Trump full blown unamerican war monger

[Anonymous]

Both former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama regularly expressed frustration with NATO member countries for not spending more of their budgets on defense.(Hitlers are everywhere!)

For Obama, the issue of NATO defense spending became especially important during his second term, when Russia's arming of separatists in Ukraine and subsequent annexation of Crimea in 2014 stunned the West.


"If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in, and I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO. Not all, but many," Obama said at a press conference in Brussels in March 2014, less than a week after Russia declared that Crimea was now a Russian state.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html

We have to be “loyal Allies” or we are Hitlers who wants the world to burn; our “loyal Allies” say screw you, don’t pay, and we still do whatever it takes to defend them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here. I hate the orange baboon as much as the next sane person, but I don’t see the big deal in what Trump said here. He said
that the member countries who aren’t paying their fair share, aren’t meeting NATO defense spending requirements, and haven’t been for a long time shouldn’t expect America to come running to their defense.

Why is this wrong? How long are we going to expect America to subsidize European countries’ refusal to spend on their own defense? These countries have a safety net, socialized medicine, free college education, and other nice perks for their people. Over here in America, we get a kick in the teeth when we’re sick and the ponzi scheme that is social security, but we’re supposed to continue propping up Europeans’ lifestyles and protecting them when they don’t care to protect themselves?

Are people really thinking or just knee-jerk attacking Trump?

+1 Europe provides educational assistance, free healthcare, etc, yo their citizens because they don’t have to recruit, arm, and maintain a military to defend themselves. They know we provide expensive and state of the art/advanced military technology and massive military manpower to defend them. And they don’t provide the funds needed to NATO, Trump points it out, and he’s a warmonger. It’s beyond ludicrous.

Exactly. Partisanship is a helluva drug. The case that European members of NATO are free riding is incontrovertible and we’re apparently supposed to just keep paying their way or else we’re Neo-Nazis who want Hitler to return.

Nobody is "free riding" and contrary to the BS that Trump has been peddling and what some of the partisan MAGA jokers here on DCUM want to claim, the NATO members defense expenditures have gone up significantly since Biden took office. Yet Trump would still go ahead and disband NATO and let Putin steamroll them if he had his way. It's disgusting.

The number of NATO nations meeting or exceeding the alliance's spending target has continued to fall, according to the latest official estimates.

The UK is one of only eight nations out of 30 believed to be hitting the target and remains fourth in the list of proportional spending.

NATO sets alliance members the aim of spending 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence.

Up to June 2021, the alliance estimated that 10 nations were spending 2% or more of their GDP on defence.

But latest estimates show now only eight countries are achieving the target with Romania and France falling below the 2% threshold.

NATO data suggests the UK defence spending as a percentage of GDP dropped by 0.05 percentage points in 2021 to 2.25% from 2.30% from 2020.

Greece remains the alliance's biggest spender as a share of GDP, contributing 3.59%.

The US (3.57%) stays second with Poland (2.34%) third and Croatia, Estonia and Latvia (2.16%) joint-fifth.

Lithuania rounds off the nations hitting the GDP target, with a spend of 2.03%.

After dropping below the 2% guideline, France (1.93%) is ninth and Romania (1.88%) is 10th.

Luxembourg (0.54%) props up the proportional spending table with Spain (1.03%) and Belgium (1.07) making up the bottom three.

Two places above Belgium is Canada (1.36%), while Italy (1.54%), Germany (1.49%), the Netherlands (1.45%) and Denmark (1.40%) are all among the nations below the guideline.

Iceland, which does not have any armed forces, was not featured on the list.

Formed in the aftermath of the Second World War, NATO's original goals were to secure peace in Europe, promote co-operation among its members and counter the threat posed by the USSR, also known as the Soviet Union.

https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence

During the 2014 summit, all NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2025. In 2017, only four nations met the threshold: The United States (3.6%), Greece (2.4%), the United Kingdom (2.1%), and Poland (2.0%). However, by 2021, ten countries were meeting the percentage target.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country

Your charts and data showing spending going from only 4 countries meeting the target in 2017 to 10 meeting the target by 2021 and now 11 meeting the target and climbing is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Trump's narrative about the numbers "falling"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

[Anonymous]

It should also be noted that one generic metric like percent of GDP isn't necessarily that informative. Some countries "not meeting the target" are actually spending more per capita on defense than countries that are meeting the target.

Either way, anyone trying to claim that defense spending by constituent NATO nations is falling is absolutely wrong and deranged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here. I hate the orange baboon as much as the next sane person, but I don’t see the big deal in what Trump said here. He said
that the member countries who aren’t paying their fair share, aren’t meeting NATO defense spending requirements, and haven’t been for a long time shouldn’t expect America to come running to their defense.

Why is this wrong? How long are we going to expect America to subsidize European countries’ refusal to spend on their own defense? These countries have a safety net, socialized medicine, free college education, and other nice perks for their people. Over here in America, we get a kick in the teeth when we’re sick and the ponzi scheme that is social security, but we’re supposed to continue propping up Europeans’ lifestyles and protecting them when they don’t care to protect themselves?

Are people really thinking or just knee-jerk attacking Trump?

+1 Europe provides educational assistance, free healthcare, etc, yo their citizens because they don’t have to recruit, arm, and maintain a military to defend themselves. They know we provide expensive and state of the art/advanced military technology and massive military manpower to defend them. And they don’t provide the funds needed to NATO, Trump points it out, and he’s a warmonger. It’s beyond ludicrous.

Exactly. Partisanship is a helluva drug. The case that European members of NATO are free riding is incontrovertible and we’re apparently supposed to just keep paying their way or else we’re Neo-Nazis who want Hitler to return.

Nobody is "free riding" and contrary to the BS that Trump has been peddling and what some of the partisan MAGA jokers here on DCUM want to claim, the NATO members defense expenditures have gone up significantly since Biden took office. Yet Trump would still go ahead and disband NATO and let Putin steamroll them if he had his way. It's disgusting.

The number of NATO nations meeting or exceeding the alliance's spending target has continued to fall, according to the latest official estimates.

The UK is one of only eight nations out of 30 believed to be hitting the target and remains fourth in the list of proportional spending.

NATO sets alliance members the aim of spending 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence.

Up to June 2021, the alliance estimated that 10 nations were spending 2% or more of their GDP on defence.

But latest estimates show now only eight countries are achieving the target with Romania and France falling below the 2% threshold.

NATO data suggests the UK defence spending as a percentage of GDP dropped by 0.05 percentage points in 2021 to 2.25% from 2.30% from 2020.

Greece remains the alliance's biggest spender as a share of GDP, contributing 3.59%.

The US (3.57%) stays second with Poland (2.34%) third and Croatia, Estonia and Latvia (2.16%) joint-fifth.

Lithuania rounds off the nations hitting the GDP target, with a spend of 2.03%.

After dropping below the 2% guideline, France (1.93%) is ninth and Romania (1.88%) is 10th.

Luxembourg (0.54%) props up the proportional spending table with Spain (1.03%) and Belgium (1.07) making up the bottom three.

Two places above Belgium is Canada (1.36%), while Italy (1.54%), Germany (1.49%), the Netherlands (1.45%) and Denmark (1.40%) are all among the nations below the guideline.

Iceland, which does not have any armed forces, was not featured on the list.

Formed in the aftermath of the Second World War, NATO's original goals were to secure peace in Europe, promote co-operation among its members and counter the threat posed by the USSR, also known as the Soviet Union.

https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence

During the 2014 summit, all NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2025. In 2017, only four nations met the threshold: The United States (3.6%), Greece (2.4%), the United Kingdom (2.1%), and Poland (2.0%). However, by 2021, ten countries were meeting the percentage target.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country

Your charts and data showing spending going from only 4 countries meeting the target in 2017 to 10 meeting the target by 2021 and now 11 meeting the target and climbing is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Trump's narrative about the numbers "falling"

30 countries in NATO should be meeting their obligations of 2% annually.

Why is it considered a triumph that so few NATO members do as they agreed?

Guess who makes up the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should also be noted that one generic metric like percent of GDP isn't necessarily that informative. Some countries "not meeting the target" are actually spending more per capita on defense than countries that are meeting the target.

Either way, anyone trying to claim that defense spending by constituent NATO nations is falling is absolutely wrong and deranged.

The majority of NATO countries don’t contribute.

Expenditures by NATO increase every year; the 2% agreed upon in 2014, and which has never been met by the majority of NATO “ALLIES” is not sufficient to fund NATO.

https://www.politico.eu/article/is-there-a-war-on-big-eu-powers-miss-nato-spending-targets-again-allies/

Not even a war has succeeded in pushing Europe’s biggest powers to reach their defense spending targets.
The Continent’s largest economies all fell short of a common goal of spending 2 percent of economic output on defense, according to a NATO report published Tuesday.
And across the entire military alliance, only seven out of 30 members spent at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year.

Germany: 1.49 percent. Italy: 1.51 percent. France: 1.89 percent.
And although that amounts to billions, officials and experts warn the organization’s members will need to spend much more to assure its security.
The figures, all NATO estimates for 2022, show that while allies have been pouring significantly more money into their militaries for years, many are still largely lagging behind an alliance spending target, set in 2014, to spend 2 percent on defense within a decade.
Of 30 members, only Greece, Poland, the Baltic states, the United Kingdom and the United States spent more than 2 percent of their economic output on defense last year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s annual report shows.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, whose country reached 2.12 percent last year according to the report, said on Tuesday that she was “quite shocked” when looking at who is and is not fulfilling the target.
“Come on, it’s not possible — I think everybody should understand, knowing and seeing what is happening in Ukraine, that we don’t have that time,” she told POLITICO.

Nevertheless, America remains NATO’s moneybags.

While the U.S. represents 54 percent of the alliance’s economic output, it contributes 70 percent of defense expenditure, the report noted.

The next-biggest spender, the U.K., amounted to about 6 percent of the alliance’s total spending, while Germany stood at around 5 percent.

https://www.politico.eu/article/is-there-a-war-on-big-eu-powers-miss-nato-spending-targets-again-allies/

Seems fair, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

This has nothing to do with NATO funding. Trump has signaled to Putin that an attack on NATO will not engender a response from the US under a Trump presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Europe is attacked, we definitely need to send our kids to die in a foreign war. The Europeans can sit back and relax knowing we will die to protect them.

Migrant attacks don’t count right?

Did you see what happened when the truckers got to the border? They couldn't find the problem and realized they'd been duped.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

This has nothing to do with NATO funding. Trump has signaled to Putin that an attack on NATO will not engender a response from the US under a Trump presidency.

No, Trump wants NATO Allies to pay their share.

I am sure you think Trump is signaling Putin publicly to attack NATO. Much like Biden said it was ok for Putin to take part of Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

This has nothing to do with NATO funding. Trump has signaled to Putin that an attack on NATO will not engender a response from the US under a Trump presidency.

No, Trump wants NATO Allies to pay their share.

I am sure you think Trump is signaling Putin publicly to attack NATO. Much like Biden said it was ok for Putin to take part of Ukraine.

Dp- he said he WOULD ENCOURAGE Russia to invade them, you lying pos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

This has nothing to do with NATO funding. Trump has signaled to Putin that an attack on NATO will not engender a response from the US under a Trump presidency.

No, Trump wants NATO Allies to pay their share.

I am sure you think Trump is signaling Putin publicly to attack NATO. Much like Biden said it was ok for Putin to take part of Ukraine.

Dp- he said he WOULD ENCOURAGE Russia to invade them, you lying pos.

During his long, rambling Jan. 19 press conference, President Joe Biden made yet another major policy misstep. Russia, he suggested would face but minor consequences if it restrained itself to but a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.



(CNN) President Joe Biden on Wednesday predicted Russia "will move in" to Ukraine, citing existential concerns by the country's president, Vladimir Putin, even as he acknowledged disunity within NATO over how to respond to a "minor incursion."

The remark elicited near-immediate outcry in Kyiv, where officials have been meeting with Biden's top diplomat as Russian troops amass on the country's border.

One Ukrainian official told CNN's Matthew Chance he was "shocked that the US President Biden would distinguish between incursion and invasion" and suggest that a minor incursion would not trigger sanctions.

"This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure," the official added, claiming he'd never heard any nuance like this from the US administration before.

"Kyiv is stunned," he said, referring to the Ukrainian government.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html

You are a real POS.Supporting Biden while he gave the GREEN LIGHT for Russians to INVADE Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

This has nothing to do with NATO funding. Trump has signaled to Putin that an attack on NATO will not engender a response from the US under a Trump presidency.

No, Trump wants NATO Allies to pay their share.

I am sure you think Trump is signaling Putin publicly to attack NATO. Much like Biden said it was ok for Putin to take part of Ukraine.

Dp- he said he WOULD ENCOURAGE Russia to invade them, you lying pos.

During his long, rambling Jan. 19 press conference, President Joe Biden made yet another major policy misstep. Russia, he suggested would face but minor consequences if it restrained itself to but a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.



(CNN) President Joe Biden on Wednesday predicted Russia "will move in" to Ukraine, citing existential concerns by the country's president, Vladimir Putin, even as he acknowledged disunity within NATO over how to respond to a "minor incursion."

The remark elicited near-immediate outcry in Kyiv, where officials have been meeting with Biden's top diplomat as Russian troops amass on the country's border.

One Ukrainian official told CNN's Matthew Chance he was "shocked that the US President Biden would distinguish between incursion and invasion" and suggest that a minor incursion would not trigger sanctions.

"This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure," the official added, claiming he'd never heard any nuance like this from the US administration before.

"Kyiv is stunned," he said, referring to the Ukrainian government.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html

You are a real POS.Supporting Biden while he gave the GREEN LIGHT for Russians to INVADE Ukraine.

Uh, who has been holding up funding Ukraine for the past 5 months? Who held up US military appointments for almost a year? It wasn't Joe or the Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From CNN article: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/donald-trump-israel-netanyahu-diplomacy/index.html

"The former president is advocating a return to his “America First” nationalist foreign policy, prizes tough talk and ruthlessness on the global stage, and remains disdainful of allies and the international security architecture that has been the foundation of American power since the end of World War II. While these are positions that would represent a sharp transformation of US foreign policy, it is quite legitimate for him to present them to voters and try to win support for his vision."

Yep, love it or hate it, it's a major shift away from funding and being involved in regional conflicts all over the globe. Possibly unique in our political system where both old school Republicans and moderate Democrats are pro-war.

The opposite of this is not peace, it is letting authoritarians take control of the world assets. That is not a win for the US, or the companies that drive out capitalist society. It isn't a matter of being "pro-war" it is matter of preventing catastrophic war in light of nuclear solutions to angered nations. No one in the US WANTS war. It would be a lot better if bad actors like Putin were put out of power. Short of that, we can either let one country invade another, or we can do what we can to maintain some sort of order. Why is Russia at war in Ukraine? Who knows, but Ukraine is a soverign country that has been invaded. We either let Russia invade and take them over, or we support Ukraine. Why should Russia be allowed to just take another country?

Europe should take care of its own backyard. Why in the world is that America’s job?

Just type “ I want more Pearl Harbor!”
It’s faster

So, the options are that we either pay for countries mooching off us or we end up with Pearl Harbor? Europe paying its fair share isn’t an option, huh?

That’s not happening, you lying sack of crap.

It might be more persuasive if he paid his own bills.

This cannot be emphasized enough.

[Anonymous]

“…we will never come to help you and to support you.”

Anyone who supports this fool is a traitor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO countries should pay their agreed upon share. Only 10 do out of 30. Trump is not a “warmonger” because these 20 countries are not paying their fair share and depend on us to defend them while they play socialist utopia.

Encouraging Putin to roll over them is warmongering.

You only hate Trump and will not acknowledge NATO funding is a long running problem. We can’t fund NATO, and send our Military to die for people who are too disloyal and uncaring to meet their agreed upon financial contributions to their Allies.

This has nothing to do with NATO funding. Trump has signaled to Putin that an attack on NATO will not engender a response from the US under a Trump presidency.

No, Trump wants NATO Allies to pay their share.

I am sure you think Trump is signaling Putin publicly to attack NATO. Much like Biden said it was ok for Putin to take part of Ukraine.

Dp- he said he WOULD ENCOURAGE Russia to invade them, you lying pos.

During his long, rambling Jan. 19 press conference, President Joe Biden made yet another major policy misstep. Russia, he suggested would face but minor consequences if it restrained itself to but a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.



(CNN) President Joe Biden on Wednesday predicted Russia "will move in" to Ukraine, citing existential concerns by the country's president, Vladimir Putin, even as he acknowledged disunity within NATO over how to respond to a "minor incursion."

The remark elicited near-immediate outcry in Kyiv, where officials have been meeting with Biden's top diplomat as Russian troops amass on the country's border.

One Ukrainian official told CNN's Matthew Chance he was "shocked that the US President Biden would distinguish between incursion and invasion" and suggest that a minor incursion would not trigger sanctions.

"This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure," the official added, claiming he'd never heard any nuance like this from the US administration before.

"Kyiv is stunned," he said, referring to the Ukrainian government.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html

You are a real POS.Supporting Biden while he gave the GREEN LIGHT for Russians to INVADE Ukraine.

Uh, who has been holding up funding Ukraine for the past 5 months? Who held up US military appointments for almost a year? It wasn't Joe or the Dems.

If Slow Joe’s doddering butt hadn’t green lit Russians to invade Ukraine, we would not need to fund a war in Ukraine.