Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump campaigned, and won, on larger-than-life promises.

From the bold (create 25 million jobs) to the specific (he won't eat another Oreo until Nabisco moves production back to the United States) to the wildly aspirational ("I will give you everything"), Trump offered up so many promises during his presidential bid that it was hard to know at times where bravado ended and his policy agenda began.

NBC News found that Trump took 141 distinct stances on 23 major issues. From this roving platform, a set of bold goals emerged. As president, Trump vowed to curb immigration, repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, create jobs for Americans, defeat "radical Islamic terror" and rebuild American infrastructure, to name just a few.

Follow along as we track his progress here.

Trump's core campaign promises defied party-line politics as much as they stuck to them, and united a surprising coalition of voters that drew historically white, working-class Democrats into a conservative coalition that fueled the reality television star to a surprising victory in November.

In the hands of an outsider candidate bent on shaking up Washington, D.C., it was a triumphant strategy. Now, they are the test of his presidency.

He will have to tackle broad catchphrase pledges "build the wall" and "so much winning" with policy while he working with a Republican-led Congress filled with the "establishment" politicians he derided throughout his campaign and Democratic lawmakers intent on opposing much of his agenda.

Can Trump fulfill his promises when confronted with the realities of first-ever elected office, a complex global economy, and a divided nation?

With this tracking tool, we'll chart the success of his presidency using 10 core goals as a lens, examining how Trump's goals collide with the realities of governing.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump's Campaign Promises: Tracking His Progress and Fact Checking His Claims - NBCNews.com

The European Union may not feel much like a family these days, but its leaders do tend to bicker like one over questions of money and pride, especially when they have a grumpy uncle named Donald Trump calling in debts on defense spending from across the Atlantic .

So it was at the Munich Security Conference this weekend, an annual gathering of senior officials from around the world at a plush hotel in the Bavarian capital. It's normally a collegial affair, intended to reaffirm the transatlantic bond against whatever threats the U.S. and Europe see in a given year. But this time was different.

Under pressure from the Trump administration to fulfill NATO's spending targets on defense or face the consequences, some European statesmen openly accused their allies of being cheapskates. Others tried to play semantics over what defense spending even means. And as the confrontations in Munich played out on the stage and in the corridors of the Bayerischer Hof hotel, it became clear that the debate over Europes security will get a lot uglier before it gets resolved.

At the head of the U.S. delegation to the conference this year was Vice President Mike Pence, whose speech felt at times like that of a barman politely insisting to a roomful of drinkers that happy hour is over. He reminded the European leaders in the audience that, out of 28 members of the NATO military alliance, only four countries other than the U.S. currently meet their obligation to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. (These are Greece, Estonia, Poland, and the U.K. On its own the U.S. spends around $650 billion per year, or roughly 3.6% of its GDP. That accounts for more than 70% of the total defense spending of all the NATO allies .)

Let me be clear on this point, Pence said. The President of the United States expects our allies to keep their word, to fulfill this commitment. And for most, that means the time has come to do more. A burst of applause broke out at this point from the American delegates in the audience . But the Europeans mostly took the remark with blank expressions, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not feel the need to clap.

Instead, Merkel went on to argue that mutual security went beyond military spending that, for example, some types of development aid should count as defense spending, in effect equating the construction of hospitals in Africa to the stockpiling of ammo in Europe. When we help people in their home countries to live a better life and thereby prevent crises, this is also a contribution to security, Merkel said from the stage in Munich on Saturday. So I will not be drawn into a debate about who is more military-minded and who is less.

In fact, few in the alliance are less military-minded than Germany, largely due to its disastrous history of militarism in the first half of the 20 th century. Since then, Germanys defense policy has been shaped by a simple and laudable credo: Never again. But the national commitment to pacifism has become hard for Europes largest economy to defend. Its military has been deliberately stunted, and it is seldom willing or able to take on any combat missions, opting instead to offer rearguard support while Germanys allies carry the brunt of the fighting.

So the idea that Germany, or any other NATO member, could pad its defense budget by spending more on international development did not sit well with Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of the alliance. Its not either development or security, he told TIME in an interview on Saturday in Munich. We need both.

Asked about Merkels suggestion that one type of spending could count toward the other, Stoltenberg pointed out that the United Nations already has a spending goal for international development 0.7% of GDP. But thats not the same thing as NATOs 2% requirement for spending on defense. And splurging on one would not compensate for skimping on the other, Stoltenberg suggested. When we live in more challenging times, we need to invest more in defense. The NATO chief also challenged Merkels argument that development aid could help bring about peace and security in conflict zones. Actually, he says, its the other way around: We need peace and security to facilitate development.

Though the debate may seem pedantic, it points to some fundamental disagreements over the threats that Europe is facing. Along NATOs eastern flank, countries like Poland and the Baltic States are most concerned about the threat from Russia, whose military keeps tank formations and missile batteries primed along its borders with NATO. But those threats feel a lot more remote when seen from Germany, which is more concerned about the risk of refugees flooding into Europe from faraway conflicts in the Middle East and Africa.

This difference in perspective led to some heated exchanges in Munich. After German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel offered a version of Merkels argument for development aid as a form of defense spending, he got a blunt reply from Artis Pabriks, the former defense minister of Latvia, a NATO member that borders Russia. For me, as a Latvian, he said, it sounds a little bit bitter that support for my borders and the security of my country will be challenged because some other European nations will not pay their share.

Gabriel, who also serves as the vice chancellor in Merkels government, responded with some choice statistics. Germany would need to spend an extra 25 billion euros ($26.5 billion) on defense over the next few years in order reach its 2% commitment to NATO. Yet the country is already spending 30-40 billion euros per year on the cost of sheltering Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan refugees, which are flooding into our country because military interventions some years ago went terribly wrong, Gabriel said.

It was an unusually pointed rebuke against the U.S., the United Kingdom, France and other NATO allies whose military interventions have caused havoc in many parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa. If we take in these [refugees], integrate them, and prevent them from going to other parts of the world as foreign fighters, that is also part of the debate that we must have, said Gabriel.

It's sound logic, but it likely won't let Germany avoid the need to play a much bigger military role in the years to come. On the sidelines of the conference in Munich, some German politicians admitted as much. We have to prove to be reliable, Norbert Roettgen, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the German parliament, told TIME. We must not outsource, after the end of the Cold War, the care and concern for European security."

In trying to meet the demands of NATO allies, Roettgen has proposed a compromise. He wants to increase the German defense budget slowly, by about 3 billion euros per year, or 0.1% of GDP. But even if he would be able to get the German government and parliament to approve that proposal, it would still take at least another eight years before the country reaches the 2% benchmark.

That isnt likely to satisfy President Trump. During the first meeting of NATO defense ministers since Trump took office, his new Defense Secretary James Mattis issued a warning to the Europeans: the U.S. would be moderating its commitment to Europes defense, he said, if NATO allies dont increase funding by year's end. Americans cannot care more for your childrens future security than you do, Mattis told his European counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday.

If this was a threat, it sounded a lot milder than the ones Trump hurled at NATO in the past. During his campaign for the presidency , he warned that if European allies dont reasonably reimburse the U.S. for the costs of defense, they should expect to be told, Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. In an interview shortly before his inauguration, he suggested NATO might be " obsolete ."

Those remarks caused a lot of alarm on the Continent. But they also urged the Europeans to band together in outrage at Trumps disregard for the core NATO principle of mutual defense. Over the past few days, the message they got from Mattis and Pence caused a different reaction. It made the Europeans look closely at one another, and at their pocketbooks, before starting to quarrel among themselves.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump's Demands on NATO Defense Spending Are Driving a Wedge Into Europe - TIME

By Donald Nieman By Donald Nieman February 20 at 7:00 AM

Donald G. Nieman, a historian whose specialty is law and race relations and civil rights in the United States, is executive vice president for academic affairs and provost of Binghamton University, State University of New York.

How will President Trump observe Presidents Day?

Will he have the inclination or take the time to read about or reflect on the qualities of our greatest leaders?

Given how busy Trump is issuing executive orders, fighting with the judiciary, managing the scandal surrounding the dismissal of his national security adviser, becoming acquainted with world leaders and tweeting, the answer is probably no.

As a historian who has studied presidential leadership for decades, I can perhaps save him some time by suggesting a few things he might learn from the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.

Lesson 1: Grow a thick skin

Lincoln was more reviled than any American president. The opposition press described him as a fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism, a worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed from the days of Nero and a vulgar village politician without any experience worth mentioning. Even Lincolns now-classic Gettysburg Address was derided as a display of ignorant rudeness.

These attacks stung, but Lincoln refused to take the bait. No man resolved to make the most of himself, can spare time for personal contention, he wrote. Still less can he afford to take all the consequences, including the loss of self-control. Lincoln realized that getting into the gutter would diminish his stature, distract the public from important issues and burn crucial political bridges. A man has no time to spend half his life in quarrels, he advised a political ally. If any man ceases to attack me I never remember the past against him.

If Trump doesnt dial back his attacks which so far have included invectives against Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Madonna, John Lewis, Charles E. Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, a growing list of federal judges and the CIA he will appear more petulant than presidential.

President Trump berated the media repeatedly at his press conference on Feb. 16, calling CNN, the New York Times and other outlets "dishonest" and "very fake news," for reporting unfavorable stories about him. (Video: Reuters / Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Lesson 2: Engage your critics strategically

Lincoln occasionally responded to critics but always civilly, always strategically.

When, in 1862, Republican editor Horace Greeley charged that Lincolns unwillingness to end slavery sabotaged the Union war effort, Lincoln replied in a public letter. He already had decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, but gave the impression that he was agnostic on the matter. With respect to slavery, Lincoln told Greeley, his policies would be dictated by what best served the Union cause. By tying his position to preserving the Union, Lincoln laid groundwork for making his ultimate decision more palatable to the many Unionists in the North and the border states who supported slavery. He did so without insulting Greeley and other abolitionists and concluded his letter by emphasizing common ground: I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Trump has yet to absorb the lesson that in the world of presidential communications, less is more especially when the less is carefully crafted, strategic and cultivates those whose support is needed. For Trump, that means the majority of Americans who didnt vote for him and who have given him the lowest approval ratings of any incoming president in modern times.

Lesson 3: Be informed and ask questions

Aside from a brief stint as a militia volunteer in the 1830s, Lincoln had no military experience. Nevertheless, he was a war president and helped to develop the grand strategy that crushed the Confederacy.

How did he do it? By reading extensively on military strategy and tactics and meeting frequently with his secretary of war and generals, asking them questions and discussing military operations. He spent countless hours in the War Department telegraph room, reading and sometimes responding to telegrams from the front, and often visiting armies in the field. While he gave the generals wide latitude, he remained curious, focused, well-informed and critical to the Unions military success.

To develop effective policies on the issues he cares about, Trump must become better informed. He should demand briefings on key issues from a variety of experts (especially those who oppose him), read them thoroughly and ask questions. Rather than glibly promise that Republicans will quickly repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a plan that expands coverage, lowers costs and increases choice, he should learn about the complexities of health care and the inevitable trade-offs involved in replacing the ACA. Raising hopes only to dash them in fairly short order is neither good leadership nor good politics.

Lesson 4: Adapt, change and grow

Consider Lincolns position on slavery, race and citizenship. He opposed slavery, but he established restoration of the Union not emancipation as the Unions war aim.

When he became president, Lincoln knew few African Americans, probably saw them as inferior to whites and occasionally told racist jokes. As president, he listened to and learned from abolitionists who were among his most outspoken critics. They included radical Republican Sen. Charles Sumner and African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, whom Lincoln collared after his second inaugural address to ask his opinion of the speech. Critics of slavery helped Lincoln understand how emancipation and enlistment of black troops would undermine the rebellion, leading him to embrace emancipation and reframe the Unions war aims to include liberty as well as Union. Abolitionists also helped him understand that African American citizenship was essential to making the wars promise of a new birth of freedom a reality. In a speech delivered three days before his death, Lincoln embraced the radical position that blacks who had served in the military or were literate should have the right to vote.

Trump comes to office with an understanding of issues that reflects his campaign rhetoric. He cannot hope to leave this country better than he found it unless he listens to critics as well as supporters on a wide range of issues. Lets start with terrorism. He may have proposed a Muslim ban during the campaign, but now is the time to develop a nuanced view of Islam at home and abroad and listen to national security experts who understand the perils of targeting Muslims.

Lesson 5: Use words carefully

Lincoln had less than a year of formal education, yet he was among our most literate presidents. A voracious and eclectic reader, he appreciated the beauty and power of language and used his understanding to become a formidable writer. In the age of the telegraph, presidents communicated with the nation through the written word speeches, open letters and state papers published in the press.

Lincoln worked hard to become a writer. As president, his precision and eloquence enabled him to make the case for the Union and the unimaginable sacrifices its preservation required. Lincoln defined the war as a peoples contest, a struggle to vindicate the efficacy of the nations founding principle the right of people to govern themselves. His formulation of the principle evolved from the 1830s through his presidential addresses and achieved its most powerful expression in the Gettysburg Address. Skillfully weaving together emancipation and self government, he explained to a war-weary public that their sacrifices would forge a new birth of freedom that assured that the United States founding principle government of the people, by the people, for the people would not perish from the Earth.

Although Trump has vastly more formal education than Lincoln, he is neither a reader nor a writer. He connects with supporters who find his barroom-like riffs authentic and honest. But as a candidate who lost the popular vote decisively, he must reach beyond his base to succeed. To do so, he must use language more precisely and persuasively. Should he continue to issue poorly crafted policy statements such as his Jan. 27 executive order banning entry to the United States by residents of seven predominantly Muslim nations and refugees he will spend his time walking back his positions, defending ill-conceived actions in court and undermining confidence in his competence. If he continues to appeal to fear and narrow self-interest rather than forge a vision rooted in shared values and aspirations as did Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan his presidency will fail and the country will suffer. Here again, he should listen to Lincoln, who appealed to the better angels of our nature in the face of secession and imminent war.

If Trump wants a reset that will help him and the country succeed, there is no better guide than POTUS 16.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

More:
Five things Donald Trump could learn from Abraham Lincoln - Washington Post

British Parliament will debate on Monday whether the government should rescind its invitation to President Donald Trump for an official state visit.

A petition to Parliament calling for the invite to be withdrawn has amassed more than 1.8 million signatures as of Sunday, far surpassing the 100,000 signatures needed to prompt a debate in Parliament.

He should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen, the petition reads, citing Trumps well documented misogyny and vulgarity.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan agrees with the petition and said Sunday Trump should be denied due to hisban on people from seven Muslim-majorities countries and his decision to block refugees from entering the United States, the Associated Press reports.

In those circumstances we shouldnt be rolling out the red carpet, Khan said.

Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Hosted by the Queen, state visits in England are typically multi-day affairs with pomp and ceremony: They include a horse-drawn carriage ride to Buckingham Palace accompanied by senior-most regiments of the British Army, gun salutes and a formal banquet at the palace where the visiting official is feted.

Prime Minister Theresa May sparked controversy for not only extending the invite to Trump, but also doing it so quickly just days after his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Of the 12 U.S. presidents to hold office during Queen Elizabeth IIs reign, only two have been received in official state visits: President George W. Bush in 2003 and President Barack Obama in 2011.

Lewis Whyld/Pool/Reuters

A spokesman for Downing Street, the headquarters of the British government, told the U.K. tabloid The Mirror thatthere is a process for state visits.

Typically, the State Visits Committee comprising trade and security officials and private secretaries to the royal family and the prime minister recommends a list of leaders to invite, on which Downing Street and Buckingham Palace must sign off. The invitation is then extended by the government on behalf of the queen.

The government has thus far stood by the decision to invite Trump, saying, HM Government believes the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a State Visit. We look forward to welcoming President Trump once dates and arrangements are finalised.

May was the first foreign leader welcomed to the Trump White House, visiting a week after his inauguration.

Queen Elizabeth's State Visits By Foreign Leaders

President Barack Obama

LONDON, ENGLAND - MAY 25: (L-R) U.S. President Barack Obama, Queen Elizabeth II and First Lady Michelle Obama arrive at Winfield House, the residence of the Ambassador of the United States of America, in Regent's Park, on May 25, 2011 in London, England. The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, and First Lady Michelle are in the UK for a two day State Visit at the invitation of HM Queen Elizabeth II. Last night they attended a state banquet at Buckingham Palace and today's events include talks at Downing Street and the President will address both houses of Parliament at Westminster Hall. (Photo by Yui Mok - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

WPA Pool via Getty Images

See original here:
British Parliament To Debate Withdrawing Donald Trump's Invite For State Visit - Huffington Post

After bewildering residents and officials of Sweden by suggesting Saturday that a terror-related incident had occurred over the weekend in the small Nordic nation, President Donald Trump attributed his comment to a Fox News interview with a conservative filmmaker.

"We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden," Trump told the crowd at his campaign-like rally in Florida on Saturday, critiquing Europe's refugee policies and complaining that his travel ban had suffered setbacks in court. "Sweden, who would believe this?"

It was unclear following the rally what could have occurred in Sweden to draw the president's attention, and the Swedish Embassy asked for clarity.

Trump took to his Twitter account Sunday evening to explain that he was referring to a Tucker Carlson segment that appeared on Fox News Friday. In the segment, Carlson interviewed right-wing filmmaker Ami Horowitz, who had recently made a documentary about Sweden's refugee policy. The segment did not contain breaking news.

A spokesperson for the Swedish Embassy said they didn't know if Trump's tweet served as the government's official response to their request for an explanation.

"We have asked State Department if President Trumps' tweet is their official answer to our question earlier today. We are still awaiting an answer on that," the spokesperson said.

A White House spokesperson had attempted to explain what Trump had been referring to prior to Trump's tweet.

"He was talking about rising crime and recent incidents in general not referring to a specific incident," White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters.

But the country had spent the day baffled, because the president had said "last night" and nothing appeared to have happened.

"Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound," Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister, wrote on Twitter while he attended the Munich Security Conference on Sunday.

Sweden's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Catarina Axelsson, told the Associated Press that the Swedish government did not know of any "terror-linked major incidents." Additionally, the Associated Press reported, Sweden's Security Police had not seen any threats or responded to any attacks.

Sweden's U.S. embassy also appeared to take a jab at the president on Twitter Sunday evening, retweeting Trump's earlier justification and saying: "We look forward to informing the US administration about Swedish immigration and integration policies."

Trump's remarks were not the first time that somebody in his administration has referred to nonexistent terror attacks as they defended his executive order restricting travel for people from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway invoked a "Bowling Green massacre," which never occurred. Conway has since said she made a mistake. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer cited a nonexistent terror attack in Atlanta, then later claimed he meant the shooting at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida a city more than 400 miles south of Atlanta.

No terrorist attack in the U.S. has actually occurred at the hands of individuals from any of the seven countries whose people Trump's first executive order barred.

Sweden, meanwhile, has not experienced a terrorist act committed by a refugee or person of the Muslim faith since December 2010, when an Iraqi-Swedish national detonated a suicide bomb.

According to the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Crime and Safety Report on Sweden, released last May, overall crime rose 4 percent in 2015. The increase was attributed to the rise in computer fraud. A section of the report is dedicated to terrorism threats, and provides the nation a "Terrorism Rating" of "Medium."

In 2015, the country received between 160,000-190,000 asylum seekers, which is the most per capita in the European Union.

Stockholm: View of Gamla Stan, Munkebroleden and Tyska Kyrkan ullstein bild / ullstein bild via Getty Images

On Sunday, in response to Trump, a

The tabloid also noted another incident: A photo of a moose bull attempting to get frisky with a wooden moose lawn ornament had gone viral.

Visit link:
Donald Trump Explains Sweden Terror Comment That Baffled a Nation - NBCNews.com