Anonymous wrote:If you are an American who wants to keep our money and troops at home, who do you support? No option when both Republicans and Democrats are all in on committing us to other countries.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What wars did Trump start when he was president? What wars happened when he was president?

Didn't he tell Germany not to build the Nord Stream pipeline because it would make them dependent on Russia? And they laughed at him.

Funny how selective and short terms memories are.

You are right, Trump didn't start any wars.

He simply let China take the South China Sea and he let Russia take Donbas without even a raised eyebrow.

When you side with the enemies, you don't need war, because you just let them take what they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What wars did Trump start when he was president? What wars happened when he was president?

Didn't he tell Germany not to build the Nord Stream pipeline because it would make them dependent on Russia? And they laughed at him.

Funny how selective and short terms memories are.

You are right, Trump didn't start any wars.

He simply let China take the South China Sea and he let Russia take Donbas without even a raised eyebrow.

When you side with the enemies, you don't need war, because you just let them take what they want.

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?

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

Anonymous wrote:What wars did Trump start when he was president? What wars happened when he was president?

Didn't he tell Germany not to build the Nord Stream pipeline because it would make them dependent on Russia? And they laughed at him.

Funny how selective and short terms memories are.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah.

We saw what a war hawk he was during his first term.

Nice try, OP.

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?

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?

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?