Its a stupid argument given that most of Europe have gradually divested themselves from Russian energy over the years. Its probably on par with Trump's "European countries should pay more for NATO" argument.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Its a stupid argument given that most of Europe have gradually divested themselves from Russian energy over the years. Its probably on par with Trump's "European countries should pay more for NATO" argument.
The US would support Israel 100% no matter if the President is a democrat or republican. You know this.
apparent we have a US Senator on the Caf!
The simple truth is that there's no need for NATO, except perhaps as a means to sell weapons to all its member states—you know it, I know it.
Europeans might protest this statement, given that they benefit from receiving defense at no cost.
Similarly, American special interests will protest this statement because arms dealing is a big business - it buys media, airwaves, politicians, and sway within the Beltway.
Actually, I don't. I can't imagine Obama or Trump for that matter being that far up Bibi's ass.
Who moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
Perhaps in the alternate universe where you may dwell, but in reality - the purpose of NATO was to protect primarily Europe against a totalitarian Soviet Union (ie. Russia). That same Russia is today comparably as autocratic, expansionist, and with a similar number of nukes. And as we've seen repeatedly over the past 24 years, Putin has shown he is a totalitarian fascist driven by neo-imperialist aspirations. Given his behavior, you would have a hard time convincing any objective observer that NATO isn't just as needed today as it was during the Russian communist project.
Last edited:
What? WIthout NATO, Russia would be invading the Baltic countries in no time, and probably Poland soon.
He probably believes Putin's Russia would simply mind its own business if there was no NATO.
Russia will probably make a move on the baltics in the coming years, NATO's response to that will tell us if the alliance is worth keeping or not.
Can't tell if this is just troll feeding...
It is. The poster in question should be left alone.
Wow.
Even if he's elected, I don't think he'll be able to make it through the next four years. He might be the incumbent but his head is clearly not entirely there, and it will only get worse.
Is there really no alternative in the Dems camp?
It's just so selfish of himself to put himself in that position and risk the country going back to Trump. He should have served his term and handed over, the Dems should have thought of a plan well in advance. At this rate, making yourself look more cognitively worse than Trump is quite something.
Yeah, I'd be amazed if Biden is still POTUS in 2028.
Too late to switch the candidates now, since Biden is already starting to win the primaries. Obvious choice would be Harris if Biden pulled out, but I don't think she can win. As for the next election after this, I think Gavin Newsom looks like a good bet. He's got the right age, he's a white man, he has governed a major state, he is a good debater, and he seems to be popular with the establishment.
The Abraham Accords gave us the current mess in Gaza with the whole region threatening to explode. Unilateraly jumping out of the Iran deal and tightening the economic sanctions for absolutely no reason other than to satisfy the hawks in Washington and Israel's wishes, contributed aside from pushing 1/3 of the Iranians into poverty, to antagonize and radicalize Iran's position. Kissing Kim Jon Un's boots did nothing to discourage or stop NK's aggressive stance and arm race. On the contrary. Every populistic psychopath at the helm of a country felt emboldened and acted accordingly.
His unilateralism considerably strained the relationships with the rest of the West which couldn't wait to see the back of him. It might partly explain why the western european countries are curently acting so grovelling towards the Biden administration. They're terrified of another four years of orange lunacy.
So no, Trump didn't do better than Biden in matters of foreign policy, he's been a disaster.
Last edited:
Agreed, he would be my choice for '28 as well.
Thanks, mate. Just had a quick look as his bio.
By the look of it, he's indeed an establishment guy despite his relatively modest origins. Ticks all the right boxes, generous with his friends, also quite the womanizer. My very superficial but infaillible judgement would put him in the "intelligent, progressive, ferociously ambitious but tempered by just the right amount of (political) morals, with a bit of a sleazy side" category.
He'd make a handsome president.
Yeah, if there was no NATO I bet Russia wouldnt try to invade Baltic countries for a start.
All I know is, that the $7.8 trillion is frequently quoted. Here is a Washington Post article from December using that number as well. Here is an AP Fact check saying $7.4 trillion, using the White House Office of Management and Budget as its source. It also has an interesting graph showing that the Debt/GDP ratio has actually fallen under Biden, while it grew massively under Trump (article is from May 2023).
Of course, you have to look at the reasons. COVID relief under Trump was certainly a factor, and that was bi-partisan and necessary. But he has also added $1.9 trillion through his unnecessary tax cuts, at a time when the economy was doing well. Here's an interesting ProPublica article about how Trump's policies influenced the debt situation during his term, including his tax cuts and trade tariffs.
He's clearly the front runner for 2028, he has that Bill Clinton in the 90s vibe.
I expect Kim's mind to be truly shattered by drugs by that point (if it isn't already), so the shit she makes up against him will be fascinating.
Yep. He will be attacked on the situation California finds itself in with homelessness and so on (unless it improves until then), but I'm not sure it will be a massive issue for him. Ironically he is probably what every Republican either perceives themself to be or wishes they could be - meaning handsome, suave, well-spoken, etc.
Imagine Trump Jr tries to run.
you left out the key points - white and maleYou're almost right, but you're missing the cause for the effect. The eastward expansion of NATO did indeed provoke a hostile reaction, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy that resulted in a hostile Russia requiring counteraction.
That's not how it works unfortunately since post-Soviet Russia is also an authoritarian nation with a desire to reclaim and control previously held Soviet territory. Therefore the existence of NATO is completely justified. Once Putin dies and (hopefully) Russia stops being a predatory autocracy, then the need for NATO will gradually dissipate and European countries can then go back to no longer requiring collective security, and deal with specific conflicts on a one-on-one basis. Until then, NATO will continue to play a critical role of ensuring Europe free and democratic.
Newsom is definitely what DeSantis wishes he was.
What a truly wild thing to say while a non-NATO country is currently being invaded by Russia.
Then again, DeSantis made the democratic party virtually extinct in Florida, a state that only tilted red some years ago.
In that regard, he has had far bigger influence on politics than Newsom, who governs in a state that was solid blue before him, and will be so after.
And Newsom is also excellent at taking the battles in the world of social media to his own advantage. You can bet that future elections will be won on social media as well.
The only reason Russia hasn't invaded the Baltic States and Poland is precisely because of NATO, Afghanistan, Gulf 1, Bosnia were all NATO operations - it's not a wild thing to say it's just ignorant
The reason the expansion happened in the first place is because basically all of Russia's neighbors hates them.
You want to blame somebody for it? Blame Russia, for their 19th century-mentality.
Did DeSantis do that, or was it because the Democratic Party in Florida was underfunded and run by idiots?
In any case, DeSantis has now shown he is useless on the national scene, whereas the jury is still out for Newson - I imagine he will have a lot more broad appeal.
I don't think many would have predicted De Santis would have capitulated so badly. He pretty much scuppered himself whilst being touted as a genuine rival to Trump and the new face of the Republican party.
Newson should have been in the running for at least the last year to help get him better recognition but the Dems were so focused on Biden nobody else was even considered. With Joe's continual decline it seems that could be a very costly mistake.
NATO expanded because all those countries APPLIED TO JOIN precisely because of Putin's Russia.
We can all see what happens if you fail to join and border Russia.
It's not like NATO went around forcing countries to signup.
Yeah, the way to do it would have been Biden announcing he would step back well in advance, so there could be a proper primary. I think it's a combination of Biden's pride, and the naivety of the Democratic party that has led us here. WIth the proper execution, I think it could have been a slam dunk for Newsom - instead we have what could be nailbiter.
This is basically just Russian propaganda talking points now. Fascinating stuff.
It's really not that complicated. Putin wants to restore Russia to it's former glory, which to him means reunification with Ukraine. The people of Ukraine don't want that (obviously), and are willing to lay down their lives to avoid it. The only implied threat of eastward NATO expansion to Russia, is that the countries that join up will be off limits for invasion later, and that is unplatable to Putin - but he shouldn't be invading those countries anyway, because they are independent. Russia has nothing to offer Ukraine and similar countries, so they lean towards the West instead.