[Lord Dave]

negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements

The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?

none of what you're saying is very congruent with how nato funding works.  the nato common fund (the one to which member states contribute directly) is small.  the total us contribution to the common fund is ~$750 million, so there's virtually nothing to recoup there.

the 2% figure that your graphic cites is individual member nation defense spending as a percent of gdp.  that means there's nothing to recoup.  we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.  trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia."  we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests.  we support nato because it's in our national interest.  defending europeans is incidental.

By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.

These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.

Not a whole lot of enemies to fend off.  Hell, the last time a nation in Europe was attacked by a foreign agent, it was a NATO member who was the aggressor.

[garygreen]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433320/trump-non-us-nato-budget-300-billion-almost-nothing

There’s a fair argument that European NATO allies need to spend more on defense. They set up a goal of getting each country to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, and so far, only five of the 28 members meet that threshold — the U.S., Britain, Estonia, Poland and Greece.

But the hyperbolic portrayal of our closest allies as “ripping us off” and their collective $300 billion per year on defense spending as “almost nothing” is typical ill-informed, insulting Trumpism.

The world’s third-largest defense budget is . . . the United Kingdom, at $66 billion. France is fifth at $52 billion. Germany ninth $43 billion. Italy, Canada, and Turkey rank 13th, 14th, and 15th. And these are countries with much smaller populations and economies than the United States.

Overall, non-U.S. NATO countries make up nine of the 25 largest defense budgets on Earth.

it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.

we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.

Please back this claim up. Otherwise, we'll be looking at an endless "no u" fest between you two. Right now it's "Yah huh, if our allies contribute more to our collective strength then we can contribute less without losing said collective strength" vs "trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia."  we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests.  we support nato because it's in our national interest.  defending europeans is incidental.".

fixed.  although i genuinely did have a difficult time deciding on which nato member state has the funniest sounding name.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11936179/What-are-the-biggest-defence-budgets-in-the-world.html

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.  we spend what we spend because we believe it supports our own national interests across the globe.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/19/bernie-s/sanders-oversimplifies-us-share-NATO/

Laicie Heeley, a military budget expert at the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank, sees things otherwise.

"Sanders' claim is a commonly quoted misperception, or misleading quote, however you choose to see it," Heeley said. "The stat says nothing about the U.S. relationship to NATO. It simply states that the United States is the world's greatest military spender."

Lisa Samp, a fellow with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also describes Sanders’ words as a "common misunderstanding."

"There is a difference between what nations contribute to NATO and what they spend on their own defense," Samp said. "More accurate would be to say the United States contributes 22 percent of NATO’s common funding."

it's also just not how budgets are created.  budgets are a political process, not an ultra-rationalist balancing act.

I can think of one good way to start a war with Russia.

But they're our ally!

how petty.

By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.

These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.

this is answered above: the other countries in nato do not comprise "an almost nonexistent military force."  that's nonsense. 

also international relations aren't like oil changes or car insurance or whatever.  the shortsightedness it takes to reduce this issue to a mere accounting of dollars and cents is precisely the quality i don't want in a president.

[Pete Svarrior]

it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.

That's an interesting way to frame it, but ultimately a misleading one. A country spending 1.8% of their GDP would only be meeting 90% of the target. "Fractions of a percent of GDP", in this case, are rather quite significant.

fixed.  although i genuinely did have a difficult time deciding on which nato member state has the funniest sounding name.

Well, you did manage to pick the least relevant country here, I'll give you credit for that. Indeed, the country with the smallest military spending in all of NATO would probably not matter much even if they did double their spending to meet expectations.

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.

Has anyone claimed otherwise, or are you just building a strawman here?

how petty.

Of all people in this thread, you're easily the least justified in being upset about someone making petty remarks about the silly things you said. Half of the time you just call people's arguments "nonsense" with no substantiation, or you mock them by implying that they think Albania's defence budget would somehow impact that of the USA (protip: swap in Germany for Albania and the claim becomes much more nuanced)

[Rushy]

it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.

It's also worth noting that only 4 members other than the US spend above the 2% target. Thanks for once again noting that they are in fact not meeting their target. Now, instead of moving the goal post to 1%, let's talk about why they're not meeting their actual goal.

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.  we spend what we spend because we believe it supports our own national interests across the globe.

What does that have to do with the current discussion, though? This is about how much the rest of NATO spends, not how much we spend.

how petty.

Is it really so petty to just reverberate your own argument? I have to wonder if you still think Russia and China are our allies, and if you do still think so, why you would think NATO should even exist.

this is answered above: the other countries in nato do not comprise "an almost nonexistent military force."  that's nonsense.

Really? One of the largest militaries in Europe, Germany, actually does have an almost nonexistent military force. Take their Luftwaffe, for example. It reportedly has 406 aircraft, half of which are incapable of flight. This is what happens when you don't meet your military budget target. You get an aging fleet of Tornados and have a hard time even completing basic military joint operations.

also international relations aren't like oil changes or car insurance or whatever.  the shortsightedness it takes to reduce this issue to a mere accounting of dollars and cents is precisely the quality i don't want in a president.

"This is not literally that, therefore your analogy was meaningless." Sigh.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC?   Totally true.

[Rushy]

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC?   Totally true.

Bernie has already said on MSNBC that this changes nothing and he supports Hillary. He's probably known for months and took people's donations anyway just to give them to Hillary. What an absolute shill of a man.

[beardo]

>supporting a criminal

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC?   Totally true.

Bernie has already said on MSNBC that this changes nothing and he supports Hillary. He's probably known for months and took people's donations anyway just to give them to Hillary. What an absolute shill of a man.

Total agreement.
Or the DNC has basically blackmailed him.

Either way: I'm at the "fuck America.  Let it burn" stage of life.

[garygreen]

just to be clear, my criticism of trump here is not that he suggested that nato members should spend more on defense.  i'm critical of his methodology.

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.

Has anyone claimed otherwise, or are you just building a strawman here?

i take it to be an implicit justification for the argument that defense spending by nato nations somehow trades-off with us defense spending.  in other words, if our defense spending is motivated by own our priorities, objectives, and interests, then there's no necessary, causal link between what germany spends on defense and what we spend on defense.

i get that you're saying that defending europe is one of those priorities, but i think in most ways that priority is incidental to the fact that we want to have a strong military presence in europe for a whole host of other reasons that are entirely self-serving.  if any nato nation, albania, germany, england, whatever, decides to spend more on defense, then i don't think we're going to pocket that cash.

Of all people in this thread, you're easily the least justified in being upset about someone making petty remarks about the silly things you said. Half of the time you just call people's arguments "nonsense" with no substantiation, or you mock them by implying that they think Albania's defence budget would somehow impact that of the USA (protip: swap in Germany for Albania and the claim becomes much more nuanced)

i don't find it petty because it's a jab at me.  lol i took the exact same jab at myself in my prior post.  keep making it if you like, it's hardly upsetting.

fwiw, i find it petty because you're so elated at such a trivial mistake.  i called russia an ally and said we cooperate on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, like arms control and syria and whatnot.  i was wrong to call russia an ally.  i was not wrong that we cooperate with russia on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, and that was the actual crux of my argument.  you well know that i didn't mean it like "russia is a nato member and soon to become the 51st state," because that wouldn't make sense in the context of anything else i said.  that's why it's petty.

which "that's nonsense" did you find unwarranted?  you appear to agree with the first one, and the second one is supported by the national review article i posted.

Is it really so petty to just reverberate your own argument? I have to wonder if you still think Russia and China are our allies, and if you do still think so, why you would think NATO should even exist.

i don't think russia or china are significant threats to us hegemony or sovereignty, and i don't think that nato's usefulness is at all constrained to deterring russia from europe.

let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.?  i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all?  or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"?  why haven't we kicked them out already?

"nato and car insurance aren't even remotely relatable.  your analogy captures exactly none of salient issues and relationships between the actors involved." Sigh.

srsly that really isn't even close to analogous.  i honestly am not sure i even get who the players are supposed to be.  we're the insurer, and europe is the insured, and the oil change is defense budgets, and mechanical failure is war?  is that how it goes?

geico isn't a state with budgets set by political parties with constituents and all the other shit that makes up nations.  europe isn't a single consumer running a household budget.  insurance companies don't have their own interests and motivations for insuring your car even if you can't pay your bills.  the list goes on...

this is precisely the issue i have with the way you and trump see things.  you actually do think it's all as simple as a single consumer making a decision about purchasing car insurance.  as if the effect it has on our budget is the only effect that matters.

[Rushy]

just to be clear, my criticism of trump here is not that he suggested that nato members should spend more on defense.  i'm critical of his methodology.

Ah yes, another case of "I agree with Trump, but I don't like Trump. He's too 'extreme'"

let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.?  i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all?  or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"?  why haven't we kicked them out already?

NATO, the EU, the EEA, Schengen, etc. these are all efforts to solidify countries under strong alliance banners. The current political manifesto is to control countries through alliances and treaties. They haven't been kicked out of NATO because having the US leech their defense capabilities is the primary purpose of the treaty. Once these nations have a military that is verging on falling apart entirely, they'll have to subsume and allow foreign control of their nation. The only nukes in Germany belong to the US. The only nukes in Turkey belong to the US. An ungodly percentage of Europe's entire military belongs to the US. We've been effectively invading and occupying 'allies' for decades.

Trump, despite media claims otherwise, isn't particularly interested in world domination. I doubt he considers NATO as a method of political control and would instead like to see it drawn down. After all, there's nothing a nationalist understands more than the desire for sovereignty, both at home and abroad. NATO is a relic from the Cold War and it has no modern purpose aside from political manipulation of member nations.

srsly that really isn't even close to analogous.  i honestly am not sure i even get who the players are supposed to be.  we're the insurer, and europe is the insured, and the oil change is defense budgets, and mechanical failure is war?  is that how it goes?

geico isn't a state with budgets set by political parties with constituents and all the other shit that makes up nations.  europe isn't a single consumer running a household budget.  insurance companies don't have their own interests and motivations for insuring your car even if you can't pay your bills.  the list goes on...

this is precisely the issue i have with the way you and trump see things.  you actually do think it's all as simple as a single consumer making a decision about purchasing car insurance.  as if the effect it has on our budget is the only effect that matters.

This isn't about our budget. I never even once complained that we spend too much yet you continually bring up this straw man.

[Pete Svarrior]

i take it to be an implicit justification for the argument that defense spending by nato nations somehow trades-off with us defense spending.  in other words, if our defense spending is motivated by own our priorities, objectives, and interests, then there's no necessary, causal link between what germany spends on defense and what we spend on defense.

i get that you're saying that defending europe is one of those priorities, but i think in most ways that priority is incidental to the fact that we want to have a strong military presence in europe for a whole host of other reasons that are entirely self-serving.  if any nato nation, albania, germany, england, whatever, decides to spend more on defense, then i don't think we're going to pocket that cash.[/quote]You're making a huge leap of logic. You seem to rely on the claim that nations remain militarised because of some concrete, immediate threat (in this case, you named Russia, but I understand that you probably didn't mean for that to be taken super-literally).

NATO, as a whole, needs to maintain a reasonable degree of hard power so that if an immediate threat appears, they don't suddenly scramble to assemble a force. If other nations aren't playing their part in the agreement, the USA has the option of playing World Police and overspending to make up for others' failures (currently the status quo). It also has the option of exerting pressure on other NATO members and demanding that they contribute fairly. Should it choose to do so, and should NATO listen, the option of reducing US military spending is then somewhat more available (although that doesn't mean it would be pursued - I can't read Trump's mind).

fwiw, i find it petty because you're so elated at such a trivial mistake.  i called russia an ally and said we cooperate on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, like arms control and syria and whatnot.

"Friend or foe?" is one of the few things you really shouldn't get wrong when discussing military operations. Unless it's WW1. Fuck WW1.

let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.?  i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all?  or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"?  why haven't we kicked them out already?

Might it be because we value peace quite a lot? There's nothing wrong in having alliances where a smaller nation benefits more than a large world power. Again, I very strongly doubt that Trump's issue lies with Albania, and I very strongly suspect that it has much more to do with Germany. But to target Germany without targeting Albania would be kinda discriminatory - if we agreed that 2% of GDP is the goal for everyone, then 2% it shall be for everyone.

[Fortuna]

This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.

[Rama Set]

This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.

I'm as sick of this as I am of conservatives acting like assholes and then acting high and mighty when people call them assholes.

This whole election can be summed up with this video:

[Rushy]

Ah yes, Alex Jones and The Young Turks. They were meant for each other. Also, this:

[07:50] <Rushy> I listened to that illegal immigrant's speech [at the DNC]
[07:50] <Rushy> poor girl was so confused, she was under the impression that Trump would deport her parents and split up their family
[07:51] <Rushy> someone should have corrected her and told her that Trump will deport her entire family, not just her parents
[07:51] <Rushy> that way they can be together!

[sandokhan]

https://stanstasblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/trump-checkmates-hillary-was-the-election-over-before-it-began-also-can-sanders-still-win-as-part-of-a-3rd-party/

[Ghost Spaghetti]

I can't read Trump's mind

Trump can't read Trump's mind.

[Rama Set]

Losers read. When you are a successful businessman, who owns a very successful business, you make decisions.

[Pete Svarrior]

This whole election can be summed up with this video:

Holy shit, do these people not understand how microphones work?

[Rama Set]

I like to play "guess what drug they are on!" With this video.

Alex Jones: Obviously cocaine.

Cenk: Either pcp or maybe just anbuterol.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.

I'm as sick of this as I am of conservatives acting like assholes and then acting high and mighty when people call them assholes.

This whole election can be summed up with this video:

Extremist on both sides are hypocrites and bigots. It blows my mind to see them trying to call each other out on it, it takes a special kind of ego to completely not even get a whiff of your own bullshit.

Also, I'm guessing Alex Jones was drunk in this clip, I never seen him act like that before.