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

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

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.

You think he was serious? 55555555555555

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, The Old Bull said:

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.

IMO the US needs a huge military presence around the world to bolster American's view that they are a super power.

IMO it's in large part to secure sources of raw materials to support the American lifestyle which apparently uses more resources than any other country in the world.

Military spending accounts for a large% of the US economy.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I call B.S.

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

 

I'll leave the call outs to you.

[nauseus]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

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.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

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

 

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. 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

 

   Yes : That is what I said 

[Skipalongcassidy]

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.

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, 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.

 

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. 

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

A rare point of agreement.

 

Of course, anyone with more than one brain cell, not just a brain cell, knows trump meant it, just like rational and intelligent people knew trump wasn't joking about injecting disinfectant to fight Covid or locking 'her' up (he found that he couldn't appoint an AG who would do his bidding).

 

putin is evil, but he is not an idiot. trump is an idiot. As a former spook, putin can assess character, and no doubt knows exactly how to manipulate trump. putin, if he so chose, could take up what you call an "off the cuff remark" and move into Poland, Estonia or Finland, and trump would do absolutely nothing. Besides being an idiot, trump is a coward.

 

I will never forget trump's ashen face in Helsinki after meeting with putin. putin, OTOH, wore a Cheshire Cat smile. One can guess (or know) what words were exchanged in that closed door meeting. Minutes later trump claimed he trusted little vladdy more than the CIA.

 

putin owns trump. That is why trump's idiotic words were dangerous, and have European officials up in arms.

[Walker88]

Since trump has a habit of never paying his bills, I guess E. Jean Carroll, now owed $88.3 million from the convicted sex offender, and any others the deadbeat trump stiffed, should be ‘encouraged’ to do whatever they want to trump.

 

For example, if Ms Carroll wants, she should have trump tied down, have raw wagyu steaks rubbed all over his johnson, and then unleash a few hundred rats to consume whatever of trump’s junk they want---if they can find it. Hardly even a meal for one---says Stormy Daniels, whose exact quote was “..not freakishly small, but well below average”---it at least would be apropos and justice for the assault a jury concluded trump committed against Ms Carroll, and what the presiding judge said was rape.

[Tug]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

Just like the oaf that spoke them he has no control no strategy no planning he isn’t a quality candidate and that’s couching it in very polite terms 

[Jingthing]

28 minutes ago, 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.

About the funding issue yes. He has bipartisan support on that and it's been an issue for decades.
On the we won't honor Article 5 collective defense, that's outrageous.

As for I encourage genocidal war criminal dictator Putin to do what he wants to NATO nations short on their funding -- that is TREASON. 

Edited February 13 by Jingthing

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, Tug said:

Just like the oaf that spoke them he has no control no strategy no planning he isn’t a quality candidate and that’s couching it in very polite terms 

 

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

[Skipalongcassidy]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

  NATO nations short on their funding -- that is TREASON. 

OOOH the outrage...555555

[Tug]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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

Outstanding stockmarket outstanding employment #s meaningful legislation accomplished revitalizing nato Putin stopped standing with allies with labor ehh what was that about quality candidates??and yes I know Joe is old

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Outstanding stockmarket outstanding employment #s meaningful legislation accomplished revitalizing nato Putin stopped standing with allies with labor ehh what was that about quality candidates??and yes I know Joe is old

 

Please stop pasting in that same old blurb. 

 

Thanks in advance.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, FroeyD said:

That fact that you do not answer on the content of his post (thaipo7)and prefer to talk about its grammatical form gives the strong impression that you have no arguments to counter what was stated.

Let’s take an example from his constant and rambling stream of conspiracy and lie laced conciseness:

 

12 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

  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. 

 

Trump has been impeached twice!

 

The multiple criminal indictments against Trump are for real offenses, all of which have been handed down by Grand Juries.

 

They are not ‘made up’ by anyone, Trump himself admits many of the offenses he is indicted for, his defense is he thinks he is above the law and cannot be prosecuted.

 

Real world stuff, real world crimes, real world open justice , real world judicial process with real world appeals, challenges that remove any doubt of any of this being any ‘made up crooked justice’.

Thaipo7’s frothing self stroked grievance is utter nonsense, but it’s all Trump supporters have left.

 

Justice is coming for their crook.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

Perhaps not, perhaps they were very deliberately chosen with very deliberate purpose.

 

Either way, they are test another example of why Trump is not fit for office.

 

And they are definitely another example of Trump singing sweet words to Putin’s ear.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Please stop pasting in that same old blurb. 

 

Thanks in advance.

Sorry if the FACTS hurt your feelings (not)!

[Morch]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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

 

I agree that one-brain-cell people could see it that way.

 

But even if what you say is true, should a former USA President, and a candidate for USA Presidency make such 'off the cuff' comments about matters pertaining to USA national security, global stability?

 

It's a sad testament that you might indeed be right (for once), and that this will probably not effect his voters much.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You think he was serious? 55555555555555

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Which do you think is worse - that he was, or wasn't?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the US needs a huge military presence around the world to bolster American's view that they are a super power.

IMO it's in large part to secure sources of raw materials to support the American lifestyle which apparently uses more resources than any other country in the world.

Military spending accounts for a large% of the US economy.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

The USA is a super power. It's not just 'American's view'.

As for military spending accounting for a large % of the USA's economy - care to put some figures there? Some context? You know...something meaningful, for a change?

Edited February 13 by Morch

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps not, perhaps they were very deliberately chosen with very deliberate purpose.

 

Either way, they are test another example of why Trump is not fit for office.

 

And they are definitely another example of Trump singing sweet words to Putin’s ear.

 

How romantic!

[metisdead]

Grammar police posts, nonsensical posts and post with a trolling image contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[billd766]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

The biggest problem that the EU and UK face is not Russia, but their own politicians dreams of glory and their overtasking of their own military's by taking on too many commitments with not enough people and equipment to do the job properly, in addition to all the other tasks the politicians have already committed to.

 

A prime example is that the UK is talking about sending 50% of its aircraft carrier fleet (there are only 2 carriers anyway) to the Red Sea. Sending a carrier is easy, BUT the carrier also needs support vessels and a fleet of replenishment vessels for food, water, ammunition, fuel for ships, fuel for aircraft and many other tasks as well.

 

Meanwhile whilst that fleet is in the Red Sea, what covers the tasks it normally does? If you se the 2nd carrier to cover for the first carrier tasks, what do you have left to cover the second carriers tasks.

 

In addition to that you also have to maintain the first carrier and all its equipment, the task force ships that are with it and resupply all the weapons, fuel etc and give all the crews some rest time before the next politician comes up with an equally stupid or even a worse plan.

 

From what I can gather from the UK defence news is that the military is having a big problem with retaining people and recruiting new people.

[Seppius]

Not seen this posted on this thread, maybe has. Who pays what

 

[scorecard]

22 hours ago, 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

 

Good points.  Worries me that the Dems can't see the obvious, he's done some quite good things but he's too old to continue for another 4 / 5 years.

 

Having said that the same must be said regarding rump, he's already too old also a He continuously makes statements which show he's not OK for another 4 / 5 years.

 

I'm hoping that very soon (should have already done it months ago) the Dems appoint a new candidate. There's several good options. 

Edited February 13 by scorecard

[herfiehandbag]

If he is successful in his bid for reelection, then American membership of NATO would be over.

 

Having made a statement like that, he, and by extension the USA, cannot be trusted as allies. He is on record as advocating, or at least suggesting, a Russian attack on Europe. Fine, if that is to be your game, off you go. It will effectively end your ability to operate far beyond your borders, your massive armed forces will be redundant.

 

We (the rest of NATO) should withdraw all basing facilities, land, air and naval.

It is inconceivable that we can allow powerful forces to be based in and operate from the alliance when their Commander in Chief has openly advocated that Russia should attack members of the alliance. The same is true of the posts held by America within various NATO joint headquarters. With Trump in place as President they would be subject to divided loyalties.

 

The same would be true of joint projects - the ending of NORAD for example, would leave a massive air defence gap for Northern USA. The Canadians would have to concentrate on defending their population centres, mainly in the South East of Canada, and not bother too much about the vast empty reaches in the North and West. That would leave a large open flank for the USA. The closure of foreign naval and air bases in Italy and Spain would for example hamstring the US Navy in the Mediterranean - the nearest open port would be on the other side of the Atlantic.

Edited February 13 by herfiehandbag

[Eric Loh]

22 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

he is successful in his bid for reelection, then American membership of NATO would be over

Trump’s remark will not only frightened NATO countries but also Asia. South Korea military alliance since 1953 has been rocked by Trump demanding more remuneration for US troops stationed there and also his friendship with Kim. Taiwan must be wary and uncomfortable of their Friendship Alliance Act with US when Trump openly praised President Xi. Trump will abandon Asia if he is successful in Nov and form a new world order. He is a danger to the world especially the free world. Biden is the last hope to ensure Trump does not get the Presidency. Biden may be old but he is a trusted well meaning global statesman. Trump is just the opposite. 

[candide]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You think he was serious? 55555555555555

Maybe he just wanted to help his pal Putin....