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

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study/about-the-presidents-study/

The study calls upon historians, political scientists and presidential scholars to rate the presidents in twenty areas:

Background

Imagination

Integrity

Intelligence

Luck

Willing to take risks

Avoid crucial mistakes

Court appointments

Domestic Accomplishments

Executive Appointments

Foreign Policy accomplishments

Handling of U.S. Economy

Party leadership

Relationship with Congress

Ability to compromise

Communication ability

Executive ability

Leadership ability

Overall ability

 

So they survey historians, political scientists and presidential scholars. And your qualifications are???

 

see also https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/slideshows/the-10-worst-presidents?slide=10

The 10 Worst U.S. Presidents

Not all U.S. presidents are missed once they leave the White House.

2 (tie). Donald Trump

Born: June 14, 1946

Presidential Term: Jan. 20, 2017 - Jan 20, 2021

Vice President: Mike Pence

The only living president among the 10 worst presidents in history, Trump is also the only president to be impeached twice. Despite the swirling legal troubles around him – including criminal charges surrounding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results – Trump is running again in the 2024 presidential election... (bolding mine)

 

You are still going on about the 2 politically inspired impeachments that came to naught? Don't you have anything more recent to complain about?

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Not really. Trump was repeating parts of a conversation from years ago. 

 

 

No he was not.

 

Multiple people with whom he claims to have had this conversation have stated they have no recollection of Trump saying anything of the sort.

 

Trump is (no surprise) lying.

 

But he’s chosen a very particular and dangerous lie 

 

As discussed above.

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are still going on about the 2 politically inspired impeachments that came to naught? Don't you have anything more recent to complain about?

More up to date troubles are on there way.

Enjoy.

[sirineou]

This Is the person you idiots support. Below is the text of his NATO story, 

 

" One of the Presidents of  a Big country  (Not a small one a BIG one )  stood up up said  (because they all sit while donald lectures them ) " Well sir (they always call the teacher sir) aaaa, If we don't pay and we get attacked by Russia will you protect us? (because it's not a mutual defence organisation between all NATO countries  ) I said (with a raised scoulding voice" you didn't pay, you are delinquent ?

He said   (The big European country leader said with a timid voice . probable one that was laughing at him in the meeting) Yes let's say that happened will you protect us (Not the US participate, but Don protect them.  Now Done is mad, and yells at them)  No I will not protect you , in fact I will encourage them to do whatever the hell they want" 

 

I am surprise he did not tell them the rest of the story where all the big European country leader cried, and begged him to protect them , but he said "NO you made your bed now sleep in it, now go to your rooms and think about what you did,   

 

And his supporters at the rally it it up!!  

Below is that video proof of the  "Big European leaders" cowering and crying like little girls  in front of Donny. 

 

 

Edited February 14 by sirineou

[LosLobo]

17 hours ago, nauseus said:

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.

You overlooked the part where that the Act was expressly written to stop Trump from withdrawing from NATO.

Despite these measures, this act might not be enough to prevent a potential withdrawal.

Obviously, Congress had evidence that Trump 'seriously means to cancel US membership of NATO' otherwise they would not have passed the law.

Like Trump, you say too much based on opinion instead of fact.

 

Congress acted to protect NATO. But it might not be enough to stop Trump (msn.com)
 

[Rimmer]

An off topic post has been removed

[thaicurious]

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You left out the part of the NATO agreement that states that if you do not pay your dues you are not a full fledged member... that is what this is about.

 

Dues? Full fledged member? You seem confused. It's NATO not Mar-a-NATO

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html

"...serially inaccurate about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance...Trump has for years made a variety of other false claims about spending by NATO and its members. Here is a fact check...

 

Trump has long claimed that various NATO members have failed to pay their “bills,” “dues” or “NATO fees,” that they “owe us a tremendous amount of money” or that they “owe NATO billions of dollars.”

Facts First: All of these Trump claims are false. While a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s target of each member spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, the 2% target is a “guideline” that does not create bills, debts or legal obligations if it is not met. In fact, the guideline doesn’t require payments to NATO or the US at all. Rather, it simply requires each country to spend on their own defense programs.

 

NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the organization’s own operations. But there is no sign that members have failed to make those contributions, which constitute a tiny fraction of the allies’ defense spending, and Trump has made clear that his talk of debts is about the 2% guideline...."

 

etc etc etc, you can read the rest in the link

 

And here's NATO funding information for you to educate yourself on that. You're welcome.

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Funding NATO

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....

 

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation....

 

Direct funding of NATO

NATO has annual budgets and programmes worth around EUR 3.3 billion, which inter alia support its permanent military command structure, enable its current operations and missions, and provide essential military infrastructure (including air and naval basing facilities, satellite communications, fuel pipelines, and command and control systems). This represents 0.3% of total Allied defence spending. This direct funding comes principally in two forms: common funding and joint funding. It can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations....

[Morch]

14 hours ago, FroeyD said:

US has become an embarrassment long before Trump

 

Of course it did. There, there....

[Morch]

13 hours ago, peter zwart said:

America, once a fantastic country. Now sunk to the laughingstock of the world with so-called leaders like Biden and Trump. And even worse, the average American who chooses one of the two camps and then ends up at each other's throats. They should form a unity and demand leaders who restore some dignity to the country.

 

Do you have any (realistic) suggestions as to how this might be achieved? Promoted?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You left out the part of the NATO agreement that states that if you do not pay your dues you are not a full fledged member... that is what this is about.

 

As far as I understand there are dues, which go into a NATO fund, and then there's the annual budget expenditure. Two different issues. If I get it right, the problems are more to do with the latter, than the former.

[Berkshire]

55 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

Dues? Full fledged member? You seem confused. It's NATO not Mar-a-NATO

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html

"...serially inaccurate about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance...Trump has for years made a variety of other false claims about spending by NATO and its members. Here is a fact check...

 

Trump has long claimed that various NATO members have failed to pay their “bills,” “dues” or “NATO fees,” that they “owe us a tremendous amount of money” or that they “owe NATO billions of dollars.”

Facts First: All of these Trump claims are false. While a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s target of each member spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, the 2% target is a “guideline” that does not create bills, debts or legal obligations if it is not met. In fact, the guideline doesn’t require payments to NATO or the US at all. Rather, it simply requires each country to spend on their own defense programs.

 

NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the organization’s own operations. But there is no sign that members have failed to make those contributions, which constitute a tiny fraction of the allies’ defense spending, and Trump has made clear that his talk of debts is about the 2% guideline...."

 

etc etc etc, you can read the rest in the link

 

And here's NATO funding information for you to educate yourself on that. You're welcome.

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Funding NATO

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....

 

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation....

 

Direct funding of NATO

NATO has annual budgets and programmes worth around EUR 3.3 billion, which inter alia support its permanent military command structure, enable its current operations and missions, and provide essential military infrastructure (including air and naval basing facilities, satellite communications, fuel pipelines, and command and control systems). This represents 0.3% of total Allied defence spending. This direct funding comes principally in two forms: common funding and joint funding. It can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations....

Good one.  These people who parrot Trump's remarks come across as incredibly ignorant.  Trump is often wrong or just flatout lying.  Can't these people think for themselves?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

You overlooked the part where that the Act was expressly written to stop Trump from withdrawing from NATO.

Despite these measures, this act might not be enough to prevent a potential withdrawal.

Obviously, Congress had evidence that Trump 'seriously means to cancel US membership of NATO' otherwise they would not have passed the law.

Like Trump, you say too much based on opinion instead of fact.

 

Congress acted to protect NATO. But it might not be enough to stop Trump (msn.com)
 

 

I didn't overlook anything. Go away.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I understand there are dues, which go into a NATO fund, and then there's the annual budget expenditure. Two different issues. If I get it right, the problems are more to do with the latter, than the former.

 

That is correct and that is the serious money.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Good one.  These people who parrot Trump's remarks come across as incredibly ignorant.  Trump is often wrong or just flatout lying.  Can't these people think for themselves?

 

The ignorance here is shown up in that curious comment you just replied to.

[FroeyD]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Of course it did. There, there....

So, you feel that the false pretext that was used to attack Iraq and kill thousands or even hundreds of thousands is not embarrassing.

 

the fact that cities such as San Francisco that were amongst the most amazing and attractive cities to live in have become literal <deleted> holes where people shoot up hard drugs and defecate in public for everyone to see is not embarrassing.

 

is it not embarrassing for the most powerful nation on earth to have actual  slums as is the case in LA and other major cities such as New Jersey, Chicago, Huston.

 

you think pushing gender fluidity on to the public and sexualizing children from as young as 3 years old with school activities such as “Drag queen story hour” (just to give one example) is normal? 

I bet you think it is normal  to threaten foreign nations such as in Africa in to accepting lgbtq ideology or risk being punished with economic sanctions is normal coming from a supposed democracy

 

ahhh,….i see, so you’re one of those kinds of people🤔

 

 

 

 

 

[xylophone]

On 2/13/2024 at 6:57 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

But for all the outrage, the divisive former president has some grounds for criticism. The majority of NATO nations—19, by the alliance's own count in July 2023—are still failing to spend 2 percent of GDP on their militaries, despite having agreed the target at the 2014 Wales summit.

Nato allies agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the Cold War and move towards spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence by 2024. The spending target is not a requirement for Nato members.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/donald-trump-sowing-doubts-about-us-commitment-to-nato-is-shocking-says-joe-biden

[FritsSikkink]

Let the USA quit NATO and then NATO should stop buying US made weapons and change to European made ones.

Then also no more help to the USA when invading other countries.

[scorecard]

On 2/12/2024 at 3:05 PM, illisdean said:

So, don't vote for him, vote for the other idiot, the one mentally unfit to stand trial for willfully retaining classified documents and sharing them. LOL

 Nice attempt at diversion, sorry failed. 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Nato allies agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the Cold War and move towards spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence by 2024. The spending target is not a requirement for Nato members.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/donald-trump-sowing-doubts-about-us-commitment-to-nato-is-shocking-says-joe-biden

 

Sure, and yes they should meet their obligations as much as is possible.

 

However withdrawing the group support and telling putin to go ahead and attack / bomb them is off the point.

 

NATO countries will continue to support and protect each other well into the future.

 

One day trumps nasty outbursts will come back to hit and hit him right between his eyes. Hopefully soon, and I want to watch!

[Skipalongcassidy]

17 hours ago, xylophone said:

Nato allies agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the Cold War and move towards spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence by 2024. The spending target is not a requirement for Nato members.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/donald-trump-sowing-doubts-about-us-commitment-to-nato-is-shocking-says-joe-biden

So in your small mind it is ok for nations to suck at the tit of other nations... good going

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So in your small mind it is ok for nations to suck at the tit of other nations... good going

He stated facts. Like them or not, they're the facts.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Good one.  These people who parrot Trump's remarks come across as incredibly ignorant.  Trump is often wrong or just flatout lying.  Can't these people think for themselves?

and those members would be? Without a quote from one or more you are just making it up.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

He stated facts. Like them or not, they're the facts.

What facts? Something like Euro nations won't pay their fair share or spend 2% of their income on their military, and rely on the US taxpayer instead?

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Let the USA quit NATO and then NATO should stop buying US made weapons and change to European made ones.

Then also no more help to the USA when invading other countries.

I really really wish they would stop helping the US invade other countries. We'd all be better off if they did.

[xylophone]

20 hours ago, FroeyD said:

the fact that cities such as San Francisco that were amongst the most amazing and attractive cities to live in have become literal <deleted> holes where people shoot up hard drugs and defecate in public for everyone to see is not embarrassing.

 

is it not embarrassing for the most powerful nation on earth to have actual  slums as is the case in LA and other major cities such as New Jersey, Chicago, Huston.

 

you think pushing gender fluidity on to the public and sexualizing children from as young as 3 years old with school activities such as “Drag queen story hour” (just to give one example) is normal? 

I bet you think it is normal  to threaten foreign nations such as in Africa in to accepting lgbtq ideology or risk being punished with economic sanctions is normal coming from a supposed democracy

 

ahhh,….i see, so you’re one of those kinds of people

Yee-- ha, break out the moonshine Marylou!!

 

Don't really see what your post has got to do with the topic, however I'm sure that you are pleased to have got that rant out of your system, however please don't enlighten others as to exactly what you were trying to say/achieve, because I don't think anyone would be interested in any more of your ramblings! 

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So in your small mind it is ok for nations to suck at the tit of other nations... good going

There, there Skippy, calm down boy – – and if you are really talking about small minds, then direct your comments at trump, because not only does he have a small mind (plus something else which Stormy mentioned) that which he does have is incapable of functioning properly! Is Greenland for sale???

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What facts? Something like Euro nations won't pay their fair share or spend 2% of their income on their military, and rely on the US taxpayer instead?

The facts under discussion, not an or your opinion.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The facts under discussion, not an or your opinion.

LOL. In case you hadn't noticed this is an opinion forum.

 

Next.

[Berkshire]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and those members would be? Without a quote from one or more you are just making it up.

Why don't you look at the post I was responding to and the post he was responding to.  Should be obvious.

[Eric Loh]

All the kissing-up to Putin and he delivered a blunt reality who he prefer as President. Replied without hesistation that he preferred Biden for his experience, predictability and being a politicianof the old school. Ouch. Waiting for the petulant toddler to respond.

 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-4124611