Just now, Lacessit said:

I've wasted enough of my day on you already, all 30 seconds of it.

You waste 7 days a week complaining about Trump.

JD Schools the Euro Socialists? He didn't school anything. He preached. It works in the good ole USA but is looked down upon in more developed nations.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

4 pars 1 birdie 5 bogeys.

Only 9 holes. Not much of a golfer then. Go back and play another 27 holes.

1 minute ago, Digitalbanana said:

JD Schools the Euro Socialists? He didn't school anything. He preached. It works in the good ole USA but is looked down upon in more developed nations.

Socialists look down on god. Meanwhile Vance is 1st in line to being the no 1 human.

Just now, Harrisfan said:

Only 9 holes. Not much of a golfer then. Go back and play another 27 holes.

Your math is about as accurate as your posts.

Just now, Lacessit said:

Your math is about as accurate as your posts.

Never played 36 holes in a day? Must be soft.

14 hours ago, Purdey said:

Good speech about what not to do, not banning dissenting voices, like was done to the Associated Press for not obeying his boss.

But aside from that confusing message, his speechwriter did a good job.

Not only that he has a good speechwriter but he knows how to say it all by heart, unlike all those european mallards who depend on a cheat sheet, to utter their nonsense.

16 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

He is right about Europe. Cesspool of socialists who want the US to save them again. Euro socialism produced Hitler and Mussolini. 

So true Harrisfan, Europe is a cesspool of socialism and has been riding the coat-tails of the United States since WW2. Europe certainly has the right to be socialist but not the right to have the U.S. support their socialism.

5 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

I was not joking!  If Trump and his supporters are speaking then there is a very high percentage chance that they sre lying.

Just look at the thousands of lies Trump made during his first term!

 

PS;  Just because their lips are moving it does not mean they are speaking therefore they are not necessarily lying!  Hence the wording I used.

Have you ever heard of Rutte, who is now the boss of NATO, at least he thinks so, I think that is the biggest liar of all time.

BTW, In the Netherlands, he was called Pinokkio, you could almost see his nose longer words when he opened his mouth.

25 minutes ago, Peterphuket said:

BTW, In the Netherlands, he was called Pinokkio, you could almost see his nose longer words when he opened his mouth.

Who is this Dutchman called Pinokkio?

Could you be referring to  The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883) by Italian writer Carlo Collodi of Florence, Tuscany?

22 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Allies implies equality, not a teat sucking infant with a nursery falling apart.

 

You offer nothing in terms of military might.

 

Incorrect, Allies do not equate to equality, but support for each other in times of conflict and peace. To denigrate the losses Australia has underdone during warfare fighting alongside the US is a deep insult. Australian forces have been held in high regard by both British and US commanders, It appears you have taken up the trump propaganda line. IMO the US will eventually regret supporting trump's isolationist policy trends and bullying tactics. It's now very clear trump and Co cannot be trusted; it will be very interesting to observe the status of the US domestically and in the international arena by the end of trump's term.

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

Incorrect, Allies do not equate to equality, but support for each other in times of conflict and peace. To denigrate the losses Australia has underdone during warfare fighting alongside the US is a deep insult. Australian forces have been held in high regard by both British and US commanders, It appears you have taken up the trump propaganda line. IMO the US will eventually regret supporting trump's isolationist policy trends and bullying tactics. It's now very clear trump and Co cannot be trusted; it will be very interesting to observe the status of the US domestically and in the international arena by the end of trump's term.

The choice is us or them. Deal with it.

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

Incorrect, Allies do not equate to equality, but support for each other in times of conflict and peace. To denigrate the losses Australia has underdone during warfare fighting alongside the US is a deep insult. Australian forces have been help in high regard by both British and US commanders, It appears you have taken up the trump propaganda line. IMO the US will eventually regret supporting trump's isolationist policy trends and bullying tactics. It's now very clear trump and Co cannot be trusted; it will be very interesting to observe the status of the US domestically and in the international arena by the end of trump's term.

You had me right up to your moronic Trump (trump?) rant. 

 

I still find your limp-di*k, weak-a** protest by not capitalizing Trump hilarious. 

I favor continuing to support Ukraine. I think Russia should be defeated. I also support Nato. That said, you can go back to when Bill Clinton was president and there were warnings this day would come, if Europeans refused to significantly increase their contribution to Nato readiness. Even back then, Clinton and others warned that European footdragging would eventually cause an American taxpayer revolt. And now it's happened.

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Who is this Dutchman called Pinokkio?

Could you be referring to  The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883) by Italian writer Carlo Collodi of Florence, Tuscany?

Ha, ha, it was the prime minister for 14 years in the Netherlands

 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You had me right up to your moronic Trump (trump?) rant. 

 

Insults deleted. Long past due to cease personal vulgar commentary, though as a MAGA follower sadly can be expected

Just now, simple1 said:

 

Insults deleted. Long past due to cease personal vulgar commentary, though as a MAGA follower sadly can be expected

Funny considering the left do most of the insults.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

The choice is us or them. Deal with it.

 

Care to clarify?

45 minutes ago, John Drake said:

I favor continuing to support Ukraine. I think Russia should be defeated. I also support Nato. That said, you can go back to when Bill Clinton was president and there were warnings this day would come, if Europeans refused to significantly increase their contribution to Nato readiness. Even back then, Clinton and others warned that European footdragging would eventually cause an American taxpayer revolt. And now it's happened.

I support US withdrawing from nato unless others pay up. Want to hire security you must pay the staff. 

2 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Funny considering the left do most of the insults.

 

Not on this platform. Even so doesn't justify personal insults

4 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

I support US withdrawing from nato unless others pay up. Want to high security you must pay the staff. 

 

NATO negotiated with USA in 2014 to reach 2% of GDP contribution by 2024. Overall across all NATO European countries the goal was reached. When trump was last in power he attempted to overturn the existing agreement as is common with him. For the current US Administration to demand a 5% p.a. contribution from NATO members without any negotiations is ridiculous. Especially so as senior members of the US Administration are now busily making insulting commentary at fellow NATO members. GOP Senators may well have surrendered to trump's insults and bullying, but one hopes other NATO members act in a more mature manner to reach a mutually agreeable outcome.

 

In total, NATO countries now meet the 2 percent target, together spending 2.71 percent of their GDP on defense.

 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/#:~:text=In total%2C NATO countries now,of their GDP on defense.

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Not on this platform. Even so doesn't justify personal insults

Got called an idiot 5 times in a day by one poster so you are wrong about that.

1 minute ago, Harrisfan said:

Got called an idiot 5 times in a day by one poster so you are wrong about that.

 

Sorry to read your comment, should take it up with Mod/s. I get insulted by MAGA followers nearly every day, as do most who disagree with them...

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

NATO negotiated with USA in 2014 to reach 2% of GDP contribution by 2024. Overall across all NATO European countries the goal was reached. When trump was last in power he attempted to overturn the existing agreement as is common with him. For the current US Administration to demand a 5% p.a. contribution from NATO members without any negotiations is ridiculous. Especially so as senior members of the US Administration are now busily making insulting commentary at fellow NATO members. GOP Senators may well have surrendered to trump's insults and bullying, but one hopes other NATO members act in a more mature manner to reach a mutually agreeable outcome.

 

In total, NATO countries now meet the 2 percent target, together spending 2.71 percent of their GDP on defense.

 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/#:~:text=In total%2C NATO countries now,of their GDP on defense.

 

You are being dishonest. Yes, overall, if you include (per your link) the countries that are over 2%, including the US, Poland and Greece which are over 3% to subsidize the nine countries that are below 2%, including Spain & Belgium at ~1%, Canada & Italy at ~1.5%. 

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You are being dishonest. Yes, overall, if you include (per your link) the countries that are over 2%, including the US, Poland and Greece which are over 3% to subsidize the nine countries that are below 2%, including Spain & Belgium at ~1%, Canada & Italy at ~1.5%. 

 

 

Not dishonest, quoting from article that highlights overall contribution from NATO countries in 2024. Prior trump Administration was "dishonest' by ignoring / misrepresenting prior agreement.

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Not dishonest, quoting from article that highlights overall contribution from NATO countries in 2024. Prior trump Administration was "dishonest' by ignoring / misrepresenting prior agreement.

And still, per your link, after ten years, nine NATO countries have not satisfied their commitment, 

 

Still love your weak, limp-di*k leftist small-t Trump protest. 

20 hours ago, Yagoda said:

WW1: The Germans were winning until the Americans arrived.

Rereading this thread, this statement rather leaps off the page at one.

 

 American troops began arriving in numbers in France at the beginning of 1918. They initially were occupied in training and preparation for war, remember that until 1917 the American Army was very small. The draft introduced in 1917 brought millions of men into the army, but they had to be trained, both individually and then as the units, Battalions, Regiments (brigades) and Divisions they were sent to. They did not enter full scale combat until mid 1918. They took part with, and to a certain degree replaced, the utterly exhausted and largely "fought out" French formations on the central and southern sectors of the Front.

 

The massive German offensive, largely made possible by the transfer of troops and material from the east following the collapse of the Russians in 1917, fell on the British, in Northern France and Belgium; who together with (whisper it quietly) the Canadian's fought it to a standstill, counterattacked, drove back and comprehensively defeated the Germans. This crushing defeat, together with the prospect of much larger American armies joining battle in the winter of 1918 and early 1919, are what led Germany to ask for an armistice, which ended the fighting on November 11th 1918.

 

It is not the case that the Germans were winning until the Americans arrived; it was the case that their arrival, and the impending arrival of many more, persuaded the Germans that they could not hope to recover from the defeats of late summer and early autumn 1918.

7 minutes ago, JAG said:

Rereading this thread, this statement rather leaps off the page at one.

 

 American troops began arriving in numbers in France at the beginning of 1918. They initially were occupied in training and preparation for war, remember that until 1917 the American Army was very small. The draft introduced in 1917 brought millions of men into the army, but they had to be trained, both individually and then as the units, Battalions, Regiments (brigades) and Divisions they were sent to. They did not enter full scale combat until mid 1918. They took part with, and to a certain degree replaced, the utterly exhausted and largely "fought out" French formations on the central and southern sectors of the Front.

 

The massive German offensive, largely made possible by the transfer of troops and material from the east following the collapse of the Russians in 1917, fell on the British, in Northern France and Belgium; who together with (whisper it quietly) the Canadian's fought it to a standstill, counterattacked, drove back and comprehensively defeated the Germans. This crushing defeat, together with the prospect of much larger American armies joining battle in the winter of 1918 and early 1919, are what led Germany to ask for an armistice, which ended the fighting on November 11th 1918.

 

It is not the case that the Germans were winning until the Americans arrived; it was the case that their arrival, and the impending arrival of many more, persuaded the Germans that they could not hope to recover from the defeats of late summer and early autumn 1918.

Cantiny

Chateau_Thiery

 

O well maybe we need a topic

 

Vance went from 25% to 41% in favourability since mid last year.

24 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Vance went from 25% to 41% in favourability since mid last year.

According to you and what Trumpeting Poll and favourability as what?