nauseus

Trump has said too much this time (again) but I doubt that he seriously means to cancel US membership of NATO - I don't think he can do that anyway - as far as I understand it, the US National Defense Authorization Act stops any President from unilaterally taking the USA out of NATO without significant Senate and House approval. Similarly, I do not believe that he is seriously advocating any Russian attack on any part of Europe. If the European NATO members wanted rid of US influence then I suppose they could form their own alliance but a NATO without the USA would not be much of a deterrent at all. Why you mention NORAD is a mystery, it is nothing to do with NATO and it looks like that you are just speculating. Like Trump, maybe you should slow down a bit.

How romantic!

Please stop pasting in that same old blurb. Thanks in advance.

Well let's face it, "quality" candidates are in short supply all round.

I think they agreed it in 2006 too. Yes, I agree it was fair for Trump to criticize this failure in 2017 but his comments a few days ago were poorly worded, foolish and unnecessary.

If you mean that if you want him to lose the next election, then yes, you should be encouraging him to keep speaking like he is.

And I disagree back. Trump is on a roll with these primaries, so far, but he talks too much after them and can't recognize the best time to shut t/f up. Whether off-the-cuff or that he didn't mean to be taken seriously, it really doesn't matter - it's what the people in America and the rest of the world think that matters - especially right now.

I'll leave the call outs to you.

You enjoy your CNN now, you hear?

I think that many will be worried about it, especially those who have not heard his views on this before, as he expressed in 2017, in Belgium at NATO, I think? However, this time his words are more careless. I think Trump has gone too far with this and that he would be better off laying low for a bit - if he wants to have any chance in November.

I was talking about what he said in Europe, at NATO, when was President. Not last Saturday.

Take care and be respectful then. RIP.

A bit like paying your membership of the flying club then expecting a free plane! The contributions required by NATO are peanuts compared to 2% of any nation's GDP. If those 100 tanks were to be required in a hurry, who do you think NATO would look to to supply them?

Trump did not suggest that NATO 'partners' pay or have to pay the USA at all! In fact NATO members are expected to spend a minimum of 2% of their individual GDP's on their own militaries, which can include direct and indirect funding to NATO itself. "NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (around EUR 3.3 billion for 2023). These funds enable NATO to deliver capabilities and run the entirety of the Organization and its military commands". https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm But, in fact, nearly 20 years after the agreement less than half NATO members are still yet to make the 2% mark. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/defence-spending-pledges-by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/

Exactly. Should be a part of your contract, whoever has to pay.

I don't concur with all of those comments but I do agree that Trump is not doing himself any favors by spouting off on this particular topic, in this way. So I'm not applauding. Trump's position on NATO member state defence budget obligations was made known well enough a few years ago - I understand that - but a statement like this is too bad, even if it's part of a story from way back. Trump will stand more chance of winning if he talks less and lets Joe Biden take the lead for a while.

But do you have a lot of legal links?

Always with the non-comparisons,

Wouldn't be too sure about that.

Joe seemed a bit rattled about the report - Egypt and Mexico are both famous for those pointy pyramid things - that was probably why he got the leaders mixed up. Oh! Hang on.

Sad news. RIP to this man and I hope the wife is now recovering after the shock. The times are confusing because the both local Thai time and UTC are used. From the Flight Radar record, the A380 was airborne just after midnight in Thailand (5:07PM(UTC)) and landed again at BKK at 0227 local time (7:27PM(UTC)). About right for the distance flown. There was a rapid about turn just after passing Yangon and enough time over water to dump enough fuel for immediate landing. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/lh773 My link seems not to work. You can go to https://www.flightradar24.com/ Search the flight and playback if you care to.

So your comment and supposition (below) was both off-topic and therefore irrelevant then: If Biden were as bad as a bet for the 2024 election as Trump supporters would have us believe, they’d be keeping very quiet about it until Biden is locked in to the candidacy. Oddly, they’ve been doing their best to get Democrats to change Biden out for another candidate. No real surprise, I suppose.

"Trump supporters" did not produce this report.

Well, I can believe you on that one.

So, does all that circumventing mean that I'm not a liar after all?