[Lord Dave]

NATO was created to balance the geopolitical power against a nation that dissolved over 30 years ago. Now it exists for the US to subsidize the EU's defense budget. It's pathetic that the EU still needs it, and it does still need it, but that doesn't mean we should keep bothering with it.

The last time Trump told Germany to increase their defense budget, they literally laughed at him. In my opinion, maybe the EU really does need a Russian invasion as a wake-up call that they don't live in a magical fantasy utopia where big brother US will protect them forever. The current state of the EU's defense forces is a joke, collectively their economy is many times larger than Russia's, yet their conventional military is barely a quarter of Russia's.

Hell, we had to blow up the Nordstream pipeline just to stop Germany from giving Putin more money! How long must the US protect Europeans from themselves. Forever? Were two world wars not enough to teach them their lesson?

In fairness, Russia can't even take over a relatively small and weak nation with the largely outdated equipment they have.  I don't think an invasion would be noticed before it was wiped out.

[Rushy]

In fairness, Russia can't even take over a relatively small and weak nation with the largely outdated equipment they have.  I don't think an invasion would be noticed before it was wiped out.

You mean Russia can't do it while America is busy giving 200 billion dollars in financial and materiel aid to Ukraine.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Russia. I want them to lose. My problem is that European nations, particularly those in the EU, are hooked on US military assistance. The wealthy nations of the EU could easily afford a much bigger, more robust military industry. Yet, they don't have one. Why? No one seems to give a decent answer.

It's amusing to me that Trump telling European nations to raise their defense budget and making fun of them for not doing it is somehow deemed not only anti-NATO but also pro-Russia. Because obviously Putin's 4D chess involves Germany, France and the UK having larger military budgets, somehow...

[Lord Dave]

In fairness, Russia can't even take over a relatively small and weak nation with the largely outdated equipment they have.  I don't think an invasion would be noticed before it was wiped out.

You mean Russia can't do it while America is busy giving 200 billion dollars in financial and materiel aid to Ukraine.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Russia. I want them to lose. My problem is that European nations, particularly those in the EU, are hooked on US military assistance. The wealthy nations of the EU could easily afford a much bigger, more robust military industry. Yet, they don't have one. Why? No one seems to give a decent answer.

It's amusing to me that Trump telling European nations to raise their defense budget and making fun of them for not doing it is somehow deemed not only anti-NATO but also pro-Russia. Because obviously Putin's 4D chess involves Germany, France and the UK having larger military budgets, somehow...

They spend it on healthcare and other welfare benefits.

Tho now I wonder if they're in debt all the time too.  The US budget is always a trillion more than its income.  Inshould look up the other nations in the EU and compare.

[AATW]

Grifter’s gotta grift

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68280754

[Lord Dave]

Grifter’s gotta grift

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68280754

That links to a video about how crowded Rafah is.

[AATW]

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

[DuncanDoenitz]

"When they came for the Estonians, I was not Estonian, so I did nothing". 

And so on, and so forth. 

[Lord Dave]

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Heard about that.  Probably made in China.
And at $300, more expensive than Nike.

[Action80]

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Where's the grift?

[AATW]

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Where's the grift?

How are the new shoes?

[Action80]

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Where's the grift?

How are the new shoes?

What new shoes? Only 1000 pairs were available and they are gone.

I do not buy clothing that has any flag imagery emblazoned on it.

But the question remains...Where's the grift?

[Lord Dave]

Action is correct.
Trump isn't even selling them.


The products are "registered trademarks and/or trademarks of CIC Ventures LLC," per the website.

"Trump Sneakers are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," it notes.
"45Footwear, LLC uses the Trump name, image and likeness under a license agreement."


He's just promoting someone else's sneakers.

[Action80]

Action is correct.
Trump isn't even selling them.


The products are "registered trademarks and/or trademarks of CIC Ventures LLC," per the website.

"Trump Sneakers are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," it notes.
"45Footwear, LLC uses the Trump name, image and likeness under a license agreement."


He's just promoting someone else's sneakers.

To be clear, I think holding them up in front of a live audience at Sneaker Con does constitute "selling them."

But grift involves fraud of some sort.

AATW should provide some source stating these people paid $399.00 and didn't get what they paid for. And that Trump received that money.

[Tom Bishop]

Most politicians ask for money for nothing in return.

https://gettrumpsneakers.com - The $400 shoes are the special gold ones that were limited in number and are already sold out. They look pretty unique. There are other red or white ones at $200.

If AATW does not like the sneakers then he does not have to buy it. I don't see what the problem is here.

Luxury sneakers associated with celebrities can range in price from $100 to $1000 and Trump appears to be targeting the low end of this.

[AATW]

I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

[Action80]

I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

I agree that spending 400 dollars on sneakers makes you an idiot.

You characterized the pitch of the sneakers as "grifting."

Are you against licensing agreements?

[Tom Bishop]

Fashion shoes are priced at the optimal price point their target market will buy them at. In younger communities if you spend several hundred dollars on a specific known pair of shoes it's a flex. Your identity is connected to the brand of shoes you wear, and is a staple item analogous to a woman's purse - women spend hundreds of dollars for luxury purses for the brand.

If the shoe is priced too low then it will be seen as trash and you will be laughed at. This what Shaquille O'Neal found when he tried to sell $12 Walmart Shaq shoes in response to the complaints from mothers that everyone deserved to have access to branded shoes. While he did sell a lot of them and fulfilled a need, it pretty much obliterated the prestige value of a Shaq shoe brand. Except for maybe children, no one brags about their $12 Shaq shoes.

[AATW]

You characterized the pitch of the sneakers as "grifting."

Yes. And, unusually, you are right in that I somewhat mischaracterized it as such.

Are you against licensing agreements?

I'm against idiots further enriching Trump. But I guess it's their money to waste as they see fit.

[Roundy]

I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

$300 isn't an unusual amount to spend on fashionable sneakers. I'd never spend it but I know people who would.

[Tom Bishop]

Well, it looks like you guys have missed out on another smart Trump investment.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=trump+sneakers&_sacat=0&_sop=16&rt=nc&LH_Auction=1