Trump Is Blunt, But He's Right

[BrightShinyGirl]

Straight talk is the American way everywhere except in Washington DC. and Americans are tired of the pusillanimous pussy footing that emanates from there as well.

Trump routinely lies about even small things if it's to his benefit. That's what got him in trouble and lost him his business license in New York state. He also can't help saying outrageous thing to draw attention to himself. That might be laudable behavior in an entertainer, but it's not "straight talk". Everyone--even his supporters--knows he's not a man of his word.

 

[ll74]

Yes we understand your prejudice and your pride. Mark Twain might have had you figured out long ago when he said:

"charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

I might add: or shacked up in a blue inner city flat steeping in superstition and bathed in ignorance.

I support diplomacy and alliances and stability over isolationism and transactional chaos. Any defense of Trump's foreign policy is in opposition of my views.

I also don't live in an inner city.

 

[ll74]

Trump's bluntness is one of the traits that makes him so popular. People don't expect a saint, infalliability or a perfect person they agree with on every point. But a politician that actually says what he thinks and genuinely wants to help the American people, that's a rare find.

Yes, like when he says he'll be a dictator for a day.

 

[schism666]

Straight talk is the American way everywhere except in Washington DC. and Americans are tired of the pusillanimous pussy footing that emanates from there as well.

...when you forget that you're vetteman.

 

[Lazaran]

It's more complex than that. On the one hand he's right that the European countries need to pay more into nato and stop relying on us to do it so much, but on the other hand we back in the day made a commitment to protect them when nato was formed.

"Right"guide’s response:

Yes, but it wasn't a one-sided deal. We need to rethink the entire strategy.

^
(Quotes for posterity, stupidity, and irony)

Remind us again which country was the cause / beneficiary of NATO invoking Article Five???



"Right"guide

 

[IrezumiKiss]

...when you forget that you're vetteman.

heh heh.

Noticed that, too. Can "benighted" be far behind?

 

[schism666]

heh heh.

Noticed that, too. Can "benighted" be far behind?

i think he dropped one of those last week or two. senility is a biznatch.

 

[KeithD]

Holding the line in Europe rather than at a U.S. border is and always has been a sound policy. Trump is an intelligence asset of Putin.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Straight talk is the American way everywhere except in Washington DC. and Americans are tired of the pusillanimous pussy footing that emanates from there as well.

We all love Trump’s bluntness and straight talk.

When did he say he was going to release his taxes?

 

[Veroe]

Yes, but it wasn't a one-sided deal. We need to rethink the entire strategy.

I agree. But I don't think Trump has a strategy other than complaining about it at rallies or on truth social. Why else would he have been dumb enough to hire Jon Bolton, rance priebus, millie, Maddis, and so many neocons the first go through. All those guys dedicated themselves to making certain to make that never a reality. And Trump was the gullible fool that kept hiring them. If he had a plan or any idea how to make it a reality why hire people dead set against it?

 

[ByteMe13]

I agree. But I don't think Trump has a strategy other than complaining about it at rallies or on truth social. Why else would he have been dumb enough to hire Jon Bolton, rance priebus, millie, Maddis, and so many neocons the first go through. All those guys dedicated themselves to making certain to make that never a reality. And Trump was the gullible fool that kept hiring them. If he had a plan or any idea how to make it a reality why hire people dead set against it?

Trump hired people he saw on Faux News

 

[ll74]

Yes, but it wasn't a one-sided deal. We need to rethink the entire strategy.

Article 5 was invoked once. And NATO responded. That's what allies do when attacked

They don't ask for receipts.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Holding the line in Europe rather than at a U.S. border is and always has been a sound policy. Trump is an intelligence asset of Putin.

Unless Canada and or Mexico jump on board with invaders we don't really have anything to fear from the outside world. Oceans and the best if not largest anymore navy is a helluva deterrent. This also isn't the 60s and 70s when someone could plausibly sneak up on us. REal life isn't like Red Dawn where the Russians in the original and the Chinese in the remake somehow managed to get to Colorado without anybody noticing.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Unless Canada and or Mexico jump on board with invaders we don't really have anything to fear from the outside world. Oceans and the best if not largest anymore navy is a helluva deterrent. This also isn't the 60s and 70s when someone could plausibly sneak up on us. REal life isn't like Red Dawn where the Russians in the original and the Chinese in the remake somehow managed to get to Colorado without anybody noticing.

Old enough to remember when these ninnies were screaming the end times when that lost Chinese "spy" balloon floated over the mainland last year.

Funny how you don't hear about that anymore, eh?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well I'm old enough to remember when the Jews decided to set California on fire with space lasers. Lately they are crying that "military aged illegal immigrants are invading".

 

[jomar]

trump is transactional and a blunt instrument. He doesn’t appreciate or care about more nuanced and subtle reasons that supporting allies n NATO benefits US interests and foreign policy.

His statement was not a “witty riposte to a whiny Eurocrat” as the article author would have you believe, but a dangerous and destabilizing comment from a US presidential candidate. They saw his isolationism leanings in his administration and are bracing for even more of the same should he somehow win the election.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It's more complex than that. On the one hand he's right that the European countries need to pay more into nato and stop relying on us to do it so much, but on the other hand we back in the day made a commitment to protect them when nato was formed.

The USA doesn't support any single NATO member. NATO operates out of it's collective budget. There is no charter rule that states what each country must pay to be a member.

 

[PaxNurgle]

So, I'm really trying to take a neutral approach here, but- if I can paraphrase and read through all the ultra partisan, sociopathic hate-mongering garbage that Rightguide usually spews, the point Trump was trying to make is this: That the European countries should step up their military defense budgets and rely less on the powers across the Atlantic to jump in and fight their wars for them. The idea has some merit, but- the question I would ask here is first of all, how much of their respective GDP's do these countries spend on defense vs. that of the U.S, and if there is a threat, how much should they increase it? And even if they do, CAN, say, Poland, Estonia, Czech republic, etc, withstand a full-scale Russian invasion without US help? And what would happen if Putin did rage unchecked across Europe, and the U.S. just sits back and says "Oh well, not our problem?" I generally have leaned isolationism in foreign policy but have nonetheless disagreed with Trump in his approach to isolationism, as I feel there is a responsible and irresponsible way to go about it. Trump basically saying "Fuck it, let the Russians just have it! If they don't wanna step up and defend themselves it's their fault!" is irresponsible.

 

[SmokingFap]

It's more complex than that. On the one hand he's right that the European countries need to pay more into nato and stop relying on us to do it so much, but on the other hand we back in the day made a commitment to protect them when nato was formed.

There's no slush fund that NATO countries pay into. The "2% of GDP spending on military" thing is a goal, not a criterion of membership, and it is not paid to NATO as an organization. It is an arbitrary, aspirational goal meant to ensure that every country within NATO is at least somewhat prepared to defend itself against aggressors, at least long enough for the rest of the NATO member nations to come to its aid. Trump and his MAGA idiots really should learn what that guideline actually means.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So, I'm really trying to take a neutral approach here, but- if I can paraphrase and read through all the ultra partisan, sociopathic hate-mongering garbage that Rightguide usually spews, the point Trump was trying to make is this: That the European countries should step up their military defense budgets and rely less on the powers across the Atlantic to jump in and fight their wars for them. The idea has some merit, but- the question I would ask here is first of all, how much of their respective GDP's do these countries spend on defense vs. that of the U.S, and if there is a threat, how much should they increase it? And even if they do, CAN, say, Poland, Estonia, Czech republic, etc, withstand a full-scale Russian invasion without US help? And what would happen if Putin did rage unchecked across Europe, and the U.S. just sits back and says "Oh well, not our problem?" I generally have leaned isolationism in foreign policy but have nonetheless disagreed with Trump in his approach to isolationism, as I feel there is a responsible and irresponsible way to go about it. Trump basically saying "Fuck it, let the Russians just have it! If they don't wanna step up and defend themselves it's their fault!" is irresponsible.

NATO was formed for mutual defence. To be a push back against the USSR. Since then it has grown and expanded. Each country supports their own military, but also commits money to the NATO budget. The great thing about NATO is the fact all countries agree to use the same military equipment, and engage in mutual training.

The USA putting more money in the collective budget, or putting less money in the collective budget is a smokescreen, since all NATO members support their own Countries military beyond the NATO alignment. Article 5 is the main point of NATO's deterrence. IE you attacked one, you have attacked all.

That article, used only once in history, has kept the peace in Europe for many decades. The US doesn't fund the defence of Europe, it helps fund the NATO budget, and that budget is used to defend all NATO members.

 

[Rotadom]

Old enough to remember when these ninnies were screaming the end times when that lost Chinese "spy" balloon floated over the mainland last year.

Funny how you don't hear about that anymore, eh?

MS-13!

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Straight talk is the American way everywhere

So is date rape.

 

[HisArpy]

That's where you're wrong. Having said what he said certain Nato countries have already expressed plans to upgrade their spending. They need to be kicked in the ass by reality.

Here's the thing about European security; if they'd just stop invading each other they wouldn't need to worry about Trump's comments about NATO.

But, since the NATO allies are a bunch of stupid freeloading shits, they need the US to run NATO for their protection. Which is why the threat of the US leaving them without the money to keep the war machine running terrorizes them so much.

 

[HisArpy]

So, I'm really trying to take a neutral approach here, but- if I can paraphrase and read through all the ultra partisan, sociopathic hate-mongering garbage that Rightguide usually spews, the point Trump was trying to make is this: That the European countries should step up their military defense budgets and rely less on the powers across the Atlantic to jump in and fight their wars for them. The idea has some merit, but- the question I would ask here is first of all, how much of their respective GDP's do these countries spend on defense vs. that of the U.S, and if there is a threat, how much should they increase it? And even if they do, CAN, say, Poland, Estonia, Czech republic, etc, withstand a full-scale Russian invasion without US help? And what would happen if Putin did rage unchecked across Europe, and the U.S. just sits back and says "Oh well, not our problem?" I generally have leaned isolationism in foreign policy but have nonetheless disagreed with Trump in his approach to isolationism, as I feel there is a responsible and irresponsible way to go about it. Trump basically saying "Fuck it, let the Russians just have it! If they don't wanna step up and defend themselves it's their fault!" is irresponsible.

They are required by the treaty to spend 2% of their GDP on NATO preparedness.

Most European nations spend approximately half that and some even less. I think the last numbers I saw was that the US spends around 5% of US GDP on military and NATO required preparedness.

 

[Rightguide]

Here's the thing about European security; if they'd just stop invading each other they wouldn't need to worry about Trump's comments about NATO.

But, since the NATO allies are a bunch of stupid freeloading shits, they need the US to run NATO for their protection. Which is why the threat of the US leaving them without the money to keep the war machine running terrorizes them so much.

The truth is the most peaceful years in European history are those 50 years after WWII when exceedingly large numbers of American troops were actually in Europe. For hundreds of years before we came into Europe it was almost continually at war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

We have to stop letting them pick our pockets and start their own defensive programs of cooperation. Maybe they need to get their asses kicked in order to learn that peace comes through strength. We have big problems of our own to solve and we're broke.