considerable French militairy power and their involvement, more unilaterally than not, in various conflicts, or I could also say something about the fact that Trump expended the militairy budget. But I think I'll just accept the joke for what it is for the next two years. Who knows, perhaps even six.

[DaMonkey]

Yeah impeachment is only half the picture. Bill got impeached but was acquitted by the entirety of Democratic senate. 
Considering that Mr. NoSexualRelations was a far more agreeable president, I suspect it wouldn't take much at this point for Trump to tick off some of the Republicans and see him out of 1600 Penn.

I think that's just you dreaming. It is true that many Republican Senators really do not like Trump, but they like being reelected more than they dislike Trump. Overwhelmingly, the constituents to which GOP Senators owe their office are supportive of the President. You saw this with the Kavanaugh hearings and Senator Graham; Trump and Graham had feuded plentifully up to that point, but with Graham's seat up in the immediate future he's playing much more to what his base constituency wants.

tl;dr the Republicans in the Senate are probably not going to defect to vote against him in that instance because their base constituents would be certain to vote them out


Edit I'll add that it *is* possible, but recent behavior by anti-Trump GOP Senators has me thinking this way.

[Duuring]

tl;dr the Republicans in the Senate are probably not going to defect to vote against him in that instance because their base constituents would be certain to vote them out

Imagine that someone drew up the impeachment procedure on the assumption all senators would be non-partisan as well as elected by (non-partisan) state legislatures. Ah well.

[DaMonkey]

A delusional assumption, frankly. Impeachment-convictions will be shot down in the very same way they are started; partisanship is a two-way street.

[Duuring]

The assumption was not that partisanship wouldn't exist, but that parties at all would not exist. It's why the US electoral system is such a mess and probably one of the worst in the Western world.

[StevenChilton]

Can't really bash Trump for using 'Europe' and 'European Union' synonymously when EU politicians do it all the time. It's also kinda stupid given the European continent is currently more than twice the size of the land area of the European Union.

And Trump is right, Europe has been subsidised by the US for decades when it comes to defence. The US stationed c.300,000 men in Germany alone at the height of the Cold War. Even in 2018 US forces still form the backbone of NATO deployments in Europe.

PESCO is one thing but Macron's idea to undermine NATO with an EU military is just stupid. For a start five EU members have self-declared neutrality. It's also a big ask for countries like Poland and the Baltic states to turn their backs on an historically reliable ally (the US) and instead place their fate in the hands of historically unreliable "allies" (France and Germany). Germans are, as we all know, natural psychopaths whilst France is just downright untrustworthy (de Gaulle pulled France out of all NATO military structures in 1967 and ordered all NATO personnel to leave French territory. They only reversed that decision in 2009). 

[Duuring]

And Trump is right, Europe has been subsidised by the US for decades when it comes to defence. The US stationed c.300,000 men in Germany alone at the height of the Cold War. Even in 2018 US forces still form the backbone of NATO deployments in Europe.

So pull them back.

Germans are, as we all know, natural psychopaths

Only now you tell me this? Do you know how much I interact with Germans on a daily basis? I'm lucky to be alive.

[ZeroNight]

And Trump is right, Europe has been subsidised by the US for decades when it comes to defence. The US stationed c.300,000 men in Germany alone at the height of the Cold War. Even in 2018 US forces still form the backbone of NATO deployments in Europe.

So pull them back.

Germans are, as we all know, natural psychopaths

Only now you tell me this? Do you know how much I interact with Germans on a daily basis? I'm lucky to be alive.

Ouch 

[Riddlez]

And Trump is right, Europe has been subsidised by the US for decades when it comes to defence. The US stationed c.300,000 men in Germany alone at the height of the Cold War. Even in 2018 US forces still form the backbone of NATO deployments in Europe.

Stationing 300.000 troops in Germany is definitely not equal to subsidizing the European Defense budget (which is something the U.S. haven't done in the cold war).
By stationing 300.000 troops in Germany, the US were looking out for itself. Not for Europe, for themselves.

[William]

And Trump is right, Europe has been subsidised by the US for decades when it comes to defence. The US stationed c.300,000 men in Germany alone at the height of the Cold War. Even in 2018 US forces still form the backbone of NATO deployments in Europe.

Stationing 300.000 troops in Germany is definitely not equal to subsidizing the European Defense budget (which is something the U.S. haven't done in the cold war).
By stationing 300.000 troops in Germany, the US were looking out for itself. Not for Europe, for themselves.

We have an ocean to keep the Russians away, it was literally for you all so Stalin didn't pubstomp you all because he got bored.

[Furrnox]

You make that sound like the US had 0 economic & strategic gain in keeping Europe democratic.
Which I'm pretty certain is what Riddlez is reffering to.

[HaroldW]

[Sgt.Winters]

Help keep American interests intact by allowing military bases on the border, or risk becoming a juicy satellite state. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Of course the US did it for gain, countries don't fight wars going in and expecting to not get anything in return. Sounds cruel but that's how the world spins, and I'm sure most Europeans wouldn't have rather left it up to Stalin.