Why is Trump so stupid?

[DeluxAuto]

It's a hypothetical. I don't want President Biden to order Donald Trump to be beaten to a bloody pulp. I was just pointing out that according to you it would be perfectly legal if he did so.

It fact, according to your theories, it would be perfectly legal for President Biden to order the Department of Justice to seize Donald Trump without evidence and hold him indefinitely without a trial.

He doesn't get it. Or, he gets it but he's dug in and can't afford to admit he's 100% totally wrong.

 

[HisArpy]

It's a hypothetical. I don't want President Biden to order Donald Trump to be beaten to a bloody pulp. I was just pointing out that according to you it would be perfectly legal if he did so.

It fact, according to your theories, it would be perfectly legal for President Biden to order the Department of Justice to seize Donald Trump without evidence and hold him indefinitely without a trial.

It's a THREAT you fucking ass. It doesn't matter if you intend to carry it out, you just made a god damned threat against a former President.

And you just made it after being egged on by your own damned stupidity and the urging of the other fuckwits without brains who think that you can say/do anything on the internet with impunity.

And you just swallowed all that shit and spewed it out again because somehow you think it makes you cool. It doesn't.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It's a THREAT you fucking ass. It doesn't matter if you intend to carry it out, you just made a god damned threat against a former President.

And you just made it after being egged on by your own damned stupidity and the urging of the other fuckwits without brains who think that you can say/do anything on the internet with impunity.

And you just swallowed all that shit and spewed it out again because somehow you think it makes you cool. It doesn't.

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

He would do well to put you on ignore.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.

A threat can be ANY statement of intent to harm another. ANY statement, even a purported hypothetical.

People have gone to jail and/or prison for LESS THAN what you just did so you really do need to shut the hell up.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The NATO treaty does not explicitly mandate direct financial payments by individual member countries. However, national contributions play a crucial role in funding NATO’s activities. Here’s how it works:

1. National Contributions:
   • The largest component of NATO funding comes from national (or indirect) contributions borne by each member country.
   • These contributions include the forces and capabilities held by each nation, which can be provided to NATO for deterrence, defense activities, and military operations1.
2. 2% Guideline:
   
   • While not a strict requirement of the NATO treaty, an informal agreement among members exists.
   • According to this agreement, each member country aims to allocate at least 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) to national defense or military spending2.
   • However, this guideline is not legally binding, and actual spending varies among member nations.
3. Voluntary Commitments:
   • NATO allies voluntarily choose to contribute troops, capabilities, and funding to the alliance.
   • The specific amount each country spends on its defense is not mandated but is guided by self-imposed standards and guidelines to ensure the alliance’s military preparedness3.

In summary, while NATO does not directly require financial payments, member countries’ contributions are essential for maintaining the alliance’s strength and security.

Learn more​

1nato.int2usafacts.org3abcnews.go.com4nato.int5gettyimages.com

So in essence the US is not required to spend any money and could refuse to provide monetary aid like 2/3ds of Nato members do as we speak. right?

Thanks for showing that a country not paying it's 2% of GDP is not a problem. Your correct, if the US didn't pay it's 2% it could still be a full member of NATO.

 

[Rick345]

So in essence the US is not required to spend any money and could refuse to provide monetary aid like 2/3ds of Nato members do as we speak. right

Trump is not talking about refusing to pay money into the NATO. He flatly said if a county was attacked when he were president the US military will not come to their defense via the treaty that is something he cannot do.. This month Trump caused an uproar when he said he once warned a NATO ally that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries in the alliance that don't spend enough on defense.

NATO “funding” isn’t what people think. The NATO charter says fellow nation should pay 2% of their GDP on their military. In 2006, an informal agreement between members promised at least 2% of each country’s gross domestic product (GDP) to national defense or military spending. A 2014 NATO summit formalized this 2%.

The US is projected to cover roughly 16% of NATO’s 2023 budget following the accession of Finland in April. Which certainly doesn’t seem fair but what does the 16% actually encompass? Why are we covering 16% of NATO's budget?

As of October 2023, the United States has about 750 military bases in at least 80 countries. These bases include everything from "Little Americas" and small radar facilities. The US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. Which I think is stupid and wasteful. The disparity between US military spending and other NATO nations is not other nations don’t spend enough it is that we spend too much.

We have 119 base sites in Germany; 119 in Japan; 73 in South Korea; 44 in Italy. Others in Aruba, Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Estonia, Greece, Honduras, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Spain, Tunisia, UK, US Virgins, Wake Island. Pentagon figure of 625 base sites omits bases in Iraq, Syria, Niger, and many other well-known (e.g., Kuwait, Kosovo) and secretive bases (Israel, Saudi Arabia). 8 countries (minimum) where the US military has or recently had troops in combat.

I’m all for closing the majority of our military bases overseas. Lets close all but two each in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, and Italy.. Also lets statically close our military bases in other countries so we could a presence where needed but not doubly so.. Let’s hem in in our military presence so we spend only twice as much as Russia and China combined and not as much as the next ten counties combined.

Overseas bases are costly $10,000-$40,000 avg. additional costs per person per year to station military overseas vs. domestic. $55 billion/year (est.) to build and maintain overseas bases. $80+ billion/year (est.) in total spending on bases and personnel abroad.

Close bases, boost U.S. diplomatic presence globally to rebuild alliances. Let’s not whine and bitch Finland doesn’t bases and military personnel all over the world. So if they are attacked by Russia we are going to just let Russia overrun them so Russia can expand their military presence at the expense of our own..

 

[jomar]

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

Harpy’s on the verge of a meltdown.

You constantly hand him his ass yet he comes back for more. I haven’t checked the Fetish and Sexuality Central forum, but I suspect his kink is femdom masochism and he brats for your attention. No judgement from me on what turns the crank, though

He would do well to put you on ignore.

Oh please no I hope not

 

[DeluxAuto]

People have gone to jail and/or prison for LESS THAN what you just did so you really do need to shut the hell up.

Do you have a case to provide us with?

 

[Bray123]

It's a THREAT you fucking ass. It doesn't matter if you intend to carry it out, you just made a god damned threat against a former President.

You misspelled 'citizen'.

 

[dmallord]

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

Will it be determined that he acted in his Presidential capacity while engaged in the fake elector episodes or is that not relevant to the J6 situation?

 

[dmallord]

I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.

A threat can be ANY statement of intent to harm another. ANY statement, even a purported hypothetical.

People have gone to jail and/or prison for LESS THAN what you just did so you really do need to shut the hell up.

Trump: And the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated because the 2,236 and absentee ballots, I mean, they’re all exact numbers that were, were done by accounting firms, law firms, etc. And even if you cut ’em in half, cut ’em in half and cut ’em in half again, it’s more votes than we need.

You know Brad, what you did is illegal. You could go to jail for what you did.

RAFFENSPERGER: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. We, we talked to the congressmen, and they were surprised. But they — I guess, there’s a person named Mr. Brainard that came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. There were only two dead people votes.

TRUMP: ... because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have ...

Is that the kind of conversation that might convey a threat from a President to an elected official, @HisArpy?

 

[Bray123]

Will it be determined that he acted in his Presidential capacity while engaged in the fake elector episodes or is that not relevant to the J6 situation?

Of course it's the duty of an out-going president to line up a group of cult members, hide them in a basement overnight and get them to sign forged documents to be produced by magic in the morning.

Is it the duty of a Democratic President as well, or does it apply only to a Republican one?

 

[Pad_Foot]

Hasn’t he bashed and demeaned every one of these VP picks?

Said they were unworthy of the presidency?

Who wants a schmuck who would kiss the ass of someone who did that to them ??

Hmm? Maybe not all.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/us-ne...list-incudes-desantis-gabbard-scott-noem/amp/

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Keeping in line with the thread's title, we present you with this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760321584777093410

 

[Rick345]

So in essence the US is not required to spend any money and could refuse to provide monetary aid like 2/3ds of Nato members do as we speak. right?

NATO has nothing to do with providing monetary aid to anyone. What the charter says is fellow members should spend 2% of their individual GDP on their own militaries. If a NATO member comes under attack by someone other NATO members will come to their aid. What Trump said is when he is president if some NATO member doesn't spend 2% of their GDP on their own military the US will not come to their aid if they are attacked.

For example Canada spends only 1.35% of their GDP on the Canadian military.. So what Trump is saying if Russia invades Canada, Trump will not send in US military forces to repel the Russian invasion. What I'll saying if Russia invades north america I'd prefer fighting them in Whitehorse, Winnipeg, Edmonton than in Seattle, Minneapolis, or Toledo..

 

[Nicefella]

The answer to the question is 'because his supporters allow him to be dumb'.

There was once a person called Howard Dean whose ambitions ended because he shouted something whilst too close to the microphone. Didn't defraud any charities, mock any disabled people, disparage the military, invite foreign spies to stay, sexually assault various women, screw a whore whilst his wife was giving birth, suggest that a virus could be cured by shining a bright light up the ass or drinking bleach. Just 'screaming' was viewed a unpresidential and that was the end of Dean.

I remember this @Bray123 - thanks for reminding me.

It was the dumbest fucking thing I had ever come across. Dean was consistently beat on by the legacy Dems like Kerry and others - and the idiots at MSNBC and CNN went along. And this speech in Iowa or wherever where he supposedly screamed was to rally his supporters.

Meanwhile Dean’s fundraising model is now the norm and adopted by nearly all politicos. Btw Dean turned out to be a sellout anyway - joining the Dems as their Chairman or whatever big dick empty power position.

But this shows how stupid people collectively are. Repubs or Dems or whatever - just overall fucking stupid

 

[Rightguide]

NATO has nothing to do with providing monetary aid to anyone. What the charter says is fellow members should spend 2% of their individual GDP on their own militaries. If a NATO member comes under attack by someone other NATO members will come to their aid. What Trump said is when he is president if some NATO member doesn't spend 2% of their GDP on their own military the US will not come to their aid if they are attacked.

For example Canada spends only 1.35% of their GDP on the Canadian military.. So what Trump is saying if Russia invades Canada, Trump will not send in US military forces to repel the Russian invasion. What I'll saying if Russia invades north america I'd prefer fighting them in Whitehorse, Winnipeg, Edmonton than in Seattle, Minneapolis, or Toledo..

So the US is free, like the 2/3rds of present Nato members not to spend any money. Who has the power to help us if we were to be attacked here at home?

No military on Earth has the logistical ability to invade and conquer the United States. Put aside the logistical problems, the geographical barriers are formidable.

 

[Rightguide]

Will it be determined that he acted in his Presidential capacity while engaged in the fake elector episodes or is that not relevant to the J6 situation?

The RICO case against Trump will fail.

 

[HisArpy]

So the US is free, like the 2/3rds of present Nato members not to spend any money. Who has the power to help us if we were to be attacked here at home?

No military on Earth has the logistical ability to invade and conquer the United States. Put aside the logistical problems, the geographical barriers are formidable.

I'm not so sure. What happens if the invasion is allowed to occur without the government trying to prevent it? Or if said government assists it?

There are approximately 8 million unlawfully present migrants inside the US. What happens if 10% of them are "invaders" who are here with the intent to attack the country and have orders to do so from their respective foreign military commanders?

 

[Bray123]

I'm not so sure. What happens if the invasion is allowed to occur without the government trying to prevent it? Or if said government assists it?

There are approximately 8 million unlawfully present migrants inside the US. What happens if 10% of them are "invaders" who are here with the intent to attack the country and have orders to do so from their respective foreign military commanders?

Stop all those commies coming into Florida from Cuba, for a start.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not so sure. What happens if the invasion is allowed to occur without the government trying to prevent it? Or if said government assists it?

There are approximately 8 million unlawfully present migrants inside the US. What happens if 10% of them are "invaders" who are here with the intent to attack the country and have orders to do so from their respective foreign military commanders?

I was referring to a conventional military attack, a three-ocean amphibious assault, and or conventional land invasions from the North or Mexico, not the 4th generation asymmetrical invasion that Biden is conducting. The massive guerrilla operation he's commanding at present is different.

 

[Rightguide]

Trump: And the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated because the 2,236 and absentee ballots, I mean, they’re all exact numbers that were, were done by accounting firms, law firms, etc. And even if you cut ’em in half, cut ’em in half and cut ’em in half again, it’s more votes than we need.

You know Brad, what you did is illegal. You could go to jail for what you did.

RAFFENSPERGER: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. We, we talked to the congressmen, and they were surprised. But they — I guess, there’s a person named Mr. Brainard that came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. There were only two dead people votes.

TRUMP: ... because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have ...

Is that the kind of conversation that might convey a threat from a President to an elected official, @HisArpy?

Yes, he wanted to find 11,780 votes he "believed" were there. So no "intent" to commit a crime or to defraud. Which is key.

 

[ll74]

Yes, he wanted to find 11,780 votes he "believed" were there. So no "intent" to commit a crime or to defraud. Which is key.

He had no business calling the SoS or election officials in GA nor Michigan. Legal challenges are how you resolve discrepancies

 

[dmallord]

Yes, he wanted to find 11,780 votes he "believed" were there. So no "intent" to commit a crime or to defraud. Which is key.

Trump's conversation was a strongarmed implied threat. Hey, you committed a crime, Brad. I'm telling you that. That was Trump's statements nothing in that part said I believe you did commit a crime. It was a statement of fact.

Trump followed up with 'find me those votes' and, of course, implied that the threat of Brad's crime would go away by finding them. That was clearly the message. The mafia boss language applied.

I understood Trump's reason for the call wasn't to express his opinion. As President, he was coercing a state-level administrator to make changes the administrator knew to be false. Knowing that Brad did the right thing. Knowing that the State of Georgia is prosecuting the ex-president, having the 'opinion' that what he did rises to the level of criminal actions.

It will be up to the State of Georgia to arrive at a decision about Trump's action - criminal or otherwise.

I 'believe' Trump's 'intent' was to coerce a wrongful change of numbers to benefit his re-election. If found guilty, I believe it would be justified. If found innocent, I'd shake my head but accept that.

How about you? Will you accept justice is served in either case? Stand up for a legal system's decision?