What did you think of that meeting with Trump and Putin?

[Albion]

We have the Trump we elected. He opposes our European allies, calling the EU a foe. He is friends with Russia leaders and oligarchs. Trump refuses to criticize the man who tried so hard to help him in the campaign.

If you mean Putin, please don't you get down into the conspiracy theory gutter, too. There is no evidence that Putin tried to make Trump president. None.

If some turns up, THAT will be the time to start writing like this.

 

[mark46]

Yes, some European countries have yet to meet the 2024 goal of 2% of their GDP being spent on defense.

No country AGREED to up their percentage to 2% by 2018. Obviously, some countries have done so in advance of the goal date. No country had failed to meet the goal yet.

On the other hand, those countries seem to be easily antagonized. For example, the mere suggestion that the EU countries should pay, for their defense, what they long ago agreed to pay but have not, causes them to feel insulted.

 

[NotreDame]

It's really simple if you read the actual Constitution.

Which Trump did in front of the entire world. So it's a safe bet we have the two required witnesses.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

Trump did not commit treason.

“I have president Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be," President Trump said...”So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Those statements do not constitute as treason. This is not to suggest no statements could be ever be treason, but those remarks do not constitute as a violation of allegiance. Those remarks are not attempts to overthrow the government, they do not constitute as taking up arms against the government, spying for a foreign government, sharing government secrets with a foreign government, etcetera.

 

[mark46]

The entire intelligence community disagrees with you. To act to try to defeat Clinton is to act to try to elect Trump. Putin has done that. Of course, their is the possibility that their is a rogue conspiracy of those close to Putin who acted (and are acting) on their own. NOT!

If you mean Putin, please don't you get down into the conspiracy theory gutter, too. There is no evidence that Putin tried to make Trump president. None.

If some turns up, THAT will be the time to start writing like this.

 

[mark46]

We are not at war with Russia. It is not treason for Trump to favor Russia over our traditional allies. It is not treason for Trump to attempt to whitewash the role of Russia interference in our elections. It is not even collusion unless Trump was personally paid.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

Trump did not commit treason.

“I have president Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be," President Trump said...”So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Those statements do not constitute as treason. This is not to suggest no statements could be ever be treason, but those remarks do not constitute as a violation of allegiance. Those remarks are not attempts to overthrow the government, they do not constitute as taking up arms against the government, spying for a foreign government, sharing government secrets with a foreign government, etcetera.

 

[Albion]

Yes, some European countries have yet to meet the 2024 goal of 2% of their GDP being spent on defense.

No country AGREED to up their percentage to 2% by 2018. Obviously, some countries have done so in advance of the goal date. No country had failed to meet the goal yet.

You must be using a very strict interpretation of the meaning of the agreement which, even if correct, would not change anything about the confrontation.

But here is what Business Insider magazine says on the matter: "Only five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 28 member countries last year met the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense." All the backsliders bought into it.

Yes, the president is right to talk turkey to these supposed allies. They are called our allies every time they get their way, but if they are even questioned about their faithlessness, it is supposed to be wrong of the president to even have brought it up. Baloney.

 

[AirPo]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

Trump did not commit treason.

“I have president Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be," President Trump said...”So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Those statements do not constitute as treason. This is not to suggest no statements could be ever be treason, but those remarks do not constitute as a violation of allegiance. Those remarks are not attempts to overthrow the government, they do not constitute as taking up arms against the government, spying for a foreign government, sharing government secrets with a foreign government, etcetera.

Aid and Comfort, there's no denying it.

 

[mark46]

Please explain how the European countries are failing to meet their 2024 goals. Has NATO changed and made this a commitment to spend 2% by 2018?

You must be using a very strict interpretation of the meaning of the agreement which, even if correct, would not change anything about the confrontation.

But here is what Business Insider magazine says on the matter: "Only five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 28 member countries last year met the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense." All the backsliders bought into it.

Yes, the president is right to talk turkey to these supposed allies. They are called our allies every time they get their way, but if they are even questioned about their faithlessness, it is supposed to be wrong of the president to even have brought it up. Baloney.

 

[Albion]

The entire intelligence community disagrees with you. [/quote
In fact, it does not. To act to try to defeat Clinton is to act to try to elect Trump. Putin has done that.

He or they tried to get the same stuff from the Republicans! The dems merely turned it over to the hackers.

The cooler heads who have looked at this matter believe that the Russian objective was to cause discord, not to elect one or the other of the candidates. If they had wanted a patsy in the White House, it obviously would have been Hillary! So, your theory doesn't even make logical sense. Plus, in the recent indictments, the Justice department specifically ruled out what you are claiming here.

 

[whatbogsends]

Don’t act as if the Right doesn’t do the same sort of things.

The big difference is that with Obama, they latched onto the few clear issues he had and repeated them non-stop.

With Trump, he creates a new issue each week (if not more frequently), which does tend to distract attention from his previous issues. There are only so many problems one can focus on.

If Obama slept with a pornstar and paid her hush money we'd have heard about it for 8 years, because they only had a few legitimate grievances. Instead, we have Trump, where this behavior is but a drop in the bucket.

Somehow, those on the right see this as some sort of win for them...

 

[Tiberius Lee]

B+

But, one must understand Trump to rate him that highly.
M-Bob

I just want to see his long form of birth certificate that he was born in America and not Russia. I am not saying he was born in Russia, but I want to see his birth certificate. I am not saying any thing but other people are saying he was born in Russia, other people e come to me and say he was born in Russia, yes , lots a people say that …. I just want to see his birth certificate. Oh by the way FBI did lost Hilary’s 30 thousand emails, where are they , FBI didn’t look under the chair and now they lost it, the Pakistani guy , he was hiding behind the bush and now we have this big problem folks , no birth certificate, no collusion, just big witch hunt, oh we need to lock her up and…. and then you will find this witch hunt and FBI, they are just Obama’s fault and little Marko was drinking so much water you never seen before and I got 30 billion for Nato , the world never seen before .. oh yea the birth certificate .. where is the birth certificate … Russia if you have the birth certificate please share with us , American people will reward you.. I love Wiki leaks .. I just love them.. Putin , I think you have the birth certificate! Nafta BADDDD. WITH HUNT! BAD.

 

[Speedwell]

Agreed. As is the case with "collusion", folks don't know the legal definition of "treason". To be an ally of Russia is not the same as committing treason.

What makes you think that Russia is our ally?

 

[super animator]

Of course not -- he's an employer.

Nah, he is what you called a "sucker". The dude is a open book in predictably.

 

[mark46]

Putin is an ally of Trump, our Commander In Chief, our president, and the author of US foreign policy. Trump cannot commit treason by agreeing with Russia.

Trump wouldn't even be guilty of treason if he recognized the Russian takeover of Crimea and easter Ukraine.

What makes you think that Russia is our ally?

 

[super animator]

Putin is an ally of Trump, our Commander In Chief, our president, and the author of US foreign policy. Trump cannot commit treason by agreeing with Russia.

Trump wouldn't even be guilty of treason if he recognized the Russian takeover of Crimea and easter Ukraine.

Your position is so confusing.... Do you just accept the allies/enemies status quote based on who's current president.

 

[Hammster]

That Trump committed Treason.

That a positive for you?

Wow. smh

 

[Speedwell]

Putin is an ally of Trump, our Commander In Chief, our president, and the author of US foreign policy. Trump cannot commit treason by agreeing with Russia.

Trump wouldn't even be guilty of treason if he recognized the Russian takeover of Crimea and easter Ukraine.

Either Trump and Putin are correct that the alleged Russian meddling is a hoax perpetrated by the US intelligence community, or

Russia has committed a hostile act against the sovereignty of the United States and Trump has a lot of 'splainin to do, despite the fact that you think he has unilateral authority to nominate our allies.

 

[theQuincunx5]

On the other hand, those countries seem to be easily antagonized. For example, the mere suggestion that the EU countries should pay, for their defense, what they long ago agreed to pay but have not, causes them to feel insulted.

I rather assume you are unfamiliar with history. Indeed many American presidents have asked NATO allies to pay more. In fact in 2014 (you know, when Secret Muslim Obama was in charge) the NATO countries agreed to increase their payments with a target date of 2024.

Trump got them to re-affirm their previously claimed dedication to this goal. NOTHING MORE. Trump didn't do DIDDLY. Other than to terrify the Nato members into wondering if America can be counted on.

The NATO members all basically said "Yeah, we agreed in 2014 to the increase in spending and that's still on track!"

If I recall correctly so far the only country that has gotten the benefit of Article 5 of the NATO agreement is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AFTER 9-11 WHEN NATO CAME TO OUR AID.
(https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/Invokation-Article-5/Invoking_Article_5/EN/index.htm)

And, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you because history started BEFORE Trump was elected, but NATO was in part formed so America could keep some degree of control in Europe. To keep a resurgent military from developing in Germany AND to act as a bulwark against Soviet Russia.

NATO isn't some charity that Trump takes care of. It is OUR DEFENSIVE POSITION.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Either Trump and Putin are correct that the alleged Russian meddling is a hoax perpetrated by the US intelligence community, or

Russia has committed a hostile act against the sovereignty of the United States and Trump has a lot of 'splainin to do, despite the fact that you think he has unilateral authority to nominate our allies.

The Trump Supporters have a valid point. The KGB and the FSB which followed it DEFINITELY do a great job. Clearly Trump and his Supporters are more than happy to "offshore" that kind of thing and who better to do it than the KGB-FSB?

This is how we make America great again: we farm out intel work to foreign contractors because they do it for peanuts (The FSB apparently took the initiative to mine BitCoin in order to hack our elections...these guys practically PAY FOR THEMSELVES! And if there's one thing businessmen like Trump know: COST SAVINGS COUNT!

So let's join with the Trump Bandwagon and let the KGB run the intel show for us!

 

[mark46]

In large part that is indeed the case.

Thus, we discuss the UK as our traditional ally, ditto for the EU.

The Commander In Chief could declare that Germany's support of the Russian economy made it an enemy of the US, and withdraw all troops from Germany, and put sanctions and large tariffs on Germany. Let us say that Germany were treated as an enemy through the end of the Republican administration, say 2024. Would we consider Germany an enemy? Of course we would.

Perhaps Turkey and the Philippines are better examples. Whether they are considered an enemy in 2020 depended on who was elected president, and the actions and policy of that president. Is Palestine an enemy? IMHO, that depends on who is president.

Your position is so confusing.... Do you just accept the allies/enemies status quote based on who's current president.