OftenWrong

Stepping back from the pure politics of this issue, which I have already written about in another thread, what kind of question is this anyway? Who would ask it of the president of the United States, and what kind of answer would they expect other than what Trump said? In other words who would be nuts enough to say, "We are legally obligated by the treaty to spend US blood and treasure to defend direlect countries such as yours, while you guys sit back and keep your money, party on and smoke your doobies dressed in drag." You people really got a screw loose.

You never-trumpers are wacky to be sure, but at least you're consistent.

Nice drive-by swatting. Your posts are like shakespearean rants, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

So I guess you think Jens Stoltenberg should thank Putin then...

Slave news, for the slave classes. My recollection of CTV is they shit-canned Lisa Laflamme when she let her hair go grey. She was not hot enough for the neo-woke self indulgents who spew wokism out of their mouths, and misogyny-bigotry out their arses. Now let them die on their (short) swords. Oh well little herbie, you gotta look somewhere else now for your night-cap. Try Gloe-Bull. 🤷‍♂️

No, yes, no, yes. 🤷‍♂️ You are of course entitled to an opinion. Not much can really be proven empirically these days, in a world so full of lies and political intrigue, especially now with the internet. At least, in the good old days the state's propaganda and lies were printed in books that people could buy and keep on their shelves. Now, is but a matter of a few mouse clicks and history can be conveniently 'adjusted'. All that leaves us with are our memories, some clues, and the use of logic. Which many are sorely lacking... You claim they are not increasing their spending due to the efforts of Trump, but I have shown that already. Three links. Two from Nato.org and one from CNN. Remember? 2019 ffs? Probably not. I do remember because I posted them originally here in this forum IN 2019, and I can show you that too if need be. More about the actual logic of it though. The leaders of Nato knew through their information channels that Russia was building up toward a full-scale invasion. They were well aware of it in those days. That is why Trump used his bully pulpit to force them to man-up and meet their obligations. We all should be well aware that many Nato countries did not meet the commitments they signed on to, Canada included. Trump told them that the US is not obligated to rescue them if Putin were to attack, unless they do set aside the money. Result- what Jens Stoltenberg said at the time. I don't see much in that story that is debatable or controversial. Happy to listen if you do. So, follow up question. If Trump is a Putin-lover and his subordinate, why dis he put such pressure on the others, on Germany in particular? Why did he work so hard to strengthen Nato? There's no logic there. You people are being led by the nose, by those who despise him and would rather see him fail, at any cost. Even if it means WW3 with Putin. B-b-b cause Trunp! 👺

You and the other clod @I am Groot may attack me all you want, no one is here to stop you. But since you have nothing else to say, cannot refute my steely logic and the real facts, links I graciously provide, only make yourselves look like weak-minded fools. Up to you. That is why I say to you people, I say, away little boys. I have no time to play...

But you seem to think this is a weakness on the part of Trump, that they are not beholden to his every wish. "LMAO", right? Not like they are for your favourite, Joe Biden, is that it? Duly noted...

I suggest you are out of your depth again (nothing new there, who knew?). Do not ever play poker. Stick to the lottery instead. As per usual, am sure.

No, the media are at fault for lying, by omitting the context and the whole truth of what was said. So-called "lies of omission". It works on people like you. Calling me brain-dead? You started the thread but obviously didn't understand the issue either. Evidenced by giving approval in your reaction to aristumped when he said "ffs... the link is from 2019." Brain dead, look in the mirror.

Highly debatable and a matter of leadership style, but Trump is rude, abrasive and to the point. I suppose he has no patience or time for lying leftists who want to get a free ride on US' back. But this was, literally, an emergency. Did it work? See my links. Results speak for themselves. Once people go after my forum name, I know I have won. Your surrender has been accepted...

The poster proved themselves a tard by attacking me, without understanding the issue. Was just a useless ad-hominem, nothing more. Once I put him in his place and asked him to back up his claim, that Stoltenberg was LYING, nothing more to say. Oh well,

There you go, chappy.

Sure, that's apparent if you are a one-dimensional thinker. Another interpretation is, these are the threats he made to direlect Nato members who haven't lived up to their committments. It came at a time when Russia was clearly mobilizing their resources to prepare for the full-scale attack, and was a crucial time for Nato members to step up. As a result of these threats, Trump forced them to pony up, boosting Nato support by, as Stoltenberg himself said at the time, $100 Billion, and more to come. Get it now? Of course, the bought media seeks to turn everything he says around into an attack on him, and it works especially to those who don't know the history of what actually took place in 2019. Always happy to help you people get caught up to the issue. "ffs..."

Glad you're following along. Trump's comments are about his conservation with another leader when he was president. Even Treebeard references it in his next post. You guys, and myata, are alarmingly clueless on what this topic is about. Here, allow me to clarify it for you. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447 Addressing crowds during the rally in South Carolina, Mr Trump said he had made his comments about Russia during a meeting of leaders of Nato countries. He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow. Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'" Dr Patrick Bury, a defence and security expert and former Nato analyst, told the BBC that Mr Trump was reflecting anger in the US that some European Nato countries were not spending 2% of their budget on the military, as Nato wants. "Playing hardball with Nato allies is correct, but it all depends on how far you go. These comments are too far, really," he said. But he said such statements had an impact at a time when Russia had put its economy onto a war footing and its military spending was outstripping that of European countries. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, after Mr Trump left office. .... Get it now? Thanks for keeping up. "FFS"

Colin Powell already knew. I saw it in the movie 'Dubya'...

The issue is disgustingly politicized, so that no one can tell what the truth is directly. The bought-media liars will only obfuscate and deceive with contradictory information. However, it is a fact Trump was given HCQ during Covid by his medical team. We can't know the truth about these non-MRNA treatments technically, but we can derive it by understanding that the president of the United States, as with most world leaders, will always get the best, most up-to-date medical treatment available. So in that light, HCQ was given because it was beneficial.

Never mind FOX. Here is an article confirming Trump's work with NATO, from the rabidly anti-Trump CNN. Trump praises NATO chief, says he’s happy allies are ‘paying’ President Donald Trump, a sometime NATO skeptic, praised the alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday, saying his performance “has been outstanding.” “The relationship with NATO has been very good, the relationship with the secretary general has been outstanding,” Trump said while sitting next to Stoltenberg at the White House. Trump has long criticized NATO countries over their failure to spend enough on defense and meet the two percent of GDP target recommended by the alliance, a target being met by only seven members presently. While previous presidents had made similar critiques of NATO members’ defense spending, Trump has made it a central theme of his presidential campaign and his administration’s foreign policy, once calling the alliance “obsolete” and repeatedly slamming allies over the spending issue and linking it to trade disputes with the European Union. Stoltenberg has repeatedly cited defense spending increases among the non-US members of NATO, thanking Trump Tuesday “for your very strong leadership on burden sharing.” “After years of cutting defense budgets, NATO allies have now started to invest more and by the end of next year they will have added $100 billion more into their defense budgets since you took office, and that helps and it proves also that NATO is a strong alliance,” he added. So you are full of shit, monkey-boy.

Stick to the topic, not about me. The info provided shows Trump took action and it produced results. NATO is far stronger today because of it. If you have any proof that it's untrue and that they were simply sating that to flatter him, go ahead and provide it.

You are keeping track of the Jews here now?

Please, do not disturb those who are sleeping. Providing facts is being unkind. You may end up being ignored because of it, like me.

If you're now talking about quality issues, that's another story. The historical info Putin gave was rambling and hard to follow, and I don't agree that history over 1000 years justifies one country's claim over a piece of land today. Many borders were re-drawn after WW1. What he said about more recent events was a lot more relevant. That doesn't make everything he said 'true', and I said that earlier. But the parts about 2014, and the conflict involving Ukraine's rejection of an EU trade deal are true, imo. Keep in mind, no president east or west would allow themselves to be put on the spot in front of a camera. Most likely the questions were already laid out and agreed upon long before the interview. What questions would you have liked to see?

The link I provided is from NATO, not FOX. As for your personal comments, go stuff yourself, douchebag.

Don't be so sure. That's what people said the last time, with Trump versus Hillary. Although I do not think it is "good" for America at this point, it always comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. There is no question if Trump does get elected, the country will explode in violence as we saw before. Most of this violence coming directly from Trump's political opponents, if you recall encouraging protestors to go on rampages and loot and burn, then tried to pin these crimes on Trump's presidency. The fact remains, if there were an election TODAY, Trump would win according to certain polls. That says despite all the insanity, and the allegations, has not changed one thing in terms of electoral support. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-trump-economy-presidential-race-rcna136834 Feb 4 2024 Biden trails GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump on major policy and personal comparisons, including by more than 20 points on which candidate would better handle the economy. And Biden’s deficit versus Trump on handling immigration and the border is greater than 30 points. The poll also shows Trump holding a 16-point advantage over Biden on being competent and effective, a reversal from 2020, when Biden was ahead of Trump on this quality by 9 points before defeating him in that election. And Biden’s approval rating has declined to the lowest level of his presidency in NBC News polling — to 37% — while fewer than 3 in 10 voters approve of his handling of the Israel-Hamas war. All together, these numbers explain why the poll shows Trump leading Biden by 5 points among registered voters in a hypothetical 2024 general-election matchup, 47% to 42%. While the result is within the poll’s margin of error, the last year of polling shows a clear shift. Still too early to say, I know, but the fact these numbers are here now is pretty surprising given all that has gone on.

I see, so it has not to do with WHO they are interviewing then. "Because Carlson bad man" Good point again, Arsestides