Much as it pains me to admit, I give Trump credit here. Long overdue.
Replies to: Much as it pains me to admit, I give Trump credit here. Long overdue.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
(no message)
What a d bag response.
(no message)
Your Don calls supporters 'basement dwellers' & Vets 'suckers and losers'. All yours, Senior Chief.
(no message)
Wrong again, I have a star. You’ve bought into the hate just to be right. Sad
(no message)
Corrected. Headed down for 4th. Sea 'N Air and fam time.
(no message)
Holes 2 3 and 4. Hit a 4 iron from the left fairway bunker on #4 to a foot from 185
(no message)
Oh he has his own agenda which is to make them shoulder their own defense without us.
(no message)
Previously, you & other Dems thought his negotiating position was his final position.
I did some searching. You mentioned Trump "bagging on NATO," and you said "Because of our loser prez. Putin knows that he would never let us fight to fulfill our NATO obligations"
You also said that Trump would pull us out of NATO: "And who will pull us out of NATO? Own your vote. ..."
Nice to see some acknowledgement that he was trying to provoke NATO to "hump their own shit" as Lance aptly put it.
Trump's efforts with NATO will make NATO a much tougher opponent for Putin. He does deserve credit for that, as you say. It is just weird to watch everyone freak out about this interim negotiating positions as if they are his final goals.
Stand by all of those comments. And yeah no one ever thought he ever changes positions. Hence the
name TACO. Do better, in fact significantly better. I do enjoy though living rent free in your head.
Every negotiation entails setting a goal, and taking an initial position that will be compromised.
That is why the TACO thing is funny to anyone who knows how a negotiation is properly done. Changing positions in a negotiation (e.g., regarding acceptable amount of contribution to settle the matter) is how negotiations typically proceed. The goal is not stated out loud, because then the other side just jumps to that as the starting point of compromise, not the end point of compromise. You want to sell a car for $30k, you offer it for $32k; you want to buy a car for $30k, you offer $28k to buy it. Then you negotiate. Changing your position is not surrendering; it is how negotiations work. If you start with $30k offer to buy (your end goal), you will either have to walk out without a car, or pay $31k. That is what would be worthy of ridicule, not negotiating up from $28k to $30k...and yet that is, analogously, what the Left ridicules, on this issue, tariffs, etc.
For Trump, the goal was a strong NATO. The initial position was "if you don't hump your own shit, we won't hump it for you." A very aggressive position, to be sure, but encouragement over the last few decades for them to live up to their commitments hadn't worked. NATO responded to this position, and is now starting to hump their own shit. Success. You can pretend that Trump wanted to withdraw or undermine NATO, as you stated previously, and as you reiterate today...although, how you can believe that and still give Trump credit is plainly silly. But, that is obviously not true to everyone paying attention who is not a pure partisan blinded to the reality of how these things are done.
Oh please shoring up NATO was never his goal. His goal is to not have to fulfill the Article 5
obligation. He will not fight for Europe. He expects them to handle that. They know he’s unreliable and that is one reason for the commitment because they need to do it. He has talked about withdrawing from the treaty for a long time. Nonetheless getting them to do this is important whether we are involved with it or not. They need to be spending this figure to ensure proper defense of the continent. If that’s what it took to get them to do it, I’m okay with it.
Link: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/
You are giving him credit for something you think he never intended. Um, ok.
Sounds more like you are stuck with your ridiculous posts from the past, and you don't know what to do when called on it, so you just 'doublethink' it, and have two conflicting viewpoints at the same time. Well done Syme.
Oh I think he intended to push them to raise their contributions. I also think that he has no
intentions of ever having the US involved in a ground war in Europe to defeat Russian aggression. The 2 aren’t contradictory. In fact they are complimentary because it allows him to argue they are strong enough not to need us.
Interesting viewpoint. I think he is not a subtle person like that. But, meh.
(no message)
It’s not subtle at all. He has always disliked NATO and our commitment of having to directly defend
them from Russian aggression. He also correctly believes that they haven’t done enough to shoulder their own defense. He kills 2 birds with one stone.
TDS.
(no message)
I’ll give Trump credit for this:
He is willing to meet with anyone, if it furthers US interests.
He was criticized for meeting with Kim Jong Un in term one; apparently he is going to meet (or his subordinates are going to meet) directly with Iranians next week. Which we have not officially done since 1979.
Good for him. This can break logjams.
We all hump our own shit.
(no message)
NATO still hears DJT's words in last year's campaign questioning 'Article Five' along with
encouraging Russia to "do whatever the hell it wants to a NATO ally"...i.e. the U.S. can no longer be counted on, so NATO needs to fend for itself against the reason they exist as an alliance...Putin...who just happens to have a hold on Trump...and they know it. Trump sees it as "Deal Making"...NATO sees it as "Alliance Breaking".
btw, this is very likely to result in decreased U.S. Defense Industry sales...as well as influence.
Of course. That's Trump's goal. Don't use Article 5 to seek US protection. What does 5% mean?
Do a math. European military build-up with that size of spending, far more than that of US, is strong enough for Europe to protect themselves without much help from US. 5% spending makes Europe grow up to become independent.
Trump's another goal is NATO countries have to buy military equipments from U.S.. Most of them don't have capacity to make these equipments anyway. So, the end results of 5% spending: Europe take care of themselves and increase US arm exports. Trump is genius.
“Do a math”. Can you at least try a little harder?
(no message)
You should also give Putin credit. He’s the one who made it happen.
(no message)
That's the excuse sold to their citizens by EU establishment. They know US is leaving. The center of
future world is in Pacific.
We have spread our responsibility too wide and too much. We need focus on the Pacific and the Arctic. Europe have to take care of themselves. Their establishment understands it well. But they have to persuade their citizens/voters who grow up in liberal social wellfare states to support this 5% goal.
Fearmongering is always the tactic that any government use to their citizens/voters in order to achieve their goals. In this 5% case, it's Russia Russia Russia.
The US isn’t leaving and it’s Russia Russia Russia because Russia…
Is a cunt of a country led by a cunt who has his eye on Eastern Europe.
Rolling back US footprint in Europe is no longer a secret. It's a plan. Slow and ignorant.
You’re uninformed and a traitor. The Pentagon…
at the direction the CURRENT administration is evaluating force command in Europe. It’s not a forgone conclusion that we’re “leaving” Europe. That’s an asinine assumption and completely expected from a Putin cock sucker.
Also, if Trump follows through, which I doubt, it would take a lot longer than his remaining term.
Russia is a cunt country and you’re a Putin cock sucker.
Putin made his attentions clear decades ago... the Euros blinded themselves to the truth.
Even Trump was against the Nordstrum pipeline.
Link: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-plays-trump-card-in-pursuit-of-russian-nord-stream-2-pipeline-dream/
The truth is that Trump supported Nordstream 2...(see linked article explaining this)
...as for Germany, they made a mistake and are now joining others in the EU to rectify that error.
Link: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4726844-trumps-nord-stream-2-disaster/mlite/
Agree 100%
(no message)
Ok, but the US doesn't spend 5% of it's GDP for defense, so why require others?
(no message)
Because let’s face it in this alliance we do the rules. Moreover the sheer volume of our GDP
dwarf’s everyone eles even at a lower %.
He's a Gordian Knot cutter.
I can't stand his personality or expressions... but on some issues he gets the
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
'Knot' here...and 'Knot' in the Middle East either ;-)
(no message)