mainejeff wrote:
He IS a bad man....a very bad man. And I can't believe the people giving him a free pass in comparison to other Presidents. I guess it's just the anti-government crowd that would rather see a free-for-all anarchy type set-up in this country. Let's see.....anti-government, pro-gun, pro-authoritarian....yeah, I think most of us see where this is going and we WILL stop it.
Yes he is a bad man but that doesn't mean that everything he proposes or does is bad which the Donks don't seem to understand (and the Conks didn't seem to understand with Obama).
The anarchy argument is even more BS then the Soviet socialist argument that I like to use.
UNI88 wrote:
Yes he is a bad man but that doesn't mean that everything he proposes or does is bad which the Donks don't seem to understand (and the Conks didn't seem to understand with Obama).
The anarchy argument is even more BS then the Soviet socialist argument that I like to use.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
It's all "BS" until it's real...
You're right, you, Bernie and other alt-left wackos would set up re-education camps and gulags for noncomformists and free thinkers.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
Yeah, the 2% commitment was initiated by Obama. Most people think it was a part of NATO since it's inception. The countries agreed to work toward spending 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024.
I didn't know he called them "free riders"... But, who gives a shit? Sounds like he did it privately and he handled getting the 2% commitment diplomatically.
I prefer the way Trump handled it.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Yeah, the 2% commitment was initiated by Obama. Most people think it was a part of NATO since it's inception. The countries agreed to work toward spending 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024.
I didn't know he called them "free riders"... But, who gives a shit? Sounds like he did it privately and he handled getting the 2% commitment diplomatically.
I’m just pointing out that the idea that NATO is a disproportionate money suck (for little return) for the US is VERY conventional wisdom- shared by Dem and GOP Presidents alike
and that we should avoid missing that fact just because #orangemanbad
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
CID1990 wrote:I didnt mean to trigger some of you guys so badly
I’m just pointing out that the idea that NATO is a disproportionate money suck (for little return) for the US is VERY conventional wisdom- shared by Dem and GOP Presidents alike
and that we should avoid missing that fact just because #orangemanbad
Germany is already backing out of their commitment. Pull the troops out of Germany and put them on the Mexican American border. No need for a wall. We're already paying for the troops. All the ancillary spending related to troops is done in America and helps boost our economy instead of Germany's.
Germany says it will abandon its NATO spending commitments and invest less than promised, sparking US anger after Trump criticised European allies for expecting a free ride
There is no reason for us to remain in NATO. Macron and Merkel and organizing an EU military outside the NATO framework. Of course, they aren't doing it to enhance EU security.
They are doing it to intimidate European nations like Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, Austria and Italy, who refuse to surrender their sovereignty and allow themselves to be overrun by primitives from Africa and the Muslim world.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
HI54UNI wrote:Germany is already backing out of their commitment. Pull the troops out of Germany and put them on the Mexican American border. No need for a wall. We're already paying for the troops. All the ancillary spending related to troops is done in America and helps boost our economy instead of Germany's.
Germany says it will abandon its NATO spending commitments and invest less than promised, sparking US anger after Trump criticised European allies for expecting a free ride
Well tell me what value it provides the US then, Beto?
You’re on a roll today. Your sense of humor is in the shitter.
To answer your question, we need some kind of world forum. The U.N. has its faults, for sure (structurally, to begin with), but it’s probably better than nothing. We stayed out of the League of Nations, and that didn’t turn out too well.
AZGrizFan wrote:
Well tell me what value it provides the US then, Beto?
You’re on a roll today. Your sense of humor is in the shitter.
To answer your question, we need some kind of world forum. The U.N. has its faults, for sure (structurally, to begin with), but it’s probably better than nothing. We stayed out of the League of Nations, and that didn’t turn out too well.
Would our presence in the LoN have prevented WWII?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
Ivytalk wrote:
You’re on a roll today. Your sense of humor is in the shitter.
To answer your question, we need some kind of world forum. The U.N. has its faults, for sure (structurally, to begin with), but it’s probably better than nothing. We stayed out of the League of Nations, and that didn’t turn out too well.
Would our presence in the LoN have prevented WWII?
Maybe not, but it might have made the League more effective in general. It had some early successes. All bets were off after Japan invaded Manchuria in ‘31 and quit the League.
Put it this way. We haven’t had a World War since 1945.
CitadelGrad wrote:
Would our presence in the LoN have prevented WWII?
Maybe not, but it might have made the League more effective in general. It had some early successes. All bets were off after Japan invaded Manchuria in ‘31 and quit the League.
Put it this way. We haven’t had a World War since 1945.
I would attribute that more to MAD than UN.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
Let Germany say, "Fine, USA. Get all your bases the hell out of Germany." See what happens. The USA wouldn't like that at all.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
Ivytalk wrote:
Maybe not, but it might have made the League more effective in general. It had some early successes. All bets were off after Japan invaded Manchuria in ‘31 and quit the League.
Put it this way. We haven’t had a World War since 1945.
I would attribute that more to MAD than UN.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
