Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.
Trump isn't display of ignorance over why the war started. He gets roasted for wondering why things couldn't have turned out differently? What a dumb fucking article.
Well... gotta say, that is actually a good outline. I especially like removing all but 3 tax deductions.
No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.
That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?
Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.
Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.
Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.
I think NATO's obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia's not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism and NATO doesn’t discuss terrorism, NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn’t have the right countries in it for terrorism.
Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete).
I will not interfere in the US election campaign, but what I can do is say what matters for NATO. Solidarity among Allies is a key value for NATO. This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another. We have seen this in Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of European, Canadian, and partner nation troops have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US soldiers. The United States has always stood by its European Allies. Now the US is stepping up its support once again, and increasing its presence. European Allies are also stepping up. For the first time in many years, defence spending among European Allies and Canada rose last year. And this year we expect a further increase of 3%—or US $8 billion. Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for security in the United States.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).
but he clearly is not trying to hammer a specially crafted message in this interview
TRUMP: They had a quote from me that NATO's obsolete. But they didn't say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn't in government. People don't go around asking about NATO if I'm building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete — not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO — NATO is obsolete, and I said, "And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism." You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.
AP: What specifically has NATO changed?
TRUMP: (Cites Wall Street Journal article) ... I did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I said NATO was obsolete — I said two things — obsolete, and the country's aren't paying. I was right about both. I took such heat for about three days on both, because nobody ever criticized NATO. I took heat like you wouldn't believe. And then some expert on NATO said, "You know, Trump is right." But I said it was obsolete because they weren't focused on terror.