Trump Encourages Putin to Attack NATO Allies

[Caswell Thomas]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All nato allies committed to spending 2 percent of gdp on defense.  Period.  That's the deal.

So you can' snivel and cry about trump - but that's what they committed to. If they can't do it then why did they agree to it.

Canada's no where close - it's an embarrasment

It seems a simple amount of your gross national budget  until you try to remove 2% , then all the others who want that 2% start making problems until they carve out a share, eventually you do get some of it but you lose some to various other ..carvings.  

[Caswell Thomas]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Making fun of people's hair colour is a weak argument. I'd venture to guess, many a red-haired freckle-faced boy feels inadequate and bad about themselves these days with the way some on the left use Trump's hair colour to ridicule him. It's like the whole ginger-hating thing. It's rather despicable.

We were speaking about what Trump said, he is likely the most known orange haired person in the world. 

[OftenWrong]

6 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Trump had permission to build a casino in Moscow in 2015, he chose not to because you can spend all you want in Russia but you can't take any out of Russia.

Unlike the Uranium-One deal that the Clintons pushed through, handing Russia the keys in 2010 while they raked in some of that cool cash.

Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians gained U.S. uranium assets

Seattle Times, 2105
"The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium-supply chain."

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

"Soon after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Oh well. It shouldn't matter, because the Clintons were such good people!   🤷‍♂️

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

It seems a simple amount of your gross national budget  until you try to remove 2% , then all the others who want that 2% start making problems until they carve out a share, eventually you do get some of it but you lose some to various other ..carvings.  

Yeah - in technical terms that's what accounting and financial experts call 'Bullshit".

Everyone committed to the expenditure. 2 percent on military. Some details can be quibbled a bit but it's a pretty easy calculation and it's what was committed to.  And trump is right that people need to start to pay up. the us is the only country that hits that i believe.

[Caswell Thomas]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Unlike the Uranium-One deal that the Clintons pushed through, handing Russia the keys in 2010 while they raked in some of that cool cash.

Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians gained U.S. uranium assets

Seattle Times, 2105
"The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium-supply chain."

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

"Soon after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Oh well. It shouldn't matter, because the Clintons were such good people!   🤷‍♂️

Are we back to Hilary AGAIN? we hashed this to pieces already in several threads...run along and read them, even do a little kicking and bashing, its okay, we understand you will do anything to hijack a thread and get the subject off Trump. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - in technical terms that's what accounting and financial experts call 'Bullshit".

Everyone committed to the expenditure. 2 percent on military. Some details can be quibbled a bit but it's a pretty easy calculation and it's what was committed to.  And trump is right that people need to start to pay up. the us is the only country that hits that i believe.

2% on military or 2% on defense in NATO?  Big difference. 

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

We were speaking about what Trump said,

You ridiculed him for his hair, no need to lie about it. It's right there in print. That's the way you guys roll. Not that I care, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left since you are not the only one to go for terms like "Orange Man Bad" etc.

Then turn around and tell people how "we must not judge people by their race or the colour of their skin".

Fill your boots dude.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Are we back to Hilary AGAIN? we hashed this to pieces already in several threads...run along and read them

Oh no, we're talking about real crimes involving big money with Russia. Your guy's big crimes ok, our guys not-even-proven crimes are worthy of treason and capital punishment.

It's THAT level of lying inconsistency that has given Trump his platform still going strong today. In all the din of rhetoric and accusations, have proven nothing.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Look at it from another view: these other countries are each, about the size of Florida. Their gross national.product is 1/50th of our 50 states.  Here we have a hypothetical country called Geoderm. Grocery spends 0.76% of its national budget on defense, we spend with a combined geographical area and towns, industry, etc. just 3.9%.   Trumps statement reflects a very poor knowledge of global geography and an almost total lack of knowledge of global economics. 

I'm guessing you have spelling correction on, or else are posting pure gibberish all on your own. Go back and re-write what you meant and I'll try to give a reasonable reply. I don't have time to decipher how much 'Grocery' money you spend on defence.

"Just 3.9%" is a lot more than 0.79, let alone the required commitment to 2%.

 

[Rebound]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - in technical terms that's what accounting and financial experts call 'Bullshit".

Everyone committed to the expenditure. 2 percent on military. Some details can be quibbled a bit but it's a pretty easy calculation and it's what was committed to.  And trump is right that people need to start to pay up. the us is the only country that hits that i believe.

Then why hasn’t Canada met their obligation? Has Canada ever met their obligation?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Um..no. Trump had permission to build a casino in Moscow in 2015, he chose not to because you can spend all you want in Russia but you can't take any out of Russia.

Then why was he still negotiating with Putin during the 2015 campaign and LIED about doing that?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Then why hasn’t Canada met their obligation? Has Canada ever met their obligation?

Yes, during the Cold War. In the early 60's it was over 4%. It didn't drop below 2% until 1973. It rose to over 2% again for a few years in the mid 80's but hasn't been there since.

Edited February 14, 2024 by Aristides

[taxme]

17 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Look at it from another view: these other countries are each, about the size of Florida. Their gross national.product is 1/50th of our 50 states.  Here we have a hypothetical country called Geoderm. Grocery spends 0.76% of its national budget on defense, we spend with a combined geographical area and towns, industry, etc. just 3.9%.   Trumps statement reflects a very poor knowledge of global geography and an almost total lack of knowledge of global economics. 

So, what you are trying to say here is that without America the other NATO countries are pretty much screwed then, even though those NATO countries probably have more of a population combined to easily outnumber Russia's populations. All those NATO countries want to do is just sit back and let America do the dirty work. Those NATO countries will throw in a few bucks into NATO, while America throws in hundreds of bucks into NATO. Trump is right. Pay your fair share or get lost. 

I will never understand as to why so many Americans and Canadians despise Trump? Trump was trying to make America great again, and all Trump gets now is crap thrown in his face.

Maybe you can tell me as to what did Trump do while President that hurt or harmed America in any way? You probably have nothing to show here, right? Well? 🤔

[herbie]

23 hours ago, Legato said:

She made an inane comment and lost the election. Odd you didn't realise that.

Actually the American public had a massive simultaneous brain fart that helped by the Electoral College handed The Lying Rapist the win.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

Maybe you can tell me as to what did Trump do while President that hurt or harmed America in any way? You probably have nothing to show here, right? Well? 🤔

Those 91 felony counts are NOT chicken feed. Have you even read the indictments?

Maybe like Trump, you don't respect the will of American voters, but it is a CRIME to illegally subvert that.

We like democracy. Maybe YOU WANT a DICTATOR. 🤮

[Caswell Thomas]

21 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You ridiculed him for his hair, no need to lie about it. It's right there in print. That's the way you guys roll. Not that I care, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left since you are not the only one to go for terms like "Orange Man Bad" etc.

Then turn around and tell people how "we must not judge people by their race or the colour of their skin".

Fill your boots dude.

Fill yours.  If I describe him as the man , who when most of the country's young men his age were either fearful.or gung ho to go to the military because they, in spite of their fears, answered the Call to Duty, and did so with the Honor, Integrity, and Ethics of those who didn't get their wealthy fathers to buy them a phony disabling condition known at the time to afflict a surprisingly high % of rich kids who got Draft Notices or knew one was on the way, would that do it for you?  I was in that draft also,  got a very Hugh number, wasn't called, but signed up to go anyway, but not because I was gung ho but to maintain my family honor...unlike Donnie..

[Caswell Thomas]

21 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Oh no, we're talking about real crimes involving big money with Russia. Your guy's big crimes ok, our guys not-even-proven crimes are worthy of treason and capital punishment.

It's THAT level of lying inconsistency that has given Trump his platform still going strong today. In all the din of rhetoric and accusations, have proven nothing.

Big money involvement with Russia and Trump thinks this will cover up HIS connections to Russia dating back decades?!!  😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😅😅😅😅😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

20 hours ago, robosmith said:

Then why was he still negotiating with Putin during the 2015 campaign and LIED about doing that?

Good question. One has to look further back, see why indeed Trump is so connected to Russia and especially Putin.  Way back.

[Caswell Thomas]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

So, what you are trying to say here is that without America the other NATO countries are pretty much screwed then, even though those NATO countries probably have more of a population combined to easily outnumber Russia's populations. All those NATO countries want to do is just sit back and let America do the dirty work. Those NATO countries will throw in a few bucks into NATO, while America throws in hundreds of bucks into NATO. Trump is right. Pay your fair share or get lost. 

I will never understand as to why so many Americans and Canadians despise Trump? Trump was trying to make America great again, and all Trump gets now is crap thrown in his face.

Maybe you can tell me as to what did Trump do while President that hurt or harmed America in any way? You probably have nothing to show here, right? Well? 🤔

You obviously haven't looked beyond your nose at just what Trump was doing since his father began teaching him the family...business.  Try reading more about him in what other countries have found him involved in, try the Italian, German, Austrian, French and Scottish police, the Spanish Civil Guard, the Scottish Supreme Court, and the Swiss Counterintelligence.  I would add the CIA and FBI,  but you already are prejudice against them by the propaganda of Russia which floods the internet.

[Caswell Thomas]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

So, what you are trying to say here is that without America the other NATO countries are pretty much screwed then, even though those NATO countries probably have more of a population combined to easily outnumber Russia's populations. All those NATO countries want to do is just sit back and let America do the dirty work. Those NATO countries will throw in a few bucks into NATO, while America throws in hundreds of bucks into NATO. Trump is right. Pay your fair share or get lost. 

I will never understand as to why so many Americans and Canadians despise Trump? Trump was trying to make America great again, and all Trump gets now is crap thrown in his face.

Maybe you can tell me as to what did Trump do while President that hurt or harmed America in any way? You probably have nothing to show here, right? Well? 🤔

Nice of you to do Putin's work for him...cut NATO up into pieces and prevent the wealthier ones helping those with lesser funds available...just throw those to the Russian wolves eh?  

[Caswell Thomas]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

Then why was he still negotiating with Putin during the 2015 campaign and LIED about doing that?

Yes...WHY?  What else was he talking with our sworn enemy about?

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Yes...WHY?  What else was he talking with our sworn enemy about?

Sworn enemy? Was the US at war with russia?

If russia is the sworn enemy why did obama tell them he'd be willing to go soft on them if they'd lay off till his election was over? That was caught on an open mike.

[Caswell Thomas]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sworn enemy? Was the US at war with russia?

If russia is the sworn enemy why did obama tell them he'd be willing to go soft on them if they'd lay off till his election was over? That was caught on an open mike.

Lets do the actual quote eh? He said he would have " more flexibility ".  NOT  "... go soft on them". Seems to me your facts are off, again. But then they usually are. Must be hard to keep your facts straight when you are making them up as you go. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Lets do the actual quote eh? He said he would have " more flexibility ".  NOT  "... go soft on them". Seems to me your facts are off, again. But then they usually are. Must be hard to keep your facts straight when you are making them up as you go. 

He told russia he'd be able to give them more if they left him alone till after the election and in fact after the election he gave them more

Pretty simple.  COLLUUUUUUUUSIOOONNNNN!!!!! (reeeee!)

Again you have to lie and deflect to make your point.  We KNOW obama said that to the russians. He met with them - he said that , Now trump talks to a russian and the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON is treason or the like.

You're such a massive hypocrite.

[robosmith]

NATO Leader Blasts Trump’s Suggestion He Would Encourage Russian Invasion of U.S. Allies

Quote

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Sunday offered a harsh rebuke to comments made a day earlier by presidential candidate Donald Trump, who suggested that if he were re-elected he would encourage Russia to invade U.S. allies that failed to contribute enough military spending,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Said Stoltenberg: “NATO remains ready and able to defend all allies. Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the U.S. will remain a strong and committed NATO ally.”  

Of course, Trump cares NOTHING about the "sucker" soldiers. 🤮

So I guess all the right wingers here who were praising Stoltenberg when he was thanking Trump for his meager effort to increase spending on defense are now going to bash him for turning on Trump. 🤮

[robosmith]

Favoring Foes Over Friends, Trump Threatens to Upend International Order

Quote

Mr. Trump has never believed in the fundamental one-for-all-and-all-for-one concept of the Atlantic alliance. Indeed, he spent much of his four-year presidency undermining it while strong-arming members into keeping their commitments to spend more on their own militaries with the threat that he would not come to their aid otherwise.

But he took it to a whole new level over the weekend, declaring at a rally in South Carolina that not only would he not defend European countries he deemed to be in arrears from an attack by Russia, he would go so far as to ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ against them. Never before has a president of the United States — even a former one aspiring to reclaim the office — suggested that he would incite an enemy to attack American allies.

Some may discount that as typical Trump rally bluster or write it off as a poor attempt at humor. Others may even cheer the hard line against supposedly deadbeat allies who in this view have taken advantage of American friendship for too long. But Mr. Trump’s rhetoric foreshadows potentially far-reaching changes in the international order if he wins the White House again in November with unpredictable consequences. 

 

[Caswell Thomas]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He told russia he'd be able to give them more if they left him alone till after the election and in fact after the election he gave them more

Pretty simple.  COLLUUUUUUUUSIOOONNNNN!!!!! (reeeee!)

Again you have to lie and deflect to make your point.  We KNOW obama said that to the russians. He met with them - he said that , Now trump talks to a russian and the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON is treason or the like.

You're such a massive hypocrite.

I'm sorry, did I borrow your mirror by mistake?  Please keep it to yourself, it seems to only see things Red.