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

The left is such an easy target for media propaganda.
They never verify anything. Just regurgitate on command like the trained seals they are.

Trumps EXACT words

NATO was busted until I came along. I said everybody's going to pay. THey said, Well, if we don't pay, are you still going to protect us?
I said absolutely not. THey couldn't believe the answer. I came in. I made a speech and I said, you gotta pay up.
They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up said, Well sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia,
Will you protect us?
I said you didn't pay, you're delinquent?
He said yes, lets say that happened.
No I would not protect you.
In fact I would encourage them to do what ever the hell they want.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...ate=ive&vld=cid:89caced3,vid:TlHh97MvET0,st:0

So much for your fake hypothetical future tense and your fake claim that he sent a clear signal that the US's NATO allies can't count on the US to honor Article 5 if he is president.

Tell me,
Do you get embarrassed when caught posting fake propaganda or just continue doing it?

 

Will you protect us?
I said you didn't pay, you're delinquent?
He said yes, let's say that happened.
No I would not protect you.
In fact I would encourage them to do what ever the hell they want.​

Hypothetical future, not past tense. Doesn't matter if he's couched it in a story about what he and others allegedly said in the past, his statement was and remains that he "would not protect" our NATO allies, and that, in fact, he "would encourage [Russia] to do what ever the hell they want."

So sorry if this confuses you, but he was indeed speaking about what he would do in a hypothetical situation in the future.

 

The NATO defense ministers agreed to commit 2% of gross GDP. I don't think in the agreement there was text to say "when you feel like it", but hey, who knows, maybe it does say that. I think Trump's statements were over the top but the general point remains the same. Also have you seen that chart going around with the contribution percentages? They are not as bad as I thought they would have be. Lots of them aren't that far from 2% but why would they ever pay if nobody mentions it? Why is Germany enjoying their luxury fit for human non GMO fancy food while I have to eat this USA chemical crap? The countries on that list aren't exactly slumming it. Trump is right to call them out but I do wish he had a better way of doing it.

 

Again. NOT THE SAME THING.

To put an analogy into what your thinking.

If you stop paying your gas bill. They dont just shut off your gas, but they also come blow up your house. Makes total sense right?

 

You can't even admit when you are caught falsifying information.
YOU STATED

When its clear he was talking about what he said to NATO years ago to get them to pay up.
And just like the lefty seals all clapping in the back ground at anything they are told, you can't even admit when you're wrong.
No go try and out your fake propaganda on someone else.

 

There is no money changing hands. Each country is spending on it's own defence forces.

 

He probably made that story up anyway, considering the reaction to his words. But that aside, it really does not matter that he couched it in such a story, because the threat is there. His words once again:

Will you protect us?
I said you didn't pay, you're delinquent?
He said yes, let's say that happened.
No I would not protect you.
In fact I would encourage them to do what ever the hell they want.​

The reason this is getting a strong reaction and a lot of backlash is precisely because it is more than a story about something he allegedly said. It is about the threat he made to our NATO allies that under his leadership, the United States would not honor its Article 5 obligation to defend a fellow member if they were attacked. There is no reason to think that he did not mean it or that it would not be true if he became president again. It is a standing threat he is making to NATO members, story or no story.

 

It is also good for defense contracts, so in reality we probably make more money than we lose on it.

 

Then you made up a story about how he was talking about what he would do, hypothetical future tense.

Yeah, the fake left tried to claim how he was talking about what he would do, hypothetical future tense and made up their own stories.
Then when they get caught, they try worming out of their own claims by making up more stories to cover their first lies.

 

Don't pay enough? You mean don't pay their agreed upon amount, right? I know, its a bit nitpicky...

But there's a lot of NATO members who redirect their agreed upon obligations instead on the sort of social programs that Americans think we need to reduce our defense spending to pay for (and they do have a point). Should we do as our more socialist allies do, and reduce the overall strength of NATO?

Should we ignore our own society to defend theirs while they enjoy the benefits we deprive our own?

Or should we let those who refuse to contribute what they agreed to contribute an increased personal risk so we don't have to carry their water?

I mean, its a pretty clear 'one or the other' kind of situation. Which do you want?

 

Indeed. Probably a big reason why the US doesn't drawn down to 2%.

 

Fact is, he said:

Will you protect us?
I said you didn't pay, you're delinquent?
He said yes, let's say that happened.
No I would not protect you.
In fact I would encourage them to do what ever the hell they want.​

You don't say **** like this to allies after agreeing to mutual defense with them, Condor. Not even to try and strong-arm them into spending more on their defense. It is simply unacceptable and demonstrates that Trump is not at all fit to be president.

The fact that he also instigated a violent riot and insurrection when he lost the last election and tried to steal it by other means also really cinched it, I feel. Then again, so did his first impeachable offense.

 

Just stop. Now you're on to insurrections because you got caught falsifying your post?
You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

No one is "refusing" to pay 2%. European countries have been working to maintain/achieve 2% of GDP since the agreement - in 2014 - to boost efforts to do so. Challenges and dynamics vary, but for most countries increases in defense spending have since been continual, year on year. Trump might like to take credit for this but it's credit for something that was already well underway.

 

He’s been saying that for years.

 

I dunno how you're differentiating 'refusing to pay' and simply 'not paying'... but:

Only 35% of NATO Countries Meet the Group’s Defense Spending Target (msn.com)

So 35% of NATO is floating the other 65% of NATO, and I bet the vast bulk of that floating is coming from the US. Call it refusal or not, doesnt matter, we're paying their share, and either that continues (and gets worse) or it doesn't, and the only way it doesnt is if there's repercussions for not meeting agreed terms.

...or we all just stop paying our fair share and let NATO die. Frankly I'm not opposed to that. Are you?

 

The United States founded NATO in 1949, as a defensive alliance to stand up to the Soviet Union.

It is the cornerstone of western power, a bulwark against Russia and China. And one of the keys to American world power. No NATO, no American leadership of our traditional allies.

It is the most successful alliance in world history, and has help prevent war between major powers for three quarters of a century.

It is the legacy of Churchill and Roosevelt.

And Donald Trump has worked hard to betray it.

 

People who weaken the alliance to the point it is no longer a deterrent would be the ones guilty of betrayal. Trump hasn't done that when he was in office nor when he's running for another term.

 

Concerns over how much member nations devoted to military spending could have easily been addressed through diplomatic circles.

But that wasn’t Trump’s goal.

Trump’s goal was to attack our allies publicly. Mainly to entertain his political base by pandering to their isolationism.

His other goal was to serve the interests of Vladimir Putin. Undermining NATO had been a major strategic policy goal for Russia since 1949.

And here Trump is, openly campaigning for it.

 

What nonsense.

NATO was entirely stable,and had been for seventy years, until Putin’s pet started throwing rocks at it on social media. (Instead of handling it the way a real president would).

 

Trump is getting to the heart of the issue, which is how people who work a full-time job feel resentment that they have to pay taxes, and they don't feel like they are getting any benefit from that. In fact, they feel resentment that not everyone puts in equal effort, and they want to see others dragged down if they don't put in the effort or even, god forbid, take from the system with a benefits package. So, Trump is touching this issue that is near and dear to the majority of the American people and twisting it to make it about NATO union dues. And it's working!

Second issue: the USA has betrayed a whole list of friends and allies throughout the years. Never before in Europe, but there's a first time for everything. And it was only a matter of time before it happened, Trump or not. America will betray anyone if it can be said that they've had enough.

 

I agree with your assessment. The far left and the MSM are running with this old story because it makes Trump look bad. And I can see that some of you have bought right into it. What he did was simply a bluff to get them off their asses and pay what they promised to pay. And guess what, it worked. Trump is, generally, someone not to be trifled with. Unlike, Joe, who can run over quite easily.

 

That's a pretty naive view. If that were the case, then NATO would have paid up their obligations years ago. It basically took a threat to get them off their asses and pony up. Which, they did.

 

I'm differentiating because there's a difference between choosing not to spend 2% on defence and making a good faith effort which has not yet culminated in paying 2%.

The trend line is continuing upwards - as you can see in the chart. Many countries are within spitting distance of 2%.

This idea of that some countries are "floating" others is a product of not understanding the nature of NATO.

Without NATO, each nation would in any event be spending on defense. Because of the mutual support nature of NATO, every nation agreed to make the amount they spend the same - with 2% of GDP as a guideline. If a country hasn't spent that, no one is making up the difference or "paying their share". It's a shortfall, period. And it does not mean that a country is refusing to pay, or not trying, or that the 2% will not be accomplished at some point. This is why NATO has summits and so forth - to get to grips with the big picture and what often complex challenges or obstacles may be in play, with a view to resolution.

Trumpian threats and bluster, in comparison, are naive and simplistic.

 

Than there should be nothing wrong with Trump's statements.