A Deeply Fractured US

[mariomike]

I'll take a dementia patient over a psychopath any day of the week.

Considering President Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term, from a scientific perspective , in 2029 it might be interesting to see how these two gents are doing.

 

[FJAG]

Do you really think Biden is the final decision maker in the White House? I don't.

Considering President Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term, on a scientific basis, in 2029 it might be interesting to see how these two gents are doing.

Didn't Nancy run the White House during Reagen's second term?

Reagan Aides Once Raised the Possibility of Invoking the 25th Amendment | HISTORY

White House staff reportedly said that Reagan was inattentive and acting strangely, but his chief of staff dismissed the possibility of trying to remove him.

www.history.com

Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while president, says son

Son Ron Reagan's claim that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office leads to war of words with half brother Michael

www.theguardian.com

 

[Rifleman62]

But like with other heads of state, where's the buck stop?

If he remembers.
The buck stops at the WH. Biden just resides there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Do you really think Biden is the final decision maker in the White House? I don't.

It's unlikely that he is (on most matters), just as it was unlikely that Trump was. That's why critics - if they're being honest - have to resort to "On So-and-So's watch", because "So-and-So" is often enough not directly involved or responsible. The authority has been delegated, or people with agendas are just running with them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A pure funding bill is "on" again in the Senate, with good prospects of passing (in the Senate).

JD Vance writes here about ways the bill might pass or fall in the House.

 

[QV]

Actually, there is something "disgusting" about requiring allies to "pay up" for effective use of the NATO terms of agreement.

What disgust me is that there is no such thing as "paying" to be in NATO. NATO is not a country club where you have to "buy" your right to participate and then pay green fees every time you play. It is a political treaty for defense where countries undertake some obligations to one another - none of which is financial as there is no such thing as a NATO annual fee - except to maintain the treaty headquarters' building and upkeep. There are also some specific contributions that are negotiated on a piece by piece basis.

For instance, the NATO AWACS fleet is operated on the basis of specific undertakings by the nations who elected to participate to provide so many trained personnel in positions x, y and z and to provide for their portion (as agreed) of the operating costs. Similarly, before the fall of the wall, there were specific number of escorts that some NATO countries (including Canada) agreed to keep available for the protection of convoys in the Atlantic. Then there were specific formations that some countries agreed to make available for the defense of Europe - The British Army on the Rhine, Canada's brigade as part of it, etc.

There was no actual amount of money any member country had to "pay" to "NATO".

How much money countries spend on defense is up to them and based on their individual view of their requirement. The US is NOT, repeat NOT, spending what it is spending on defense BECAUSE of any NATO undertaking but because that is what the US considers necessary for the defense of its own interests around the world. The 2% undertaking is just that: an undertaking by NATO nations to spend that much on their own defense - not on aggregate NATO defense -, because it sends a signal to potential enemies, not because it contributes to collective defense. Lichtenstein could spend 10% of its GDP on defense and it would make no difference whatsoever to NATO's collective defenses, whereof Canada's contribution can, for all practical purpose, be entirely used in collective defense because there are little to no threat against our own territory, even if it only amounts to one percent of our GDP.

BTW, Brad, I am sick and tired of people (even in these fora) always presenting Canada as a "free rider". Canada has the seventh largest NATO defense budget in terms of spending in actual dollars. Who beats us: the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Every one of those countries has a much larger population than Canada and, except for Poland, has a higher GDP. Moreover, every one of those countries needs to spend on their own defense as a deterrence from invasion - not necessarily as a contribution to alliance collective defense - whereas Canada needs very little in terms of deterrence and as a result is mostly contributing to collective defense with its spending.

I think it's safe to say that requiring allies to "pay up" means having funded their military so it is something of a worthwhile contribution to NATO based on that country's ability to generate. And I think it is safe to say Canada and other nations can do far better.

Now if everyone wants to nuance the shit out of words or other details because orange man bad, have fun. Should be no complaints about status quo of the CAF then.

 

[Remius]

I think it's safe to say that requiring allies to "pay up" means having funded their military so it is something of a worthwhile contribution to NATO based on that country's ability to generate. And I think it is safe to say Canada and other nations can do far better.

Now if everyone wants to nuance the shit out of words or other details because orange man bad, have fun. Should be no complaints about status quo of the CAF then.

There is nothing nuanced when a potential president states out loud and publicly that he would encourage a foreign competitor/enemy to do whatever they want to an allied nation if they don’t « pay ».

American foreign policy is going to go down a dangerous path if he ends up winning.

 

[QV]

Yeah, .... Trump is orange hitler... I don't know how the world coped during his last run... Everything that is reported in media about Trump is and has been accurate and true with nothing but all our best interests at heart.

 

[OldSolduer]

The authority has been delegated, or people with agendas are just running with them.

I was told many many times you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

 

[Remius]

Yeah, .... Trump is orange hitler... I don't know how the world coped during his last run... Everything that is reported in media about Trump is and has been accurate and true with nothing but all our best interests at heart.

The only person calling him that here is you btw. Just pointing that out.

 

[QV]

American foreign policy is going to go down a dangerous path if he ends up winning.

If it's the same path as his last term, I'm guessing a lot of Americans will be ok with that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

American foreign policy is going to go down a dangerous path if he ends up winning.

That only happens if his word means something. Evidence suggests that much of his aggressive bluster is just bluster.

 

[OldSolduer]

That only happens if his word means something. Evidence suggests that much of his aggressive bluster is just bluster.

That bluster is mainly for the US public consumption.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I was told many many times you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

True, but ignoring where actual decisions are made and enabling legislation is passed is an emperor's-clothes level of self-deception.

 

[OldSolduer]

True, but ignoring where actual decisions are made and enabling legislation is passed is an emperor's-clothes level of self-deception.

You really do have to carefully select and train those who have authority delegated.

 

[Remius]

If it's the same path as his last term, I'm guessing a lot of Americans will be ok with that.

It seems though that the path of his last term ended with him losing the election. So more Americans were not actually ok with that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It seems though that the path of his last term ended with him losing the election. So more Americans were not actually ok with that.

That was then. This is now. It's a long way to November. Let's live in the present.

 

[Remius]

That was then. This is now. It's a long way to November. Let's live in the present.

Sure. QV is the one who brought it up.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sure. QV is the one who brought it up.

And you answered him.

 

[Remius]

And you answered him.

Then tell him to live in the present then if it bothers you.