Donald Trump

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

He got them to reconfirm what they had already agreed a few years ago at the Wales summit. No-one has increased military spending just yet so let's wait and see. Of course he's claiming it as a huge victory.

Views are split on this, but it does seem that his (rather crude) threats have helped galvanise some members into putting their money where their mouth is. For example:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/16/trumps-approach-to-nato-summit-made-a-difference-says-may-defence-spending

And I do have some sympathy with the US view that other members are not pulling their weight.

May's comments seem a bit contradictory. One minute she talked about $41bn increase in spending last year but then she says Trump's actions in raising this issue will make a difference. The agreement last year made $41bn difference already, what difference had this Trump tantrum made really?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

Can you explain to me what is positive about spending more money on defence? be it NATO, the US, Russia or any country come to think of it? Trump has Alzheimers, he wants NATO/Europe to spend more on defence against potentially the main foe the Russians, yet on the other hand he wants to get into bed with Putin.

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

Can you explain to me what is positive about spending more money on defence? be it NATO, the US, Russia or any country come to think of it? Trump has Alzheimers, he wants NATO/Europe to spend more on defence against potentially the main foe the Russians, yet on the other hand he wants to get into bed with Putin.

Here's a good article on why:
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-donald-trump-defense-spending-give-due-europe-must-spend-more/
True, its not just about spending but that is an important part of the equation.

If it is a bad idea, why did NATO members (including several EU countries) pledge to increase spending on it? The issue here was with getting them to put their money where their mouth is.

surrey_commuter

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

Can you explain to me what is positive about spending more money on defence? be it NATO, the US, Russia or any country come to think of it? Trump has Alzheimers, he wants NATO/Europe to spend more on defence against potentially the main foe the Russians, yet on the other hand he wants to get into bed with Putin.

Most EU countries are freeloading on US defence spending. Why should the US pay to defend the EU when they are of roughly equal size in population and GDP?

The EU spending more makes them less dependent on the US. The US gets to spend less and cut their deficit.

sungod

what has the eu got to do with nato? they are separate entities

trump got nothing out of the recent nato meeting, he simply damaged relationships and made himself look idiotic to anyone who knows the facts

nato members agreed to the 2% of gdp goal back in 2002, these days more meet it than ever, but it's a goal not a requirement

should they spend more? in many cases yes, but it's not straightforward...

usa military spending is not what it spends on nato, and per capita there are european countries that spend more on defence than the usa, are the usa and others freeloading on them?

Each of the 29 members contribute to those costs through an agreed cost-sharing formula based on the country’s gross domestic product. As the member with the largest GDP, the U.S. contributed 22 percent of NATO’s common funding. Not far behind is Germany with about 15 percent, then France and the United Kingdom with about 10 percent.

With common costs of about $2.5 billion in 2017, the U.S. share of about $550 million doesn’t change the picture, since Europe’s share was a much larger $1.8 billion.

hmm, so the usa funds about 22% of nato, europe funds about 72%, hardly freeloading

non-nato usa spending in europe is the usa's choice, the usa has long believed it derives significant strategic military and other benefit from it's presence in europe (as with it's presence elsewhere in the world), that's not the eu freeloading, that's the usa making a decision in it's own interest

basing assumptions about military matters on the lies of a draft dodger can leave you in error

mfin

Sounds like he might be about to go back on dismissing Russian meddling in the election when he was stood with Putin https://news.sky.com/story/trump-in-u-turn-on-russia-press-conference-11440009

This evening he said that what he meant to say was he didn't see any reason why Russia wouldn't be responsible for meddling in the 2016 vote

Horse shït. He knew exactly what he was saying, and had gone one to say he believed Putin's denial.

He really must believe people are completely and utterly brain dead thick, which can only mean he is. This is the only reason he could think he could think people will believe this complete contradiction of what he clearly said.

Un-be-f**k-ing-lievable.

If he can accidentally say the opposite of what he means and not immediately realise it correct himself, he's not fit for office. If he did it on purpose he's not fit for office either, and it's this that he's done.

shirley_basso

You say brain dead thick but is that the crux of the matter?

His voters don't care and his opposition can't convert the die hard.

bianchimoon

mfin wrote:

Sounds like he might be about to go back on dismissing Russian meddling in the election when he was stood with Putin https://news.sky.com/story/trump-in-u-turn-on-russia-press-conference-11440009

This evening he said that what he meant to say was he didn't see any reason why Russia wouldn't be responsible for meddling in the 2016 vote

Horse shït. He knew exactly what he was saying, and had gone one to say he believed Putin's denial.

He really must believe people are completely and utterly brain dead thick, which can only mean he is. This is the only reason he could think he could think people will believe this complete contradiction of what he clearly said.

Un-be-f**k-ing-lievable.

If he can accidentally say the opposite of what he means and not immediately realise it correct himself, he's not fit for office. If he did it on purpose he's not fit for office either, and it's this that he's done.

There is an incredible amount of pressure being put on him from the GOP, after he went so far off the agreed pre summit script, that he is at last in hot water with the Repugs. More backlash to come I’d say.

Stevo_666

sungod wrote:

nato members agreed to the 2% of gdp goal back in 2002, these days more meet it than ever, but it's a goal not a requirement

should they spend more? in many cases yes, but it's not straightforward...

The pledge to spend 2% is very straightforward.

And as you know in corporate speak, describing something as a goal not a requirement is usually a tacit admission of failure, or an excuse in advance of failure.

The US has a point about certain other NATO members nor doing their share, even if Trump put it rarher crudely.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Although on the flip side of the cosying up to Putin, getting other NATO members to increase spending and honour their commitments is a positive thing in my view. I haven't seen much comment about that on here.

Err, do you know what NATO is even for?

And it's not like you to be so into a supranational organisation based in Belgium getting more funding...

Very peculiar.

Rick, write out 100 times: "I must RTFP and resist the temptation to post like a patronising **** "

FTFY Rick - today's lesson is...

robert88

Trump ties himself in nots

Trump, facing fury, says he misspoke with Putin

.. Trump said that when he returned Monday from the summit with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, he "realized there is some need for clarification" about his remarks on Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
"In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,' " the President said Tuesday. He explained he had reviewed a transcript and video of his remarks.
"The sentence should have been: 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia,' " he said. "Sort of a double negative."
During Monday's news conference, Trump said, "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia that interfered in the election.

It seems that the criticism he has encountered since the summit has been far stronger than he imagined.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

Can you explain to me what is positive about spending more money on defence? be it NATO, the US, Russia or any country come to think of it? Trump has Alzheimers, he wants NATO/Europe to spend more on defence against potentially the main foe the Russians, yet on the other hand he wants to get into bed with Putin.

Most EU countries are freeloading on US defence spending. Why should the US pay to defend the EU when they are of roughly equal size in population and GDP?

The EU spending more makes them less dependent on the US. The US gets to spend less and cut their deficit.

Not really sure you're getting what's in it for the US to have NATO.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

Yeah. If that's what you meant, you probably should have written that.

And, as above, he's just re-itterating something that was already agreed.

Given he's also been sounding off about not wanting to have to come to aid if a smaller NATO member was attacked, I don't think he really understands what it's about.

As ever, he thinks a deal is where one person is mugging the other off, so if he's not mugging, he's being mugged.

I'm surprised you're so in favour of giving more money to a supranational Brussels based organisation that significantly reduces UK agency and sovereignty when it comes to declaring and waging war.

fenix

Did Nato stop us in the Falklands ? I can't remember.

I do think that having Nato cuts down the chances that we go to war with our neighbours.

rick_chasey

Fenix wrote:

Did Nato stop us in the Falklands ? I can't remember.

I do think that having Nato cuts down the chances that we go to war with our neighbours.

Because the Americans when they drew up NATO were less idiotic at the time and agreed that it only counted for territories in Europe or North America North of the Tropic of Cancer.

bianchimoon

It's a good job being able to speak and think coherently isn't a pre requisite to be the most powerful man in the world, i mean it's not as if mixing words/meanings up and not realising until after 48 hours have passed matters. Surely that gives you enough time to recall the cruise missiles you said launch but actually meant don't launch?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump being played like a piano by Putin is good for NATO?

I mean, either you don't know what NATO is or you're stupid if you think that.

Be glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your first sentence shows me that you don't understand what I posted. I never said that the Trump-Putin goings on in Helsinki were good for NATO - I'll try to put it more simply for you:

- Despite what has happened with Trump and Putin recently, Trumps influence on NATO spending has been a positive thing. Get it now? :roll:

Yeah. If that's what you meant, you probably should have written that.

And, as above, he's just re-itterating something that was already agreed.

Given he's also been sounding off about not wanting to have to come to aid if a smaller NATO member was attacked, I don't think he really understands what it's about.

As ever, he thinks a deal is where one person is mugging the other off, so if he's not mugging, he's being mugged.

I'm surprised you're so in favour of giving more money to a supranational Brussels based organisation that significantly reduces UK agency and sovereignty when it comes to declaring and waging war.

You should have read it properly the first time, it seems to have been clear enough to everyone but you.

Goes without saying that there is a slight difference between the EU and NATO. Can you point me to where I said that all supra-national organisations are a bad idea?

bianchimoon

America’s State Department paid £52,477 for Donald Trump’s two-night stay at his Turnberry golf resort during the U.S. president’s visit to the U.K. last week, the Scotsman reported Tuesday.

I'm sure he did himself a good deal :roll:

bianchimoon

On Farage radio show Trump and Farage's mate true to form, sick cn**s

In response to Bannon’s comments about Robinson, Theo Usherwood, LBC’s political editor, said: “But he broke the law!” Bannon replied: “A lot of people would say that law is very restrictive.”

After the Bannon interview had finished, Underwood tweeted that Bannon said to him off-air: “Fu– you. Don’t you fu–ing say you’re calling me out. You fu–ing liberal elite. Tommy Robinson is the backbone of this country.”

robert88

bianchimoon wrote:

On Farage radio show Trump and Farage's mate true to form, sick cn**s

In response to Bannon’s comments about Robinson, Theo Usherwood, LBC’s political editor, said: “But he broke the law!” Bannon replied: “A lot of people would say that law is very restrictive.”

After the Bannon interview had finished, Underwood tweeted that Bannon said to him off-air: “Fu– you. Don’t you fu–ing say you’re calling me out. You fu–ing liberal elite. Tommy Robinson is the backbone of this country.”

Wow! Imagine how embarrassed Steve must have been to be caught out like that.

..or maybe, on second thoughts, it's exactly what he wanted to be reported. Mr Usherwood did him proud.

bianchimoon

Robert88 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

On Farage radio show Trump and Farage's mate true to form, sick cn**s

In response to Bannon’s comments about Robinson, Theo Usherwood, LBC’s political editor, said: “But he broke the law!” Bannon replied: “A lot of people would say that law is very restrictive.”

After the Bannon interview had finished, Underwood tweeted that Bannon said to him off-air: “Fu– you. Don’t you fu–ing say you’re calling me out. You fu–ing liberal elite. Tommy Robinson is the backbone of this country.”

Wow! Imagine how embarrassed Steve must have been to be caught out like that.

..or maybe, on second thoughts, it's exactly what he wanted to be reported. Mr Usherwood did him proud.

Both Usherwood and Underwood must be a soft pair, there was two of them, they could easily have taken the fat slobbering tawt

FishFish

Fenix wrote:

Did Nato stop us in the Falklands ? I can't remember.

I do think that having Nato cuts down the chances that we go to war with our neighbours.

Nato provided a naval patrol round the British isles during the conflict. I think the BOAT came from the German Navy. That is what Nato is supposed to do. They probably didn't believe in the war or they would have adopted the doctrine = attack one of us and you attack all of us.

Who gives one anyway. The islands are clearly not british.

orraloon

Fenix wrote:

I do think that having Nato cuts down the chances that we go to war with our neighbours.

No chance of war with our neighbours. Not while we are at war with ourselves.

FishFish

You raise an interesting point - which is unusual for you and equally likely to be inadvertent.

Extending the surmise about Britain declaring war on anyone - has anyone ever declared war on Britain? I just don't know.

surrey_commuter

FishFish wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Did Nato stop us in the Falklands ? I can't remember.

I do think that having Nato cuts down the chances that we go to war with our neighbours.

Nato provided a naval patrol round the British isles during the conflict. I think the BOAT came from the German Navy. That is what Nato is supposed to do. They probably didn't believe in the war or they would have adopted the doctrine = attack one of us and you attack all of us.

Who gives one anyway. The islands are clearly not british.

It was not a war, it was a conflict. From memory this makes a huge legal difference

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Did Nato stop us in the Falklands ? I can't remember.

I do think that having Nato cuts down the chances that we go to war with our neighbours.

Because the Americans when they drew up NATO were less idiotic at the time and agreed that it only counted for territories in Europe or North America North of the Tropic of Cancer.

But seventy years ago only America had the power to stop Russia and yes it was obviously in there interest.
But seventy years later the Euro members have roughly the same population and wealth. It would seem only fair they pony up the 2%. Frankly it is unbelievable that the Baltic states make no effort yet expect everybody else to come to their aid.

TheBigBean

FishFish wrote:

The islands are clearly not british.

What are they? French?

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

FishFish wrote:

The islands are clearly not british.

What are they? French?

Much like Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingsman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, or dare I say it, Hawaii? Plus a few other administered from other than Washington.

rick_chasey

FishFish wrote:

Who gives one anyway. The islands are clearly not british.

On rereading that presumably you mistyped and you meant they clearly are British.