Been at the American cemeteries from both WO1 (Flanders Field American Cemetery) and WO2 (Normandy American Cemetery), I've a problem seeing Donald Trump as a real patriot. All those people gave there lives to bring freedom and democracy back into the Europeans their lives. But Donald Trump says things such as "I would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country".
With other words he would encourage enemy countries, countries lead by dictators such as Russia, China, ... to attack countries that once got freed by some of your (great) grand fathers, some of them did this with the biggest sacrifice a human can make, and gave their life in France, Belgium, Germany, Poland, ... to beat down a dictator and bring democracy back into those countries.
Wouldn't it hurt that someone like Donald Trump who never, ever had to work for anything in his life would undo all this? Make all that in blood drenched work of those hundred of thousands (late) veterans just a footnote in history. Because years later in 2024 the USA backed out of the NATO. Giving the (real) communist countries and extreme right wing countries opportunities they never ever hoped to get.
Honestly this isn't voting advise against Trump because, this two party system is overdue and you guys deserve more (qualitative options) than Trump vs Harris.
Well, he had 4 years as President to get out, yet, all he did was get them to pay up.
From Politifact
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/mar/06/is-donald-trumps-nato-talk-a-negotiating-tactic-or/
The short version is, Trump is not a patriot and he has no apparent qualities that one would find respectable. He's lived his life as though the seven deadly sins are part of his daily to-do list, but Republicans are so tired of Dems that they're willing to eat a mountain of shit and piss on everything they care about just to push back. And that's not as one-sided as it might initially sound. Eating a mountain of shit for what might not appear to be worthwhile trades, is a symptom of a lot more than just poor decision making. Time + wear = mass exasperation. It's complex, but it's important to know that most issues are a proxy for something else. On the inside, Republicans want to be conservatives again and support NATO and oppose Russia like they know they should, but it's on the backburner for now.
"On the inside, Republicans want to be conservatives again and support NATO and oppose Russia like they know they should, but it's on the backburner for now."
It is painful to see, that is also why I think the two party system is maybe in his last decade. There are probably more suitable candidates where there comment sense is bigger than the hatred towards the democrats and they can work with them on big items, and also be believable conservatives when they talk about family values. Bridge builders who can steer the USA towards real greatness again. But at the moment those people have two choices: support MAGA or keep themself down till new times arise. Sadly everything is also very polarised at the moment, that even choosing a color for a school mascot (for example) can spark and vicious debate between republicans and democrats.
Mainstream media Bukkake, take 2. You both get an A.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
What the actual fuck is wrong with people.....
You guys have enough to worry about in the EU with your shit leadership, Trump is the least of your concerns. European countries including yours look more like Russia day after day…You have an appointed old hag like Ursula trying to tell you what to do and how to do it.
Brussels is like the Kremlin of the EU.
NATO was formed post WW2 because Europe was bankrupt at the end of the war, and had no money or men for that matter to defend itself, from an openly aggresive Soviet Union and maniacal Joseph Stalin. We had to help them some Middle Eastern Nations and the Japanese as well at that time. This came along with allowing their industries to compete against ours somewhat unfairly to build up their destroyed economies. Our bases in these countries were purposely built and maintained to help boost these nations destroyed economies as well. We did much of this to curb the spread of communism. That all this still continues at the expense of Americans is unpatriotic at it's core. Single moms, young families, retirees in America are taxed to help defend Europe?! To the tune of billions?
You watch, all that is absolutely true…yet…
Someone will come in here and tell you “you’re wrong”.
Absolutely nothing wrong with pushing countries to get to that 2%, just not in the "we won't help you if you don't" manner that he does. People seem to forget, the 2% is a guideline. It's not like going to the store and buying a $5 gallon of milk and only handing over $4 and walking out with it even though you're short. Even Trump himself doesn't seem to know that it's a guideline, which seems impossible, because if he does know, then it's worse, where ineptitude becomes maliciousness. And here we are with a significant number of Americans low-key disgusted with NATO because of what he says.
Eroding confidence in global first-world unification against border-crossing murderers is very much not a good thing. So many Christians out there falling into some traps that the bible very clearly warns us about, the very first commandment for one with the fervency of support for a flashy human, and the spread of apathetic nihilism from having the ability to push back against murderers and people's diminishing desire to do so. There does seem to be a silver lining taking shape though, Dems seem to be maybe juuuuuust starting to get the message here (cough-eight years later-cough). If both parties can pull it in a bit and admit, "yeah, we got a little nutty", that'll put us all in a better place than we were ten years ago.
Well the last part is an opinion and those are always open to a different take. The first part, America tried to do nothing and let it be Europe's problem -for two years!!- and it eventually ended up on our doorstep. And don't forget that the sanctions after WW1 are a big part of what fueled WW2, so America learned two lessons, 1) apathetic nihilism leads nowhere good, and 2) desperation leads people to dark places. Sorry, to be more specific, Americans -of years past- learned two lessons.
We won’t help you if you don’t pay your share…
If Trump said “if you don’t pay your share, don’t worry, the American taxpayers will keep financing your safety” , do you think they’d have paid up?
Our kindness has been taken advantage of for years. It needs to stop. I’m all for helping those that truly need help, but when you waste money helping those that can help themselves, that would actually lessen what you can do for the truly needy.
Let’s not mistake “kindness” for hegemony, control and influence. Let’s get real here, America doesn’t do anything without the net benefit to the country being considered. We are a superpower and that status does not come from being a passive participant.
There aren't just two choices of the extremes where you either tell people you'll let them die or tell them that you're a floormat, so I think you take a step back and figure out the question first, and I think the question is, "how do we get them to pay 2%?". From there, the options are unlimited. If you wanted to take a firm approach without going full gorilla, I think it'd be something where if others don't pay their 2%, we'll start paying less, and there are probably a million ways to create a correlation between how much less others are paying relative to how much less we would pay. And 0.1% from a smaller nation isn't much compared to 0.1% from the US, so there's really strong leverage in there at 1:1 percentage reductions. It would also create a ton of pressure from other NATO countries to get the low performers up.
Again, don't forget that 2% is a guideline, so it's weird to take a hardline approach on something that's just a guideline. It's not a requirement. If we want it to be a requirement, then we can put forward a resolution for vote.
Just to be clear, it wasn’t simply the notion of not defending a NATO ally. It was a matter of encouraging action against NATO members.
“In fact, I would encourage them (potential enemies of a NATO country) to do whatever the hell they want.”
That’s some seriously fucked up thinking from someone occupying the White House.
The point that’s being missed in all this…
The U.S. has had a ridiculous burden in all this while influential European nations WERE NOT paying up. Period. It’s that simple…to that simple end…since Trump”s nudging… most of those nations have decided to “pay up”.
Aside from all that is the obvious fact that NOW…now…that they actually have Vlad stirring shit up on their doorstep…well…now…as in “Again”…they’re leaning into NATO and they’re all ultimately paying a bit more than even they had apparently expected…so, Trump’s nudge worked just in time for them to have to deal with Vlad’s latest little war.
For the record: when this is all over…in Ukraine…Russia will have taken Crimea (they were allowed to roll in and TAKE IT under Obama) and they’re gonna keep The Donbas region that Biden handed them. All you had to do was “follow he resources”…oil…Russia is grabbing all of it…and some wheat, too.
Trump's nudging probably helped, but I've got to think that Putin's border-crossing murders and rapes had a lot more to do with it. And again, it's a guideline, so we don't actually have a burden, we choose to give the requested amount and then some. There's really no such thing as not paying up when a country like Croatia is paying 1.8% instead of 2%, they're just a hair under the guideline. If we want to be able to say that someone is not paying up, then t's needs to be a requirement. Think of it like paying taxes, how much would we pay if the gov't tells us that 25% is a guideline and not a requirement? How can we complain about a soft request that we ourselves would probably literally never follow?
How do we reconcile thinking that (insert any admin here) "allowed" something to happen in the world, while also thinking that we should be meddling less in the world? Lefties thinking that Trump was responsible for the spread of Covid seems about as accurate as righties thinking that Biden allowed Putin to invade Ukraine. We're collectively stuck in this ruler/king of the world mentality that's going to result in an actual ruler/king of the world if we're not careful, because thinking like it is the same as asking for it.
Below is what Google AI shows for percentages of GDP and you'll notice the numbers are up over previous years, while Trump has been out of office for nearly four years. If it were really about him, this would be down. More are getting into that 2%+ range because the leaders of the world recognize the threat Putin presents, which luckily doesn't include Tucker Carlson and his fan club.
Also keep in mind how that spending correlates to jobs. Subsidized jobs, yes, but remember that we can't have our cake and eat it too, so we'd hypothetically have to be okay with people losing their jobs if we spend less. That's a direct correlation and we can't complain both ways without expressing dishonesty. I'm just stating what I believe is true and am not necessarily expressing what I want. What I want is Putin out of Ukraine, spend less on defense, and also everyone keeps their jobs, but it's just not possible to have it all, so I currently have to prioritize pushing back on Putin, but to somehow do it without kicking off WW3, so I currently support the killing of all Russian soldiers invading Ukraine, and I'm not sure how to feel about Ukraine striking inside Russia, but I lean towards thinking it's not a good thing. I also support all forms of economically isolating/squeezing Russia, as long as it doesn't create a WW1-fueling-WW2 depression situation.
Here are the defense spending percentages of some NATO member countries as a percentage of their GDP in 2024:
Poland: 4.12%
Estonia: 3.43%
United States: 3.38%
Latvia: 3.15%
Greece: 3.08%
Lithuania: 2.9%
Finland: 2.4%
Denmark: 2.4%
United Kingdom: 2.3%
Romania: 2.3%
North Macedonia: 2.2%
Norway: 2.2%
Bulgaria: 2.2%
Sweden: 2.1%
Germany: 2.1%
Hungary: 2.1%
Czech Republic: 2.1%
Turkey: 2.1%
France: 2.1%
Netherlands: 2.1%
Albania: 2%
Montenegro: 2%
Slovakia: 2%
Croatia: 1.8%
Portugal: 1.6%
Italy: 1.5%
Canada: 1.4%
Belgium: 1.3%
Slovenia: 1.3%
Luxembourg: 1.3%
Spain: 1.3%
The “increased contributions” by NATO states started during Trump’s administration.
Pit Row
Just want to say that I'm not the one downvoting you. Every conversation we've had, I believe you post in 100% good faith and when people discuss/argue in good faith, that's all you need to make progress. It's when ulterior motives create inconsistencies that make it so no progress can be made.
Anyway, I agree that probably gave a little booster in the moment, but that was before the invasion and it wouldn't make sense (to me) to think that Trump's threat carries more weight than a superpower like Russia invading another country. Those two things are on different planets in terms of influence.
I don’t think anyone is going to vote for him on this issue alone. The comments he makes do get used against him though, so I don’t know why he makes incendiary ones. Same goes for Vance saying women are miserable, if they prioritize careers. That’s not going to gain a vote, but certainly can turn women against you. Unforced errors one after another with little to nothing to gain.
Yeah, when you need votes, be inclusive, not exclusive. None of this stuff changes minds and I highly doubt he'd pull out, but conservatives aren't down with veiled NATO threats. Go ahead and be whimsical with nonsense stuff like banning plastic straws or whatever, but it's not funny or cute with serious issues, and the only serious issue to Trump is himself. Everything else is a play thing.
Brussels is a city, the Kremlin is a building, maybe you could explain a bit more. It feels like you're angry at the European Union, but because there are hundred other institutions in Brussels you could also be angry at uhm anything.
You might raise your eyebrows if you start looking into where nato is getting their equpiment from.
My brother, it’s all good. I appreciate your viewpoint…I mean, after-all…
“Oh, my God! You have a different perspective?! HOW DARE YOU!” 🤣
If you think about it…it’s kinda hilarious…that some folks are too angry and hateful due to their Kool Aid addiction to actually take the time to develop an independent and intelligent…
Self-created-perspective.
I’ve watched you delve into your own ideas and opinions..and pick at them in a very healthy way…and it’s absolutely fucking refreshing.
If you don’t get it I’d be wasting my time trying to explain the symbolism of the Kremlin and my comparison friend.
I’d say it’s pretty fair to say a whole lotta residents and members of the EU are a lot more as you say angry than any individual in North America. We aren’t the ones rioting every day in the streets, conducting massive economic disruptions, jailing people for thoughts and spraying liquid shit on government buildings. You must be living in a cave.
Lockheed Martin has done well out of it!
When you're getting your news from "anyone with a youtube account" who focus themselves on "international news" you can get some stuff pretty mixed up. Where there riots from farmers who weren't happy with the European rules, indeed but they weren't every day and the rules got simplified some changed and it is solved. What you claim would be equally ridiculous to claiming that the last four years "The Capitol" is under siege.
Now about jailing people for thoughts, besides Orban who gets a lot of heat in the European parliament, I think most countries are still OK with freedom of speech. Or do you have other sources that you can share? Or do you refer to Pavel Durov who is imprisoned by France because he doesn't enough to ban illegal content on telegram. You doesn't need the darkweb anymore to buy guns, drugs, underage kids,... because it's all on telegram. But that aren't thoughts...
Also what does freedom of speech mean for America, remember Julian Assange? With all do respect I think you're living in a bubble.
The Marshall Plan, officially known as the European Recovery Program (ERP), was an American initiative launched in 1948 to aid Western Europe in its recovery from the devastation of World War II. Named after then-U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who proposed the idea, the plan had several key objectives:
Economic Recovery: The primary goal of the Marshall Plan was to rebuild the war-torn economies of Western Europe. The plan provided over $12 billion (equivalent to about $130 billion today) in financial aid, which was used to rebuild infrastructure, revitalize industries, and stabilize economies.
Preventing the Spread of Communism: The United States was concerned that the economic hardships in Europe could lead to the rise of communist movements, particularly as the Soviet Union was gaining influence in Eastern Europe. By fostering economic stability and prosperity in Western Europe, the Marshall Plan aimed to counteract the appeal of communism.
Promoting Trade and Cooperation: The Marshall Plan encouraged European countries to work together to rebuild their economies, fostering cooperation and integration. This laid the groundwork for future European unity, eventually contributing to the formation of the European Union.
Boosting U.S. Economy: The plan also had benefits for the U.S. economy. By revitalizing European markets, it helped create a demand for American goods and services, which in turn boosted U.S. exports and economic growth.
The Marshall Plan is widely regarded as one of the most successful foreign aid programs in history. It not only helped to rebuild Europe but also strengthened ties between the U.S. and Western Europe, setting the stage for the long-term alliance that would later be formalized through organizations like NATO (Created in 1949). The success of the Marshall Plan also demonstrated the potential of economic aid as a tool of foreign policy, influencing how the U.S. approached international relations in the post-war world.
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created in 1949 as a response to the growing threat posed by the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. The primary reasons for its formation include:
1. Collective Defense: The main purpose of NATO was to establish a system of collective defense, meaning that an attack on one member would be considered an attack on all members. This was a key feature of the treaty, as it sought to deter any aggression from the Soviet Union or other potential adversaries.
2. Counterbalance to Soviet Power: In the late 1940s, the Soviet Union had established control over Eastern Europe, leading to fears of further expansion. NATO was created to counterbalance Soviet military power and to prevent the spread of communism to Western Europe.
3. Stability and Security in Europe: After the devastation of World War II, European countries were economically and militarily weakened. NATO provided a framework for the U.S., Canada, and Western European nations to ensure collective security, promoting stability and helping to rebuild Europe through mutual defense.
4. U.S. Engagement in European Security: NATO allowed the United States to maintain a significant presence in Europe, which was seen as essential for deterring Soviet aggression and reassuring European allies of American commitment to their defense. (They use their European partners to stock nukes in countries such as Belgium, Germany, Italy & the Netherlands).
Overall, NATO was established as a defensive alliance to protect its member states from the threat of Soviet expansion and to promote peace and stability in the North Atlantic region.
The US provided a nuclear umbrella to NATO and other countries to stop nuclear proliferation.
If this is withdrawn, South Korea will acquire nuclear weapons within 1 year, followed by Japan, Poland, etc...
70-80% the crux of it all.
Post a reply to: Trump vs The NATO