Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills

[candide]

14 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

Tug - Talk about perverted, most of your comments are perverted.  I don't think I have agreed with you on anything.  You said, "Trump continues to be an asset to our enemies."   Has he given our enemies billions of dollars so they can get a nuclear weapon?  NO, but Biden has.  Has Trump sent pallets of money to Iran.  NO but Obama did with Biden at his side.  Did Trump open our borders so thousands of young men from countries that hate us can come in and set up terror cells?  NO but Biden has.  Has trump been on the wrong side of history for 50 years?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump taken money from China?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump committed Impeachable offenses against the US.  NO but Biden has.  I mean REAL offenses, not the made up kind by a crooked Justice System that he happens to protect Biden and others in the Protected Class.  Would Trump stand by and let Iran through their proxies hit our forces over 160 times with out striking them where it would do real damage?  Biden has.  What has Biden done the last 3 years that you wanted to see continued?

 

 

 

Just one lie among others in your post.

"Has Trump taken money from China?  NO but Biden has."

 

Trump has taken millions from a bank controlled by the CPC. There's no proof Biden has received any money from China! 😀

[billd766]

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

Of course Trump has it wrong. America should continue to fund the EU's defense. 

The USA does NOT fund the EU defence.

 

I actually pays into a fund that supports NATO and there is a very large difference.

 

But I don't suppose the difference matters to you.

[The Old Bull]

Should have disbanded NATO years ago sent the Yanks home. Still in Europe from WWII, the Russians have pulled out of East Germany, Hungary, Check Republic etc. but the Yanks remain. So if Trump wants to  pull out he should be encouraged. The Yanks were getting a little to friendly with the Ukraine which is on the Russian border that is why had had to drop the hammer on them as they did not want US missiles on their border. Same with North Korea the only reason it exists is because the Chinese don't want US missiles on their border also.

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, illisdean said:

Biden is senile and his own DOJ confirms he's unfit to prosecute

I’ve asked you before, I’ll ask you  again.

 

Please provide a quote from the DOJ report that states what you claim the DOJ ‘confirms’.

 

Or be owned by your own baseless fabricated alternative to the fact based universe.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Still in Europe from WWII, the Russians have pulled out of East Germany, Hungary, Check Republic etc

And marched into Ukraine.

 

Doh!

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

 

Once more, just for you and trump's other "poorly educated" followers.................

 

"The scorn for Nato that Trump expresses is based on a false premise that he has repeated for years even after being corrected, a sign that he is either incapable of processing information that conflicts with an idée fixe in his head or willing to distort facts to suit his preferred narrative.

 

As he has many times, Trump castigated Nato partners that he called “delinquent” in paying for US protection. “You’ve got to pay,” he said. “You got to pay your bills.”

 

In fact, Nato partners do not pay the United States, as Trump implied. Nato members contribute to a common budget for civilian and military costs according to a formula based on national income and historically have met those obligations".

 

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/

 

 

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, candide said:

As usual Trump is lying in order to mislead people like you. European countries pay their share of the NATO organisation's own budget and the U.S. is not paying their bills.

 

What European countries don't do is spend enough money for their own army. They don't spend enough but that's another matter.

The fact, for example, that a country may buy only 300 tanks when it ideally should buy 400 tanks, absolutely doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer is paying the missing tanks. 

 

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? 

[FroeyD]

8 hours ago, Seppius said:

America screwed whichever way they vote this time

Yes 100% they have gone too far on so many subjects. but to give just one,…any country that pushes and spreads worldwide madness such as gender fluidity or lgbtq ideology deserves to be screwed and screwed hard.

(and I was raised in America practically from birth)

but, I still support Trump over Biden.

 

Edited February 12 by FroeyD

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, thaipo7 said:

Tug - Talk about perverted, most of your comments are perverted.  I don't think I have agreed with you on anything.  You said, "Trump continues to be an asset to our enemies."   Has he given our enemies billions of dollars so they can get a nuclear weapon?  NO, but Biden has.  Has Trump sent pallets of money to Iran.  NO but Obama did with Biden at his side.  Did Trump open our borders so thousands of young men from countries that hate us can come in and set up terror cells?  NO but Biden has.  Has trump been on the wrong side of history for 50 years?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump taken money from China?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump committed Impeachable offenses against the US.  NO but Biden has.  I mean REAL offenses, not the made up kind by a crooked Justice System that he happens to protect Biden and others in the Protected Class.  Would Trump stand by and let Iran through their proxies hit our forces over 160 times with out striking them where it would do real damage?  Biden has.  What has Biden done the last 3 years that you wanted to see continued?

 

 

 

Your understanding of geopolitics is on par with trump's understanding of Quantum Field Theory.

 

Tug already pointed out your talk of Biden accepting money from China is a lie. Your North Korea comment is too silly to bother with a comment. You can access numerous history books to bring you up to speed.

 

As for Iran, Biden did not 'give' Iran billions; he returned Iran's money to it. No doubt if he hadn't, you would call Biden a thief.

 

The JCPOA, put together under Obama, 100% took Iran out of the nuke game. Their high speed centrifuges were smashed, all but medical research reactors were filled with cement (so all enrichment of U235 to bomb quality was halted). Iran's capability was reduced to about 18% enriched, and 93% is required to make a bomb. International AEC inspectors were allowed to inspect at any time, and the CIA had to issue a report every six months confirming Iran was in compliance with the deal. It was one of the most effective negotiations the US ever had with any enemy ever.

 

Obama also authorized the use of Stuxnet against existing HSC facilities before negotiating the JCPOA, so Iran knew the US had them in their sights. That was leverage.

 

trump abrogated the JCPOA for no reason other than Obama had put it together. Iran immediately began importing machinery to begin enriching uranium again, and also knew how to get around Stuxnet. It was a childish act by a fragile ego, vindictive moron.

 

The secondary goal of the JCPOA---other than its wildly successful aim of getting Iran out of the nuke game---was to negotiate additional measures against Iran's support of Shi'a terror groups---like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Because trump abrogated JCPOA, that foothold into Irani negotiations was gone...and history shows what that led to, such as the horrific Yemen civil war and Hamas attacking Israel.

[thaicurious]

7 hours ago, newnative said:

       It started years ago.   One of my sister's used to work as an accountant for Hershey.  The Hershey company did special orders for Trump from time to time.  She told me it was always a huge struggle to get Trump to pay his bill, often taking months and months.and usually with some sort of dispute involved, to boot.   Nothing seems to have changed.

 

Yep, I also have 2nd hand experience by an architect colleague who stunned me (as I'd thought him more aware) when he proudly announced he'd landed a job with Trump, working directly with him. I'm going back a few decades already but if I remember right I'd carefully warned him (as I didn't want to be demeaning) of what I'd already heard, but he had to find out for himself. We had lunch often over many years (where he went from proud to complaining) and I recall one where we discussed how Trump seemed to think that working for him was the pay. At the time, I was at an international firm, way more prestigious and Fortune 5 larger, than the mom and pop and hookers Trump Org but I couldn't imagine my company telling me that putting them on my resume was part or all of my pay. That's my pay? Really? Buh-bye! See you in court.

 

I don't recall my friend telling me about his final billing. But also I don't recall him ever saying he took a second job. Hopefully the majority of America also has already learned its lesson.

Edited February 12 by thaicurious

[MonteD]

12 hours ago, Tug said:

The word of the office of the presidency carry’s weight unlike yours that is just an opinion .trump has a possibility of becoming president that that’s very very serious trump just said (in a manner of speaking) he would let Europe go up in flames that sir is serious very serious you laugh it off I take it seriously as should any lucid human being 

Again, playing the MSM and left like the fools they are.  Maybe Trump was highlighting (again) the need for EU to pay their share? 

[candide]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

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/

 

 

 

How do you think the average folks would understand Trump's statement?

 

The way Trump presents it is misleading, as usual. The U.S. taxpayer is currently not footing the bill for other NATO members.

 

Having said that, as I wrote, European NATO countries should spend more on defense, and most of all better.  Just Increasing national defense budgets won't lead to much economies for the U.S. budget, unless they invest in common regional projects which can actually subsitute the current U.S. expenses. For example, they are not able to carry out a large logistical operation without the U.S. Spare the U.S. nukes budget is obviously not realistic  but there could be some common investments in missiles and anti-missiles, drone units , electronic warfare etc..

Not to mention an industrial policy to invest in own R&D, production, etc..

 

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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/

 

 

 

In fact, Nato partners do not pay the United States, as Trump implied. Nato members contribute to a common budget for civilian and military costs according to a formula based on national income and historically have met those obligations.

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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/

 

 

 

But he did say..............

 

"He said at a rally on Saturday that, as president, he had warned Nato allies he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that didn’t pay their way in the alliance".

 

The man is an idiot and is jeopardising an Alliance which has been formed to protect countries from the likes of Russia.

[Jingthing]

The word that comes to mind to me is: SCUMBAG.

 

How can any decent American have any respect for any fellow American that would vote for such a despicable creature? Except perhaps sympathy for people who have fallen into the grips of a dangerous CULT. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

I'm not posting in this topic, because it's too easy. And anyone who agrees with Trump's lunacy is too far gone to be impacted by my posts.

[Tug]

3 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

Tug - Talk about perverted, most of your comments are perverted.  I don't think I have agreed with you on anything.  You said, "Trump continues to be an asset to our enemies."   Has he given our enemies billions of dollars so they can get a nuclear weapon?  NO, but Biden has.  Has Trump sent pallets of money to Iran.  NO but Obama did with Biden at his side.  Did Trump open our borders so thousands of young men from countries that hate us can come in and set up terror cells?  NO but Biden has.  Has trump been on the wrong side of history for 50 years?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump taken money from China?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump committed Impeachable offenses against the US.  NO but Biden has.  I mean REAL offenses, not the made up kind by a crooked Justice System that he happens to protect Biden and others in the Protected Class.  Would Trump stand by and let Iran through their proxies hit our forces over 160 times with out striking them where it would do real damage?  Biden has.  What has Biden done the last 3 years that you wanted to see continued?

 

 

 

I will try to be decent and answer your post.mr we here in America have been raised to distrust Russia do you think Putin’s war of aggression has changed that?what do you think we see when he has his personal recruiting from prisions?how do you think we feel when we see missiles fired into high rise buildings?obviously it’s easy to see Mr Putin has guided his country towards our worst concerns.he has also reinforced the importance of nato as a means of deterrence.mr trump seems to be hell bent on playing into Mr Putin’s hands and undermining the world order.we obviously are calling him out on it he is an asset to Americas and democracy worldwide worst enemy’s he is what he is.

[nauseus]

46 minutes ago, xylophone said:

But he did say..............

 

"He said at a rally on Saturday that, as president, he had warned Nato allies he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that didn’t pay their way in the alliance".

 

The man is an idiot and is jeopardising an Alliance which has been formed to protect countries from the likes of Russia.

 

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

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

How do you think the average folks would understand Trump's statement?

 

The way Trump presents it is misleading, as usual. The U.S. taxpayer is currently not footing the bill for other NATO members.

 

Having said that, as I wrote, European NATO countries should spend more on defense, and most of all better.  Just Increasing national defense budgets won't lead to much economies for the U.S. budget, unless they invest in common regional projects which can actually subsitute the current U.S. expenses. For example, they are not able to carry out a large logistical operation without the U.S. Spare the U.S. nukes budget is obviously not realistic  but there could be some common investments in missiles and anti-missiles, drone units , electronic warfare etc..

Not to mention an industrial policy to invest in own R&D, production, etc..

 

 

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.

 

 

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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.

 

 

Don't overthink it.

He's a TRAITOR and those that carry water for him like Tucker Carlson are traitors too.

 

[tgw]

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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'd be quite happy with him to continue on his trajectory of the recent days and that he gets no chance at all in November.

 

And I believe he will get no chance.

 

He will burn before that.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Don't overthink it.

He's a TRAITOR and those that carry water for him like Tucker Carlson are traitors too.

 

 

You enjoy your CNN now, you hear?

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You enjoy your CNN now, you hear?

I call B.S.

If someone you didn't support said something like that, you would call it out for what it is.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

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.

 

 

 

   So f you want him to lose the next election , you should be encouraging him to keep speaking like he is 

[FroeyD]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I will try to be decent and answer your post.mr we here in America have been raised to distrust Russia do you think Putin’s war of aggression has changed that?what do you think we see when he has his personal recruiting from prisions?how do you think we feel when we see missiles fired into high rise buildings?obviously it’s easy to see Mr Putin has guided his country towards our worst concerns.he has also reinforced the importance of nato as a means of deterrence.mr trump seems to be hell bent on playing into Mr Putin’s hands and undermining the world order.we obviously are calling him out on it he is an asset to Americas and democracy worldwide worst enemy’s he is what he is.

Exactly, you “have been raised to distrust Russia” the rest of the world was raised to trust and praise America but have learned over time and thanks to many examples not to trust the US which is responsible for more conflicts and instability worldwide in the last hundred plus years that any other nation. And is the only country to have ever nuked another……twice.

[Danderman123]

The term "traitor" really isn't appropriate in reference to someone siding with a country with which the US is not at war. It would be better to use a term such as was used to describe someone who sided with the USSR.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, thaicurious said:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/06/trump-didnt-pay-his-bills-for-decades.html

Donald Trump Has a History of Not Paying His Bills. That Offers Some Insights Into His Personality.

Let me get this straight. I've often seen it claimed that Trump doesn't pay his bills and hasn't for many years. Surely if that were true the word would spread and no one would work for him.

 

Sooooo, IMO either American businessmen are easily conned, and keep working for a man that doesn't pay his bills, or it's not true.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The term "traitor" really isn't appropriate in reference to someone siding with a country with which the US is not at war. It would be better to use a term such as was used to describe someone who sided with the USSR.

Still ranting without any proof whatsoever, I see.

 

Didn't I see you demanding a poster provide proof the other day?

Are you one of those "do as I say, not what I do" guys?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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 disagree. I think anyone with a brain cell will see it for what it was, an off the cuff remark that wasn't meant seriously, and it will not stop anyone voting for him that would have anyway.

IMO it's nowhere near as threatening to his electoral prospects as the Billy tapes, and to my surprise he still got elected.

 

I also think many Americans are "annoyed" at being taken for a ride by European nations that won't pay their fair share of NATO costs while hiding behind the US military.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

The USA does NOT fund the EU defence.

 

I actually pays into a fund that supports NATO and there is a very large difference.

 

But I don't suppose the difference matters to you.

I disagree. IMO the European nations are not serious about their own defense efforts and prefer hiding behind the US military. How many of them have a proper military that can actually defend them without the US covering for them.

Even Britain is apparently no longer capable of being a serious military power. The glory days of BAOR are long gone. Couldn't even keep ANZUK alive.