Seems Trump isn't the "buffoon" that "no-one takes seriously" isn't the case with NATO countries upping their military spending to 5%.

Trump says NATO's new 5% defence spending pledge a 'big win'

Nato leaders have agreed to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their countries' economic output by 2035, following months of pressure from Donald Trump.

The US president described the decision, taken at a summit in The Hague, as a "big win for Europe and... Western civilisation".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4en8djwyko

"Trump Triumphs At NATO Summit" - more than a little false.  Trump's premature departure was certainly a triumph for NATO.

3 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

"Trump Triumphs At NATO Summit" - more than a little false.  Trump's premature departure was certainly a triumph for NATO.

NATO countries have upped their defence spending to 5%. Trump has been calling for NATO to pay their way. They've committed to do this. Why is it you just can't bring yourself to admit this is a win for Trump which it clearly is.

 

58 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

NATO countries have upped their defence spending to 5%. Trump has been calling for NATO to pay their way. They've committed to do this. Why is it you just can't bring yourself to admit this is a win for Trump which it clearly is.

At least a broken clock is right twice a day—and this time it’s wearing a red tie, boasting a “triumph.”

Trump had nothing to do with the 5% commitment. It's about getting ready for the upcoming war with Russia.

 

Trump sure tries to take credit for stuff he had nothing to do with. Kind of like Reagan taking credit for the collapse of the USSR in the 90's.

All talk no action.

World leaders have figured out what Xi figured out during his first term.

Just tell him you will do it and then simply don’t do it.

 

Trump has been stooged again.

By the time he realizes he won’t be president or probably be dead. 

18 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

At least a broken clock is right twice a day—and this time it’s wearing a red tie, boasting a “triumph.”

Tell me has he got NATO countries to up their military spending from 2% to 5%. Yes or no?

16 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Trump had nothing to do with the 5% commitment. It's about getting ready for the upcoming war with Russia.

 

Trump sure tries to take credit for stuff he had nothing to do with. Kind of like Reagan taking credit for the collapse of the USSR in the 90's.

So the Secretary General of NATO says this is down to Trump and you say it isn't. Right.

15 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So the Secretary General of NATO says this is down to Trump and you say it isn't. Right.

It was a private message to placate Trump's fragile ego. Trump of course had to brag about it.

19 minutes ago, gargamon said:

It was a private message to placate Trump's fragile ego. Trump of course had to brag about it.

Sure. Trump's been saying he wants NATO to pay more. NATO agrees after months of pressure from Trump but this has nothing to do with Trump. You must realize how ridiculous this is. As I've said on several occasions Trump could end all wars, end all poverty and eradicate all disease and people like you with Trump living rent free 24/7 in your heads would still find something to cimplain about. It's quite simply juvenile.

37 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Tell me has he got NATO countries to up their military spending from 2% to 5%. Yes or no?

But before we hand out trophies, a few calibration marks:

• It’s a promise, not a payment. The 5 % figure is a political pledge for 2035 and will be formally reviewed in 2029. No cheques have cleared yet. 

• Not every ally saluted. Spain flat-out refused the 5 % goal and got threatened with trade reprisals on the spot. Germany and Italy voiced cost worries. So “all NATO members” is already springing leaks.

• The fine print is squishy. Only 3.5 % must be hard military outlays; the other 1.5 % can be cybersecurity, rail upgrades, even support for Ukraine’s defence industry. Creative accountants are polishing their pencils. 

• Credit is shared (and disputed). Secretary-General Mark Rutte did the horse-trading; Trump applied the cattle prod. Allies called it “historic” with all the enthusiasm of a hostage reading cue cards. 

• Coercion has a cost. Threatening to pull the U.S. security umbrella (or slap tariffs) isn’t alliance-building; it’s insurance-salesman extortion. Diplomatic IOUs pile up and get cashed later.

So yes—Trump finally got a headline. Just don’t confuse an arm-twisted pledge for a strategic consensus, or tomorrow’s budget hikes for today’s deterrence.

I'd say it was Rutte who actually got this done.

So to all the neigh sayers tell me do you think Harris could have got this through?

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So to all the neigh sayers tell me do you think Harris could have got this through?

Yes, any President.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Seems Trump isn't the "buffoon" that "no-one takes seriously" isn't the case with NATO countries upping their military spending to 5%.

Trump says NATO's new 5% defence spending pledge a 'big win'

Nato leaders have agreed to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their countries' economic output by 2035, following months of pressure from Donald Trump.

The US president described the decision, taken at a summit in The Hague, as a "big win for Europe and... Western civilisation".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4en8djwyko

Perhaps they were taking a leaf out of Trumps book, BS and fibs..................

15 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Yes, any President.

Biden? Obama? Fact is this has happened under Trump and is now part of history.

15 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Biden? Obama? Fact is this has happened under Trump and is now part of history.

No, the FACT is PROMISES have been made, and we know how well politicians from all OVER the world keep their promises. The US PROMISED to help Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons and we see how well THAT worked out.

By 2035, Trump, Xi, Putin, and a lot of others will probably be dead.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Tell me has he got NATO countries to up their military spending from 2% to 5%. Yes or no?

He has indeed. Thank you, Putin.

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

By 2035, Trump, Xi, Putin, and a lot of others will probably be dead.

Countries will up their contributions sooner than that. Remember Trump holds a very big purse string that NATO is reliant on. Why do think this has happened. Trump's even threatened to withdraw from NATO.

29 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Biden? Obama? Fact is this has happened under Trump and is now part of history.

Yes and no.

Obama and Biden urged the Nato members to do more for their own defence.

But since Putin's war all members could see the probably coming desaster if they would not spend more money.

7 minutes ago, John Drake said:

By 2035, Trump, Xi, Putin, and a lot of others will probably be dead.

Yes, by nukes or nature 😂

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Sure. Trump's been saying he wants NATO to pay more. NATO agrees after months of pressure from Trump but this has nothing to do with Trump. You must realize how ridiculous this is. As I've said on several occasions Trump could end all wars, end all poverty and eradicate all disease and people like you with Trump living rent free 24/7 in your heads would still find something to cimplain about. It's quite simply juvenile.

According to an interview of Trump that I saw, he expressed surprise that they went to 5%. This proves he had nothing to do with the increase, it was all Putin.

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

But before we hand out trophies, a few calibration marks:

• It’s a promise, not a payment. The 5 % figure is a political pledge for 2035 and will be formally reviewed in 2029. No cheques have cleared yet. 

• Not every ally saluted. Spain flat-out refused the 5 % goal and got threatened with trade reprisals on the spot. Germany and Italy voiced cost worries. So “all NATO members” is already springing leaks.

• The fine print is squishy. Only 3.5 % must be hard military outlays; the other 1.5 % can be cybersecurity, rail upgrades, even support for Ukraine’s defence industry. Creative accountants are polishing their pencils. 

• Credit is shared (and disputed). Secretary-General Mark Rutte did the horse-trading; Trump applied the cattle prod. Allies called it “historic” with all the enthusiasm of a hostage reading cue cards. 

• Coercion has a cost. Threatening to pull the U.S. security umbrella (or slap tariffs) isn’t alliance-building; it’s insurance-salesman extortion. Diplomatic IOUs pile up and get cashed later.

So yes—Trump finally got a headline. Just don’t confuse an arm-twisted pledge for a strategic consensus, or tomorrow’s budget hikes for today’s deterrence.

As much as I am an avid Trump fan-boy, I can also recognize a coherent, factual and logical argument. Well done!

2 minutes ago, MeaMaximaCulpa said:

As much as I am an avid Trump fan-boy, I can also recognize a coherent, factual and logical argument. Well done!

THIS!

We need more of THIS. Behaving like an adult and calmly discussing facts.

20 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Countries will up their contributions sooner than that. Remember Trump holds a very big purse string that NATO is reliant on. Why do think this has happened. Trump's even threatened to withdraw from NATO.

Yes, a coward with no sense of the consequences of his threat, and folk actually voted for him......😌

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

NATO countries have upped their defence spending to 5%. Trump has been calling for NATO to pay their way. They've committed to do this. Why is it you just can't bring yourself to admit this is a win for Trump which it clearly is.

No answer?  I will answer for all the woke liberals.  Because I have a mental problem that denies anything that Trump does can be good - I see nothing but bad things when Trump is mentioned. I hate him and everything he stands for - Democracy, National Pride, Capitalism, Self Reliance, Rule of Law, Deporting Illegals, Equality of Rights but not Outcomes, and last but definitely not least The Constitution of the USA.

 

Back to me. One issue I and all rational sane people noticed during Trump's first term, was that when the USA stock market dropped it was all Trump's fault, but when the stock market increased ................. crickets in the night.  And they are doing the same - any drop is the end of the world and any increase = silence.  Much like when they are asked a rational sensible question like yours ............... they have got nothing but feelings.

 

Imagine a world that has been run based on people's feelings and not based on rational logic about what is best for the majority of people. Well that is where we are now - did you see the last Olympics - have you seen all the 3rd world illegals invading 'woke progressive' 1st world countries - what as absolute farce.  Trump and all the successful right wing politicians and causes (like Brexit), are becoming more the normal, and those who are not 'normal' and their 'feelings' are being more and more ignored. Things are changing for the better - it wont be always perfect - but it will be better.      

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

So to all the neigh sayers tell me do you think Harris could have got this through?

I know hero worship dulls critical thinking, but this?

The logical potholes in your one-liner....

Red Herring / Whataboutism
The discussion is Trump’s hard-ball tactics at NATO. Dragging Harris in is a side alley—her hypothetical success or failure doesn’t change what Trump actually did.

Appeal to Hypothetical
“Could Harris have got this through?” invites you to debate an alternate universe. Hypotheticals dress rhetoric up as proof.

False Dichotomy
It frames the outcome as either Trump does it or Harris fails—ignoring every other path (e.g., collective bargaining, different timelines, another president).

Burden-Shifting / Argument from Ignorance
The naysayers must now prove Harris couldn’t have done it. Lack of proof against a claim isn’t proof for it.

Implicit Ad Populum
“All the naysayers” sets up a crowd-vs-lone-hero vibe: if you doubt Trump’s win, you’re with the naysayers. Popular framing, not proof.
 

In short: a rhetorical shell game—swap in Harris, move the burden, and hope no one notices the original claim just left the stage.

7 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I know hero worship dulls critical thinking, but this?

The logical potholes in your one-liner....

Red Herring / Whataboutism
The discussion is Trump’s hard-ball tactics at NATO. Dragging Harris in is a side alley—her hypothetical success or failure doesn’t change what Trump actually did.

Appeal to Hypothetical
“Could Harris have got this through?” invites you to debate an alternate universe. Hypotheticals dress rhetoric up as proof.

False Dichotomy
It frames the outcome as either Trump does it or Harris fails—ignoring every other path (e.g., collective bargaining, different timelines, another president).

Burden-Shifting / Argument from Ignorance
The naysayers must now prove Harris couldn’t have done it. Lack of proof against a claim isn’t proof for it.

Implicit Ad Populum
“All the naysayers” sets up a crowd-vs-lone-hero vibe: if you doubt Trump’s win, you’re with the naysayers. Popular framing, not proof.
 

In short: a rhetorical shell game—swap in Harris, move the burden, and hope no one notices the original claim just left the stage.

Brilliant..........