Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that do

That isn't what Trump said.

 

That's Trump taking a stiff stance on lazy NATO countries whom expect a free ride paid for by america.

I know I know...the words made you sad.

 

I bet this stunt wins Trump more votes than he loses.

 

Duplicate.

 

Why would we pay to defend people who won't even pony up to defend themselves? Hopefully a few NATO countries are reaching for their checkbooks after hearing Trump's comment.

 

So we can't force them to pay, we can't kick them out for not paying, we can't threaten them with the consequences of not paying, and we can't back out.

...the only option left is we continue to prop up the alliance with our own military spending, which also we should reduce because its too much.

How is that not insane?

 

Obviously you have never played poker. The idea was to keep the dead beats, who were not paying their share, guessing. Of all the things Trump did, many liberals agreed with this one.

 

Germany, France, and the U.K. might no longer be able to afford to provide healthcare programs for their people if they had to up their military spending, like the U.S.

 

It's mostly just hyperbolic exaggerated statement to scare the European countries into increasing their military expenditures, so the U.S. can reduce theirs.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing NATO put boots on the ground and get this crap over with.. Clearly Russia propaganda tiger, and in reality a punk

 

Thanks for doing exactly as expected - handwaving away the committments of your allies. I would have been disappointed if you had done anything different.

Only one NATO nation has ever invoked article 5 - America after 9/11. NATO nations responded. This isn't exactly ancient history. Now a former and prospective US President is inviting an enemy to attack some of those nations because of money and his supporters are cheering him on.

 

Operative words? 'Should have', it wasn't. May as well complain that WW1 should never have been fought.

And as for crisis, what crisis? Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Sure it did, the US 'double dared' little Vladdy to invade the the entire war had nothing to do with Putin wanting to reestablish Russian military dominance in eastern Europe.

 

So no evidence then? Thought so.

Oh, and I've never voted Democrat in my life. If you had actually read what I wrote on this thread you would understand why....but you didn't, of course.

 

What it means is, this post was clearly disinformation and has a fabricated quote that Trump didn't say

PF is slipping, hardly any social media like this forum is managing and disallowing fabrication like this..

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Look like we are in competition with breitbart

 

And, like so much of what he vomits, it’s bullshit…

“Although only seven NATO member states spent 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense in 2022, that number is expected to reach 19 by next year and 24 by 2026. In other words, three quarters of the alliance will be in compliance with the rule in less than three years. Only three countries — Canada, Iceland, and Luxembourg — still lack a plan to reach the 2 percent mark. “

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...urope-is-finally-starting-to-pull-its-weight/

 

Trump is encouraging terrorism. Terrible.

 

Trump has already put pay to the notion that Trump’s idiotic bluster about loans in a cocked hat.

Upping up his pro Putin bluster and pandering.

So, when are you Trump sheep going to wise up and stop bowing before him??????

 

Apparently you can't read or alternatively comprehend what I wrote. The fact some member nations aren't reaching a (voluntary) target doesn't undercut all the other benefits the US derives from NATO that I listed earlier. Backing out of NATO would cost the US big time via the loss of all those benefits and that's regardless of whether all the other the members were reaching the spending target or not. A member is spending only 1.5 % of GDP, those benefits to the US still apply, spending 2.5% of GDP? Same thing that doesn't change. Backing out would cost the US all the benefits I listed earlier while not saving anything significant in terms of its overall defense spending.

The easiest solution to the whole problem? Negotiate a mandatory commitment from all partners to reach the spending limit over a defined period of time. Not easy to do but still doable and still vastly more beneficial to the US than going home in a huff would be.

 

So what you're saying is some countries aren't paying their full share for their national defense, yet we're paying our full share for their country's defense from a country that doesn't pose a realistic threat to us unless they use nukes. Gotcha.

 

It's a success.

But deep down, that's what you want, for our allies to be afraid of Trump.

 

Out of curiosity, of the last 3 American presidents, which of those presidents were in office when Russia was the most aggressive. Please list them from one to three with #1 being who was in office when Russia was most aggressive. Thanks, I eagerly await your response.

 

We have a winner!!!

 

These are political issues to be settled through negotiation.

Already, because of the invasion of Ukraine, many European countries have sharply increased their military spending.

It's no longer 2016.

What Trump is saying is indefensible, this guy is crazy.

At what point will he have exceeded your limits of tolerance?

 

There is no negotiation because the 2% deal was negotiated a long time ago.

The invasion of Ukraine occurred after Biden showed weakness and pretty much said a minor incursion by Russia was no big deal.

Let me ask you the same question I asked Tom:

Out of curiosity, of the last 3 American presidents, which of those presidents were in office when Russia was the most aggressive. Please list them from one to three with #1 being who was in office when Russia was most aggressive. Thanks, I eagerly await your response.

 

You change the subject to try to defend the indefensible.

Trump said he would encourage Russia to attack a U.S. ally that doesn't pay its fair share of NATO dues.

Do you agree with that?