Ukraine

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hunter Biden has the corruption problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know if it's a "problem" . . . with his dad being in charge of the DOJ. But you're right, he is corrupt.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't know if it's a "problem" . . . with his dad being in charge of the DOJ. But you're right, he is corrupt.

You’re confusing the Biden admin\Garland DOJ with the Trump Barr administration but what else would I expect

Getting into arguments with you or Jim is the colloquial equivalent of stepping in really bad dog #^&#^&#^&#^&, it'll follow you around for a bit and stink up everything you try to do but in the end it won't matter at all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re confusing the Biden admin\Garland DOJ with the Trump Barr administration but what else would I expect

No . . . I said Hunter's father was in charge of the DOJ.
No confusion there.

Getting into arguments with you or Jim is the colloquial equivalent of stepping in really bad dog #^&#^&#^&#^&, it'll follow you around for a bit and stink up everything you try to do but in the end it won't matter at all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like, for some strange reason, you have this burning need to continuously step in really stinky dong$hit.

[Pete F.]

Tweety’s the one who thought he could order indictments
Remember “lock her up”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Before invading, Putin made assessments. One was that America was badly divided and fractured. Putin had experienced four years of Trump. What a godsend! Arrogant America electing a useful idiot! Without HIS assessment of OUR division, this war would NOT be happening!
Putin's desire to reconstruct the USSR is an overstated narrative. What he is really obsessed with, is America, NATO, and most of all - Democracy. What's his goal? TO DIMINISH THEM. Why? Because if he can, the rest falls into place! Ukraine was the democracy on his doorstep.
So after he saw the great America elect a moron, he saw the GOP willingly embrace his help i an unbridled lust to regain power. He's seen millions of Americans buy into false narratives and strongman propaganda. He saw potential for American democracy ITSELF to be controlled.
What Putin saw in America is TrumpISM - a shadow and mirror of Trump's malignancy. Where authoritarians are admired as manly and strong. Winning is everything. An apparatus of enablers, amplifiers, and grifters, united in a quest to attain power with Minority Rule at ANY cost
Go back to the day of the invasion. Trump immediately spewed Putin-friendly fuel on the fire. Then came Pompeo! Then Carlson, who's never stopped spewing! Russian media began playing Trump/Pompeo/Carlson on endless video loops! THIS was what Putin expected, and he got it.
But Putin's other assessments were faulty. He underestimated Zelensky's leadership, Ukrainians' bravery, and their will to fight. Mostly, he underestimated NATO's unity, due in no small part to Biden/Blinken and their ability to telegraph Putin's planned propaganda in advance
THANK GOD FOR BIDEN! Because the solidarity of NATO crippled Putin. It also changed the political calculus of the power-crazed American GOP. Not for humanitarian reasons. They simply read the room and knew their best alternative was to now flip TO Ukraine and AWAY from Putin.
REMEMBER THIS: The GOP cares for NOTHING above power! They politicize EVERYTHING! They'd sell their own mothers in a flash. So even though they act against Putin now, he knows if he somehow waits this out, the US GOP will assuredly welcome his help with US midterm elections.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, America HAS to vanquish its TRUE foe. It's not Putin. And it's not Trump. It's PROPAGANDA. Authoritarianism can ONLY grow in an environment of DISINFORMATION. Disinformation and propaganda are everywhere now. It's constant. Relentless. Amplified.
In 2022, American Democracy itself WILL be on the line. Democracy HAS to prevail! How? The TRUTH. The truth is the only archenemy of the lie. And the truth is STRONGER than the lie. So, for Democracy to prevail, enough TRUTH has to prevail!
In 2020, we spoke TRUTH about the aberrant pathological behavior of Trump in our film #UNFIT. It spoke to his autocratic aspirations - which we hear daily. Our film was widely distributed; widely seen. It made a difference. It crossed over to moderates. There's still many!
In 2022, before the midterms, we will release #UNTRUTH - the Psychology of TrumpISM and the War for Democracy. It will speak to Trumpism and make sense to ANYONE who watches it. Almost everybody watches films. And when they watch, they're away from the mob, away from noise.
#UNTRUTH must be a fiercely independent film, like #UNFIT. It's the only way films like these can be made to elicit results. If enough truth prevails, democracy will prevail! The better we convey what Trumpism really is, the more that understand it, the better chance we have
Here's a link. Please click it, watch the short trailer at the top, then scroll down and read the truth about Trumpism. It's behavioral psychology. And it's there. We hope you'll also consider supporting the effort (there's only a few days left).
bit.ly/34DmQZP
We're all in this together. Democracy is the thing most worth fighting for; and it really IS on the line. So we need to be ALL IN.

Thanks for reading this thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is praising Fox News' coverage of its war on Ukraine, hailing it as ''trying to represent some alternative points of view'' and denouncing ''information terrorism.''

[Pete F.]

Every single House member who voted to keep Russia’s most favored nation trade status is a Republican.

Every.
Single.
One.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

If you don't get how vital the battle for Ukraine is, let Sergei Lavrov explain:

"This is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order. The current crisis is a fateful, epoch-making moment in modern history. It reflects the battle over what the world order will look like".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you don't get how vital the battle for Ukraine is, let Sergei Lavrov explain:

"This is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order. The current crisis is a fateful, epoch-making moment in modern history. It reflects the battle over what the world order will look like".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The battle for determining the American order is more vital to Americans than the battle for Ukraine.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The battle for determining the American order is more vital to Americans than the battle for Ukraine.

They’re related

I truly hope most Americans realize how dangerous Trump, GQP, QAnon & MAGA are to democracy and how a Ron DeSantis, whose political career was funded by Russian cash via Matt Gaetz, could easily turn into the world’s next Vladimir Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They’re related

I truly hope most Americans realize how dangerous Trump, GQP, QAnon & MAGA are to democracy and how a Ron DeSantis, whose political career was funded by Russian cash via Matt Gaetz, could easily turn into the world’s next Vladimir Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I truly hope that most Americans realize how goofy people are who spout your crazy kind of stuff.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I truly hope that most Americans realize how goofy people are who spout your crazy kind of stuff.

Russia interfered in 2016 in order to further its own political goals, and among them were its designs with regards to Ukraine. The FBI was neutralizing these efforts. Anyone trying to stop, thwart, or cast doubt on that investigation was helping Russia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Russia interfered in 2016 in order to further its own political goals, and among them were its designs with regards to Ukraine. The FBI was neutralizing these efforts. Anyone trying to stop, thwart, or cast doubt on that investigation was helping Russia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More tricky Pete goofy stuff. The investigation involved more than trying to thwart or stop Russian interference. It was also an attempt to thwart or stop Trump.

It would be logical that those who knew Trump had not conspired with Russia would try to reveal that that part of the "investigation" was bogus. Events unfolded to prove that to be true.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

More tricky Pete goofy stuff. The investigation involved more than trying to thwart or stop Russian interference. It was also an attempt to thwart or stop Trump.

It would be logical that those who knew Trump had not conspired with Russia would try to reveal that that part of the "investigation" was bogus. Events unfolded to prove that to be true.

Money Laundering 101: Taught by Donald Trump & his adult children.

Trump/Putin by the numbers: 1.9 Trillion leaves Russia during Vladimir’s presidency. 30 Trump Towers built across the globe selling condos to shell corporations owned by Russian Mobsters (oligarchs.)

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Money Laundering 101: Taught by Donald Trump & his adult children.

Trump/Putin by the numbers: 1.9 Trillion leaves Russia during Vladimir’s presidency. 30 Trump Towers built across the globe selling condos to shell corporations owned by Russian Mobsters (oligarchs.)

Tell me about it if and when he's convicted. And that deke would not be conspiring to interfere with an election. Like I said, tricky Pete goofy stuff. Accuse and suggest by conjecture.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Tell me about it if and when he's convicted. And that deke would not be conspiring to interfere with an election. Like I said, tricky Pete goofy stuff. Accuse and suggest by conjecture.

Your boy is the one who lied.
During a news conference held days before his inauguration, Trump said, “I have no dealings with Russia, I have no deals in Russia, I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we’ve stayed away.”

Yet after the Cohen plea, Trump rewrote history to claim that “everybody knew” about his secret business dealings with Russia. In tweets, Trump even characterized his dealings as “very legal & very cool.”

“I talked about it on the campaign trail,” he claimed, falsely, before adding that he “Lightly looked at doing a building somewhere in Russia.”

He’s been owned for years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Your boy is the one who lied.
During a news conference held days before his inauguration, Trump said, “I have no dealings with Russia, I have no deals in Russia, I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we’ve stayed away.”

Yet after the Cohen plea, Trump rewrote history to claim that “everybody knew” about his secret business dealings with Russia. In tweets, Trump even characterized his dealings as “very legal & very cool.”

“I talked about it on the campaign trail,” he claimed, falsely, before adding that he “Lightly looked at doing a building somewhere in Russia.”

You've told us about this several times already. Are you concerned that somehow we missed it?


He’s been owned for years

Wait, I thought the oligarchs own our politicians because of Citizens United. Wow, everybody is owned. You keep saying the same stuff over and over . . . as if you were a puppet . . . and you keep repeating the words your owners have fed you.

[Pete F.]

Vladimir Putin: “NATO is obsolete” and “The European Union is a foe.”

Just kidding, those are Trumps words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Vladimir Putin: “NATO is obsolete” and “The European Union is a foe.”

Just kidding, those are Trumps words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here we go with tricky Pete's goofy insinuation, slanting, lying by omission stuff.
Trump said much more than tricky Pete quoted:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said NATO was obsolete because it had not defended against terror attacks, but that the military alliance was still very important to him, The Times of London reported.

“I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete,” Trump told the newspaper in an interview. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right.”

Trump added that many NATO members were not paying their fair share for U.S. protection.

“A lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States,” Trump said. “With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”

He said, which Pete left out, that NATO was very important to him. That would not be good for his narrative that Trump is anti NATO. And Russia's invasion and continuing destruction of Ukraine (again) has awoken even prominent members of NATO that it needed to beef itself up and put a strong face against Russia which they were not only not doing when Trump made the statement, but were doing things to economically support Russia and having no effect in forcing Russia to return Crimea. NATO was, indeed, at the time Trump said it, in many respects, obsolete.


As well, on the EU being a foe, Pete left out the part of being a foe on trade. Which creates the false picture of being a foe on everything else, including being a military foe.

BBC headline Donald Trump: European Union is a foe on trade

From the BBC article: Asked to name his biggest competitor and foe globally, the US president said there were "a lot of foes" and named Russia and China among them, but the first on his list was the EU.

"I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe," he said.

"In a trade sense, they've really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in Nato and they weren't paying their bills and, you know, as an example a big problem with Germany," he said.

He then returned to the theme of Germany's reliance on Nord Stream 2, a pipeline which will increase the flow of gas to EU states and which he controversially criticised ahead of last week's Nato summit.

He said: "There's a lot of anger at the fact that Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars."

I especially can see why Pete left out the part of Trump saying Russia was a foe--not good for a Putin puppet to say such stuff. It's also evident that Pete is a class A propagandist and a tricky liar.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Here we go with tricky Pete's goofy insinuation, slanting, lying by omission stuff.
Trump said much more than tricky Pete quoted:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said NATO was obsolete because it had not defended against terror attacks, but that the military alliance was still very important to him, The Times of London reported.


Baloney
NATO’s Article V, which states: “an armed attack against one or more [member countries] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
Article V has been invoked only one time in the 70-year history of NATO: on September 12, 2001 by the non-American allies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
In Afghanistan alone, NATO allies have lost around 1,000 service members in support of coalition operations. U.S. allies also form the backbone of support for the global coalition to counter the Islamic State, which consisted of 81 partner nations.

“I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete,” Trump told the newspaper in an interview. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right.”

Trump added that many NATO members were not paying their fair share for U.S. protection.



“A lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States,” Trump said. “With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”

More of your Baloney
We do not deploy our forces as mercenaries for hire, simply to defend the territory of U.S. allies. America’s global defense network allows it to more quickly and effectively address a range of global requirements, including protecting American citizens, preventing piracy, deterring violent extremism, and preventing countries like North Korea and Iran from trafficking illicit weapons. U.S. allies work alongside the U.S. in all of these efforts.

America’s allies also defray significant portions of the cost of its overseas military facilities, spending billions of dollars to offset costs the U.S. would otherwise bear alone. Allies contribute to the cost of U.S. facilities both directly and indirectly, through cash payments; in-kind payments such as tax and fee waivers; covering construction costs for U.S. housing and training facilities; and the rent-free provision of valuable real estate to U.S. forces

He said, which Pete left out, that NATO was very important to him. That would not be good for his narrative that Trump is anti NATO. And Russia's invasion and continuing destruction of Ukraine (again) has awoken even prominent members of NATO that it needed to beef itself up and put a strong face against Russia which they were not only not doing when Trump made the statement, but were doing things to economically support Russia and having no effect in forcing Russia to return Crimea. NATO was, indeed, at the time Trump said it, in many respects, obsolete.


As well, on the EU being a foe, Pete left out the part of being a foe on trade. Which creates the false picture of being a foe on everything else, including being a military foe.

BBC headline Donald Trump: European Union is a foe on trade

From the BBC article: Asked to name his biggest competitor and foe globally, the US president said there were "a lot of foes" and named Russia and China among them, but the first on his list was the EU.

"I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe," he said.

"In a trade sense, they've really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in Nato and they weren't paying their bills and, you know, as an example a big problem with Germany," he said.

He then returned to the theme of Germany's reliance on Nord Stream 2, a pipeline which will increase the flow of gas to EU states and which he controversially criticised ahead of last week's Nato summit.

He said: "There's a lot of anger at the fact that Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars."

I especially can see why Pete left out the part of Trump saying Russia was a foe--not good for a Putin puppet to say such stuff. It's also evident that Pete is a class A propagandist and a tricky liar.

He said that the EU was a foe the week before he met with Putin in Helsinki where Trump standing by Mr. Putin’s side, dismissed the conclusions by U.S. intelligence agencies about Russian meddling.
“They said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.” For good measure, he said, “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”


Trump as president:
Illegally withheld weapons from Ukraine
Wanted to let Russia back in the G8
Wanted US to leave NATO
Reduced sanctions to let Russian GDP grow again

So from Paul Manafort in 2016 to Tucker Carlson in 2022, with Trump as a constant throughout, and for reasons both financial and ideological, important parts of the Republican Party and the conservative movement have been pro-Putin. and you don't think this emboldened Putin to act?

I'll also point out that Trump was spouting anti-NATO bile since a Moscow trip in 1987. He also formed an exploratory committee for president at that time.
You should wonder what happened on that trip.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Every single House member who voted to keep Russia’s most favored nation trade status is a Republican.

Every.
Single.
One.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, you quote exactly word for word (even with the exact spacing) of someone with neither quotes nor attribution to the author--Star Trek's George Takei, not exactly the most well informed political analyst.

So 8 out of 212 Republican House members voting in a certain way is supposed to be a reflection on the Republican Party?

"The revocation carries mostly symbolic weight. Because Russian imports into the U.S. are primarily natural resources, they would generally face little to no increase in their tariffs because of the lost status, Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington, said in an online post."

The eight had reasons for their vote which Takei fails to mention or doesn't know.

Whoopie! Eight out of two hundred and twelve--every . . . single . . . one! You go get em Pete. Great job of making a mountain out of a molehill fake picture to show how evil Republicans are. Propaganda at its finest.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, you quote exactly word for word (even with the exact spacing) of someone with neither quotes nor attribution to the author--Star Trek's George Takei, not exactly the most well informed political analyst.

So 8 out of 212 Republican House members voting in a certain way is supposed to be a reflection on the Republican Party?

"The revocation carries mostly symbolic weight. Because Russian imports into the U.S. are primarily natural resources, they would generally face little to no increase in their tariffs because of the lost status, Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington, said in an online post."

The eight had reasons for their vote which Takei fails to mention or doesn't know.

Whoopie! Eight out of two hundred and twelve--every . . . single . . . one! You go get em Pete. Great job of making a mountain out of a molehill fake picture to show how evil Republicans are. Propaganda at its finest.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) blames Ukraine for being invaded: "You see Ukraine just kept poking the bear, poking the bear, which is Russia, and Russia invaded. And the hard truth is ... there is no win for Ukraine here. Russia is being very successful in their invasion."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Baloney
NATO’s Article V, which states: “an armed attack against one or more [member countries] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
Article V has been invoked only one time in the 70-year history of NATO: on September 12, 2001 by the non-American allies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
In Afghanistan alone, NATO allies have lost around 1,000 service members in support of coalition operations. U.S. allies also form the backbone of support for the global coalition to counter the Islamic State, which consisted of 81 partner

This was supposedly a reply to my post that showed you did not include Trump's saying that the military alliance with NATO was very important to him when he said it was obsolete.
By leaving that part of the statement out you give the impression that he is against NATO, that it would be anything but important to him.
Even that he wanted no part of it and would pull out of it.

More of your Baloney
We do not deploy our forces as mercenaries for hire, simply to defend the territory of U.S. allies. America’s global defense network allows it to more quickly and effectively address a range of global requirements, including protecting American citizens, preventing piracy, deterring violent extremism, and preventing countries like North Korea and Iran from trafficking illicit weapons. U.S. allies work alongside the U.S. in all of these efforts.

America’s allies also defray significant portions of the cost of its overseas military facilities, spending billions of dollars to offset costs the U.S. would otherwise bear alone. Allies contribute to the cost of U.S. facilities both directly and indirectly, through cash payments; in-kind payments such as tax and fee waivers; covering construction costs for U.S. housing and training facilities; and the rent-free provision of valuable real estate to U.S. forces

This was in response to Trump saying many NATO members were not paying their share (agreed upon 2% of GDP). You did not deny that what he said is true, instead you try to point out other costs they pay as if that makes up for their shorting the agreed on share. That does not cut it, nor does it make Trump's remark "baloney." The U.S. also incurs other costs besides the agreed on share. And both the U.S. and the other NATO countries would also pay those other costs if they paid their agreed on share.

And, BTW, they quickly more than coughed up the money when Putin started the war with Ukraine. Trump was right.


He said that the EU was a foe the week before he met with Putin in Helsinki where Trump standing by Mr. Putin’s side, dismissed the conclusions by U.S. intelligence agencies about Russian meddling.
“They said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.” For good measure, he said, “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

This was your response to when I pointed out that Trump said that the EU was a foe, he specifically said they were a foe on trade. And many Americans thought that was true well before Trump said it. And many, including me, think he is right. In trade they have been a foe for a long time. That does not make them an enemy. It makes them economic competitors. When you left out what kind of foe, quoting Trump as unqualifiedly saying that the EU is a foe, that gave the kind of impression you like to make of Trump being against European allies and absolutely pro-Putin. It's a propaganda trick. It's lie by omission and by implication or insinuation. It's what you do.

Trump as president:
Illegally withheld weapons from Ukraine

The weapons were delivered on time, barely.

Wanted to let Russia back in the G8

Trump said: "It has come up, should we put Russia back in? We spend a lot of time talking about Russia at those meetings and they're not there. I think it would be a good thing if Russia were there so we can speak directly, not have to speak by telephone and other things.

So, here is the thing: It is a vote of what is now the G-7. They were taken out because Putin outsmarted on Crimea, on the red line, on other things. Totally outsmarted Obama. Obama was upset. They took 'em out. I think Russia should be a part of it because we're looking for world peace. And other things. Trade and other things. And it would be a lot easier to have Russia in where they have always been."

Of course you will disagree with his reasons, that they are stupid, etc., and will probably say or think that he lied and was just doing Putin's bidding. You only seem to believe Trump when he says something outrageously wrong. If he says good things, you believe he is lying.


Wanted US to leave NATO


He didn't say that he wanted the US to leave NATO:

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/wh...ition-on-nato/

Clinton again claimed that Trump, whom she referred to as a “loose cannon,” wants out of NATO.


While Trump has gone so far as saying that, as president, he would consider pulling the U.S. out of NATO if it is not restructured, we’ve found no instance of him saying he wants to do so at this point. And the Clinton campaign hasn’t been able to point to an example of Trump saying that either.

In fact, it was during the interview with the Post, which initially brought attention to Trump’s feelings about NATO, that Trump said that he doesn’t want the U.S. to leave the alliance.

Trump: No, I don’t want to pull it out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country anymore. We’re borrowing, we’re borrowing all of this money. We’re borrowing money from China, which is sort of an amazing situation. But it was a much different thing. NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved.

Blitzer: Do you think the United States needs to rethink U.S. involvement in NATO?

Trump: Yes, because it’s costing us too much money. And frankly they have to put up more money. They’re going to have to put some up also. We’re paying disproportionately. It’s too much. And frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea. And everybody got together.

Blitzer: So you’re really suggesting the United States should decrease its role in NATO?

Trump: Not decrease its role but certainly decrease the kind of spending. We are spending a tremendous amount in NATO and other people proportionately less. No good.

Then, on March 25, in an interview with the New York Times editorial board, Trump again said that NATO needed to be “changed” to deal with costs and other issues, such as terrorism.

It was on March 23, during an interview with Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, that Trump, when asked, said he would “certainly look at” getting rid of NATO because it “may be obsolete” (16:12 in the video).

Halperin, March 23: Should America be the leader of NATO or not necessarily?

Trump: I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago — many, many years ago when things were different. Things are different now. We were a rich nation then. We had nothing but money. We had nothing but power. And you know, far more than we have today, in a true sense. And I think NATO — you have to really examine NATO. And it doesn’t really help us, it’s helping other countries. And I don’t think those other countries appreciate what we’re doing.

Heilemann: So, just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments there and I just want to clarify. One of them is that you might want to see the U.S. pay less money into NATO because …

Trump: That one definitely. That one definitely.

Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of?

Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it. And I’d want more help from other people. The one thing definitely — we’re paying too much. As to whether or not it’s obsolete, I’ll make that determination.

Then, at a campaign rally in Milwaukee on April 4, Trump said that he wasn’t saying that NATO should disband during his interview with CNN’s Blitzer. Instead, he said he meant that if countries “can’t pay their bills … they’ve got to go.”

Trump, April 4: And Wolf Blitzer asked me a question on television. He said, let me just ask you about NATO. And he asked me about it. Now, I haven’t been asked about NATO a lot, but I understand NATO and I understand common sense and I’m, like, a smart person, like many of the people in this room, hopefully all of the people in this room.

But he asked me about NATO. I said it’s obsolete. This is my first thing. And you know what? I’m the first one. Guys that study NATO and good people, but they study NATO and they say, I don’t believe it, what he just said, I never thought of that. They study it because they’re so into it that they don’t realize.

Because it was really put there — you had the Soviet Union and now you have Russia, which is different, but Russia is very powerful, so we can sort of say that’s a balance, so we’ll leave it. But it doesn’t really cover terrorism like it’s supposed to. It doesn’t have the right countries. I mean, many of the countries in there aren’t, you know, that you associate with terrorism.

And so I said, number one, it’s obsolete. I said, number two, to the best of my knowledge, the United States pays far too much proportionately, and why are we always paying the bills to protect other people?

And the press, which is so totally dishonest, the press goes headlines the next day “Trump doesn’t want NATO, wants to disband.” That’s not what I said. I said you’ve got to pay your bills. And you know what? If they can’t pay their bills, honestly there should be — they’ve got to go. Because we can’t do this.

And most recently, in his April 27 foreign policy speech, Trump said that “the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves” if they are unwilling to pay more.

Trump, April 27: They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. In NATO, for instance, only four of 28 other member countries besides America, are spending the minimum required 2 percent of GDP on defense. We have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.

So, Trump has clearly outlined changes he would like to see made to NATO. And he has said that, under a Trump administration, the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance if it isn’t restructured and other nations don’t start to pick up more of the costs. But even that isn’t the same thing as saying that “we should pull out of NATO,” as Clinton claims Trump said.


Reduced sanctions to let Russian GDP grow again

From a July 25, 2020 article: What has President Trump done in relation to Russia during his time in office? Here are only a handful of examples:

* Imposed sanctions on Russian companies and Russian entities, blocking at least $3 billion worth of deals from going into Russian coffers.

* Placed harsh economic restrictions on a group of Russian oligarchs which effectively puts more pressure on Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has illegally amassed enormous wealth – exceeding $25 billion – in the last two decades, but he can't hold all that wealth in his own name, so he appointed oligarch cronies to be his trustees. Putting his oligarchs on sanctions hurts Putin big tim

* Levied considerable financial sanctions and travel restrictions on 50-plus individuals who have been accused of human-rights abuses and corruption under both the Magnitsky Act and the Global Magnitsky Act.

* Criticized NATO allies for not spending enough on defense (and was accused by the lamestream media of encouraging Russia to test alliance resolve). NATO allies, however, have taken steps to pay more, and NATO appears stronger than before, which is decidedly not the outcome Putin wanted.

* Authorized the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from the U.S. in the wake of nerve agent attack on British soil, allegedly at the hands of the Kremlin.

* Approved the export of lethal weapons, including American-made Javelin antitank missiles, to help Ukraine shore up its eastern defenses against separatists backed by Moscow. More defense cooperation with Ukraine, as well as weapons sales are on the near horizon.

* Killed more than 200 Russian soldiers in Syria – U.S. troops are present as in Syria as much to limit Russian and Iranian influence on the country’s future as to fight the remnants of the Islamic State.

* Facilitated U.S. sales of more coal to energy-strapped Ukraine, while weakening Russia's hold on oil exports.

* Ramped up militarily to pressure the Russian Federation as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Defense Secretary work to strengthen alliances and military cooperation with Baltic states that share borders with Russia.

* Offered a proposal to Poland to host a permanent contingent of U.S. troops, in the way that Germany and Italy have done since World War II, to help secure Poland’s 180-mile long border with Russia.

* Discussed with Ukraine’s president the enhancement of cooperation in security and defense sectors, and the importance of keeping tight sanctions on Russia – to Putin a most unwelcome development.

* Pressured Germany over its status as the largest buyer of Russian natural gas, and as a huge buyer of Russia coal and mineral oil.

* Sanctioned four Russian entities and seven individuals in response to a 2018 attempt to interfere in U.S. midterm elections, including Russian financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a wealthy loyalist nicknamed "Putin's chef" who has his mitts in many pies.

* Suspended its obligations under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty because Russia was not complying with it.

In all, as a Brookings Institute analysis revealed, the Trump administration has enacted more than 50 sanctions or policy actions on Russia, many being severe, from May 15, 2017 – four months after Trump took office – to the present day. But the Left would much prefer that you remain ignorant about these.


So from Paul Manafort in 2016 to Tucker Carlson in 2022, with Trump as a constant throughout, and for reasons both financial and ideological, important parts of the Republican Party and the conservative movement have been pro-Putin. and you don't think this emboldened Putin to act?

I'll also point out that Trump was spouting anti-NATO bile since a Moscow trip in 1987. He also formed an exploratory committee for president at that time.
You should wonder what happened on that trip.

You've been spouting anti-Trump, anti-Republican bile for five or six years. A whole lot of the spouts have been lies and propaganda.

[scottw]

remember when Brandon blamed Russia for Hunter's laptop?....that doesn't seem to be very good parenting

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I truly hope that most Americans realize how goofy people are who spout your crazy kind of stuff.

Like three years of Trump is a Russian plant based on a Clinton campaign sourced document? Or that Hunter's laptop was Russian Disinfo?

Pete, don't bother responding with your list of crap on Trump as I generally pass over anything you write these days on that subject. On THAT subject your credibility is nil.

[wdmso]

A Jan. 6 Capitol riot suspect wanted by the FBI was granted refugee status in Belarus

Belarus granted Neumann asylum because it believes the charges are politically motivated.

where have we heard that...


is he going to fight with the Russians Next?



https://www.10news.com/news/national...lum-in-belarus

[wdmso]

Russia has attacked Ukraine’s health care system 64 times, WHO says

Punishment that’s all this war is about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A joke from Moscow: "According to Putin the special military operation is really a conflict btw Russia and NATO about World dominance. Whats the situation now?" "Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Even a purely symbolic vote in support of NATO and its principles was opposed by 30 percent of House Republicans on Tuesday.

Why would republicans be against such a vote

Here some reasons Among the emerging views he isolated: that NATO was at fault for provoking Vladimir Putin, that we should focus instead on our own Southern border, and that the United States has no business defending European allies, whether in NATO or otherwise.

Yet. The Senate in 2018 passed a bill reaffirming support for NATO 97-2 — a pretty direct rebuke to Trump given that he was, at that precise time, traveling to a NATO summit in Brussels

Seems Republicans are becoming isolationist.. they should change the party name to the revisionist part

Trying hard to push America back to a point in Time that never existed..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I bet pootin has kompromat on some of them. We know it’s obvious he has something on trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device