Trump appears to shove another leader so he could be in front of NATO group

[LostMarbels]

HI LM,

I'd also just like to make the point, since you mentioned Markovic not being a Trump fan, that according to popularity polls, over half the United States of Trump, aren't Trump fans.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

That means nothing to me.

At all.... Glad you were able to get that off your chest tho.

 

[miamited]

Hi LM,

Thanks for your response and some of that I'm in agreement with, however...

You responded:

But I get your point. However, I discuss topics. I'm not so much pro/anti anyone. I just like to find truth in situations. Trump did not appear to push the guy out of his way, he did. Trump straight up removed him from in front of himself, aggressively. I watched the whole thing, not just a clip. The entire time Trump was belittled like a nerdy kid in a school yard and he had enough. I don't blame him. This group of individuals are set in direct opposition to Trump and are even part of the driving force behind all his media woes in America. Trump forcefully reinserted himself into multiple conversations and stood up for himself, and did not waver one bit in his agenda. He told them straight to their faces everything he stated on a camera in America.I personally find it awesome to see a politician that stands his ground regardless of opposition or appearance.

President Trump has not been kind to NATO and I think he's put himself in with a group of people who understand that he doesn't know what he's talking about as far as this 'everyone else owes NATO' claim. I would have been shocked if he didn't receive a fairly cold and standoffish attitude from the NATO members at large. Yes, I can fully understand that a lot of the members were shaking their heads and deriding his claims. Quite frankly, I am too. He just doesn't seem to get the purpose of NATO and how the organization actually works as an alliance membership. It isn't some group that you pay annual dues to that you might get behind in paying your dues like his golf clubs. It isn't some group of nations where every member nation is required to pay in a certain amount of money per year for the protection provided to all the other nations. Everything is done pretty much on a voluntary basis with the only 'requirement' that if one nation comes under attack by what may be perceived as a communist ideology, then everyone jumps in to help. Everything else that NATO is doing, i.e., working to root out human trafficking, sending in crews to search for WMD's or gas or radioactive searches or feeding people after some catastrophic event is something of a side job that comes about because member nations say, "Hey, we ought to send in some crews for such-and-such." These missions are then voted on and everyone gets involved by donating some of their armies and equipment to do the work and those nations that can, do and those nations that can't, don't.

Now to address this seeming disparity of some nations not being able to help with all these other issues while other nations pour millions or billions of dollars worth of men and machines into a particular mission, for a number of years recently, there has been a push to require that each member nation spend a set percentage of their GDP on some sort of military effort so that they can all pitch in a 'fair' share. 'Fair' by their own decision as a group, has been determined to be 2% or their GDP. This is still going to mean that a tiny nation like Montenegro is never going to be able to send as much men and machines as say Great Britain or Canada or the U.S.

But, I'm not particularly in agreement with you that President Trump was somehow treated grossly unfairly based on all the rage and anger he's been directing towards them since his campaign. He just doesn't understand how NATO works and he's gone in there with his standard 'move over everybody I know what I'm doing' bravado and all the member nations are giggling and sniggling behind his back because they know full well that he doesn't.

Just like his claim that healthcare was going to be a piece of cake and being president wasn't such a tough thing and all the other claims he's made to try to impress us that he has some clue that he knows what he's doing or talking about and after hearing him, quickly coming to the realization that he just doesn't have a clue. He's really just a bully who likes to think of himself as being the most important person in the world and you'd better believe him, despite any evidence that may well prove otherwise. Remember: John McCain's a loser! To President Trump, we're all losers.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[rambot]

A so called leader who’s former communist countries population is smaller than Detroit.

Is it only people Donald Trump treats with disrespect that you will ALSO treat with disrespect? OR is there a wider net that you cast with your love?

 

[rambot]

If you take the time to watch the entire summit, you will see that Trump fell directly into the snake pit, and he is almost immediately picked on like a kid on a schoolyard. He was completely amongst the pro-EU globalist elitists he has ridiculed before. You have to remember, Trump stated his administration represented a true existential threat to globalists. He even praised Britan for the Brexit calling it "a great thing". He was not exactly well received in Brussels.

You can see EU leaders jeering, laughing, and even pointing at Trump. Some of them wouldn't even recognize he was in the room. A complete cold shoulder. So Trump walks right up to them and starts talking. He simply was unfazed that they were giving him the cold shoulder, and made his presence known. From what I saw he was not going to be snobbishly put in his place by them. He fired right back.

French President Emmanuel Macron seemed to physically avoid shaking Trump’s hand before Trump grabbed him and gave one of his famous ‘never ending handshakes’. He just put on the Pepe troll face like, 'that's fine I'll shake your hand.' Macron was later seen whispering to others and grimacing during Trump’s speech. They laughed outright when Trump brings up EU nations paying their 2% GDP as required, and almost went mental when Trump told them that the US pays more money into the UN the all other nations combined, and you used that money to build a new building? "I'm not even going to ask how much that cost. Scared to know."

Turns out Duško Marković, the guy who was pushed out of the way is not a Trump fan, to begin with, and you combine that with an unsubstantiated claim of a Russian assassination attempt on the previous prime minister; you will find opposition that has questioned whether any attempt at a coup d’état took place. Many including Trump feel the rumor was just to garner pity and get votes to allow the nation into the UN. Trump questioned: "Montenegro has only about 620,000 citizens. It has no air force. It has no military academy. It has no coast guard. Your armed forces have less than 2,000 active personnel. So what does NATO have to gain from letting you join?"


So it would seem Trump had a full day of countering attempts to delegitimise him, and he finally put Duško Marković in what he felt was his place. That's what I saw. Simply put, Trump refused to be pushed around or bullied like some nerd playing dodge ball. He stood up and stayed the course on everything he ever stated on his campaign.

With this level of rationalizing, you make it sound like this kind of move is WAY out of character for Trump. Fact is, it is not.

That move is who Trump is. That other human adults don't buy into his petty game playing is the second step in the three steps it took to get to that point.

 

[miamited]

Hi guys,

I just hope that everyone remembers this.

All the days that Donald Trump was on the campaign trail and he'd be referring to those who didn't agree with his agenda, didn't want to build a wall, didn't want to ban foreign visitors and immigrants, didn't want to 'improve' healthcare, they were all losers. He'd pound his fist on the podium or spread his hands out to either side of the podium and lean forward and look you right in they eye and tell you what losers those people are.

It was never just a point of disagreement, but always had to be a matter over which the other side had to be denigrated and derided as a losers. The man is a bully. That's a classic tactic, and you can ask any therapist, of acting out as a bully.

These other nation leaders see and understand that about him. He just is not a nice person. Now, you can be one of those who thinks that the President of the United States doesn't have to be nice, but I've lived through the presidencies of several people and yes, there is a time, there is a place and there are people that you deal with where being nice isn't going to work, but President Trump, from all the evidence that I've seen, can't find any place, any time, or any people that he desires to be particularly nice to. The man is a bully who not only thinks of himself as better than anyone else, but does his level best to shove that 'truth' down everyone's throat.'

Enjoy: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ter-bomber-trump-has-called-losers/102047624/

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[LostMarbels]

You seem to still be arguing like I care if Trump is agreed with or not. I don't. I deal with issues, not people. If I believe Trump to be wrong I call him on it.

Now to address this seeming disparity of some nations not being able to help with all these other issues while other nations pour millions or billions of dollars worth of men and machines into a particular mission, for a number of years recently, there has been a push to require that each member nation spend a set percentage of their GDP on some sort of military effort so that they can all pitch in a 'fair' share. 'Fair' by their own decision as a group, has been determined to be 2% or their GDP. This is still going to mean that a tiny nation like Montenegro is never going to be able to send as many men and machines as say Great Britain or Canada or the U.S.

Well, no kidding.... that takes no effort at all to grasp that concept. But not paying your share, is in fact not paying your share. There are no issues in having to pay more as a nation. We have the largest GDP and contribution in the entire UN. More than all other countries combined. To Trump, that means we should have some sort of say in what happens concerning the UN's budget rather than be patted on the head like a good boy for footing a vast majority of the expenses. That dosnt make sense?

But, I'm not particularly in agreement with you that President Trump was somehow treated grossly unfairly based on all the rage and anger he's been directed towards them since his campaign. He just doesn't understand how NATO works and he's gone in there with his standard 'move over everybody I know what I'm doing' bravado and all the member nations are giggling and sniggling behind his back because they know full well that he doesn't.

I believe this is emotional bias and you have never even researched Trump's understanding of the UN. He's not stupid at all. You might not agree with the man and formulate an opion, but you have to at least know where he is coming from.

Just like his claim that healthcare was going to be a piece of cake and being president wasn't such a tough thing and all the other claims he's made to try to impress us that he has some clue that he knows what he's doing or talking about and after hearing him, quickly coming to the realization that he just doesn't have a clue.

I've said it before obstructionism is not a reflection of the opponent themselves. It is politics. If you never allowed to ride a bike you did not fail at learning to ride one. You were never given the chance. Now if a policy, procedure or what have you flops it is that individuals responsibility and/or failure. I say, individual, becasue obstructionism occurs in every administration. To put this in perspective Obama faced a lot of obstruction, and that is not a failure. That is politics, but Obama care is a disaster in my opinion.

He's really just a bully who likes to think of himself as being the most important person in the world and you'd better believe him, despite any evidence that may well prove otherwise. Remember: John McCain's a loser! To President Trump, we're all losers.

He really is a bullish man. Verry forceful and determined. I do believe Trump thinks of himself as being the most important person in the world. That's Trump. In many ways, he reminds me of my grandfather, a WW II veteran of every major battle you ever heard of. (except D-day, he was inland already) From Africa as part of a mortar detachment in the 1st Armor, in operation torch, right up into Euorope, and was even part of the occupation force in Germany. He was a very gruff 'about his business' type of person. Very loving, but don't dare try to stop him. I see the same attitude in Trump that He is not a loser. It wasn't so much as he judged others rather than himself. HE is not a loser, therefore he will not allow himself to be presented as one. It is more of an absolute refusal to be shamed, or be made into second rate. Pride. Not judgment. More of you have to prove you're my better.

As far as evidence.... I'm still looking forward to seeing some. I beat the flies out of that dead horse. I have looked everywhere on the net I know of and have found nothing. Zero. I want to find it! I really do. All I have ever seen is emotionally driven rhetoric that is not substantiated at all.

 

[miamited]

Hi LM,

You responded:

Well, no kidding.... that takes no effort at all to grasp that concept. But not paying your share, is in fact not paying your share. There are no issues in having to pay more as a nation. We have the largest GDP and contribution in the entire UN. More than all other countries combined. To Trump, that means we should have some sort of say in what happens concerning the UN's budget rather than be patted on the head like a good boy for footing a vast majority of the expenses. That dosnt make sense?

Look, you're not even aware of who the players are. This isn't about the UN. I would absolutely agree with you if we were talking about the UN. That's a whole different ball game.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[LostMarbels]

With this level of rationalizing, you make it sound like this kind of move is WAY out of character for Trump. Fact is, it is not.

That move is who Trump is. That other human adults don't buy into his petty game playing is the second step in the three steps it took to get to that point.

I never said it was out of character. I said they grabbed the bull and got the horns.

 

[LostMarbels]

Hi LM,

You responded:


Look, you're not even aware of who the players are. This isn't about the UN. I would absolutely agree with you if we were talking about the UN. That's a whole different ball game.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I having a bad day. I put the wrong acronym in there. That has nothing do with my comment in relation to this discussion. If you intend to point out I made a boo boo, well thanks, point taken.

 

[miamited]

Hi again LM,

Have you done your research? Are you on the same page now as everyone else? The UN is a big powerful organization. It is made up of a lot more countries and they don't all share the same ideological goals of governance and protection. Most all the nations that we are in squabbles and skirmishes with are members of the UN. Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Syria, N. Korea and Russia are all members of the UN.

If that photo op that caught President Trump bullying his way through had been a UN photo op, the crowd of people would have filled the whole area. You also wrote:

I've said it before obstructionism is not a reflection of the opponent themselves. It is politics. If you never allowed to ride a bike you did not fail at learning to ride one. You were never given the chance. Now if a policy, procedure or what have you flops it is that individuals responsibility and/or failure. I say, individual, becasue obstructionism occurs in every administration. To put this in perspective Obama faced a lot of obstruction, and that is not a failure. That is politics, but Obama care is a disaster in my opinion.

Yes, agreed. But, you can't go around telling everyone that riding a bike is easy and expect them to believe you. How would you know?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Cute Tink]

 

[miamited]

I having a bad day. I put the wrong acronym in there. That has nothing do with my comment in relation to this discussion. If you intend to point out I made a boo boo, well thanks, point taken.

HI LM,

Nice try. Tell me, how much is NATO's budget? How much of that budget did the US pay?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[LostMarbels]

HI LM,

Nice try. Tell me, how much is NATO's budget? How much of that budget did the US pay?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

“The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole,” NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. “This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.”

"The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defense.”

“To the extent that NATO is a collective security pact, the Europeans pay less than their fair share, and there is merit to Trump’s claim despite his imprecise language. Are Europeans free-riders when it comes to security, counting on the U.S. to pick up the slack? Yes, without a doubt.”



My original post you addressed:

He blasted the leaders of NATO for not paying their fair share of 2% GDP on defense as is required. He reminded them that many of them were substantially behind on their payments, and called for them to pay their fair share. Stating that the US pays more than all other nations combined, he then states that they used that money to build themselves a pretty little building. Implying that they misappropriated America's money without asking. He then lays into them concerning radical Islamic, terrorism, and border security of sovereign countries. He completely ripped into them as they stood there and mocked him.

My reasoning was thus: (corrections added)

There are no issues in having to pay more as a nation. We have the largest GDP and contribution in the entire NATO. More than all other countries combined. To Trump, that means we should have some sort of say in what happens concerning the NATO's budget rather than be patted on the head like a good boy for footing a vast majority of the expenses. That doesn't make sense?

 

[cow451]

Is Montenegro even a real country? Are they paying their fair share? They better get out of the way of the leader of the world if they know what is good for them.

Russia will probably just annex them anyway.

 

[rambot]

Hi guys,

I just hope that everyone remembers this.

All the days that Donald Trump was on the campaign trail and he'd be referring to those who didn't agree with his agenda, didn't want to build a wall, didn't want to ban foreign visitors and immigrants, didn't want to 'improve' healthcare, they were all losers. He'd pound his fist on the podium or spread his hands out to either side of the podium and lean forward and look you right in they eye and tell you what losers those people are.

It was never just a point of disagreement, but always had to be a matter over which the other side had to be denigrated and derided as a losers. The man is a bully. That's a classic tactic, and you can ask any therapist, of acting out as a bully.

These other nation leaders see and understand that about him. He just is not a nice person. Now, you can be one of those who thinks that the President of the United States doesn't have to be nice, but I've lived through the presidencies of several people and yes, there is a time, there is a place and there are people that you deal with where being nice isn't going to work, but President Trump, from all the evidence that I've seen, can't find any place, any time, or any people that he desires to be particularly nice to. The man is a bully who not only thinks of himself as better than anyone else, but does his level best to shove that 'truth' down everyone's throat.'

Enjoy: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ter-bomber-trump-has-called-losers/102047624/

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

You are correct sir.

 

[rambot]

View attachment 197671

“The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole,” NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. “This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.”

"The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defense.”

“To the extent that NATO is a collective security pact, the Europeans pay less than their fair share, and there is merit to Trump’s claim despite his imprecise language. Are Europeans free-riders when it comes to security, counting on the U.S. to pick up the slack? Yes, without a doubt.”



My original post you addressed:

He blasted the leaders of NATO for not paying their fair share of 2% GDP on defense as is required. He reminded them that many of them were substantially behind on their payments, and called for them to pay their fair share. Stating that the US pays more than all other nations combined, he then states that they used that money to build themselves a pretty little building. Implying that they misappropriated America's money without asking. He then lays into them concerning radical Islamic, terrorism, and border security of sovereign countries. He completely ripped into them as they stood there and mocked him.

My reasoning was thus: (corrections added)

There are no issues in having to pay more as a nation. We have the largest GDP and contribution in the entire NATO. More than all other countries combined. To Trump, that means we should have some sort of say in what happens concerning the NATO's budget rather than be patted on the head like a good boy for footing a vast majority of the expenses. That doesn't make sense?

My issue is that this money does not go to fun NATO. It is money that countries spend on their defense. The US has habitually chose to blow insane amounts of money on defense.
To expect other countries to come to that expectation is ludicrous to me. Frankly, I think the US can and should spend less on defense and more on helping their people (be it in health or education). Maybe thats just me. For Trump to them to commit what was it 47 billion MORE to defence almost 10 billion LESS for education should (cannot emphasize "should" enough) point to where priorities lie; as it ALSO increases the amount the US is spending on defense.

At this point the EU has experienced and continues to experience FAR more threats from terrorism and a greater threat to their east and yet they still pay FAR less than the US. Why doesn't the US simply commit less? There are all kinds of agreements Trump has no problem renegging or renegotiating on. If this was REALLY that big of an issue to him, he should spend LESS on defense.

 

[miamited]

Hi LM,

You responded, and thanks for that:

To Trump, that means we should have some sort of say in what happens concerning the NATO's budget rather than be patted on the head like a good boy for footing a vast majority of the expenses. That doesn't make sense?

Yes, but per the NATO financial agreements based on GDP we should be paying more than everyone else. However, yes, there are some nations that don't pull their weight, but the European nations in NATO, some of them are very small and peaceable nations. They try their best to stay out of conflicts. They aren't particularly bellicose like we are. Luxembourg is a founding country in NATO, but they are a very small country and the whole purpose of NATO was to be a big brother to the many small countries that might one day have to stand before communist aggressors. It was never intended to be a quid pro quo organization. The whole plan was that all these smaller countries wouldn't have to each serve up and support some giant war machine to protect themselves. They could count on their like minded nations in arms to help them out when necessary.

No, the U.S. isn't granted any right of directorship or dictatorship because of its greater contribution. Now, one of the sites that I researched said that the entire annual budget of NATO was about 1.5 billion dollars. That same site also said that over the last few years the U.S. has giving less than 500 million/year towards that total. That equates to less than 33%. The U.S. GDP is expected to be, in 2017, 19 trillion dollars. The next closest is Germany with 3.4 trillion dollars. France 2.6 trillion. UK 2.4 trillion. Italy 2 trillion. Canada 1.8 trillion. Spain 1.3 trillion. The rest are all less than a trillion in GDP.

Based on what the NATO alliance has verbally agreed to as the provision for their support then:

The U.S. with a 19 trillion dollar GDP should be 5.5 times more than Germany. 7 times more than France and UK. 9.5 times more than Italy and 10 times more than Canada and a whopping 13 times more than Spain. All the rest we should be paying at least 19 times more than they do.

According to this article: US Pays 22.1% of NATO Budget; Germany 14.7%; 13 Allies Pay Less Than 1%

Germany paid 14% which is about half of what the U.S. paid. France paid 10% and UK almost 10%.
Yes, many of the smaller nations paid less than 1% but when we measure their contributions against their GDP's the shouldn't have to pay a whole lot. The galling part is that President Trump made rectal show of himself standing up to Angela Merkel and telling her that they owed the U.S. money! Germany is the second largest supporter, in terms of dollars paid towards the NATO budget. Germany is paying their fair share. They're actually paying almost half of what we pay and yet, by GDP, they should only have to pay 1/5th of what we pay.

President Trump has got this all wrong and it's not a bit of a surprise that all the nation leaders in attendance were snickering behind his back. Now, are some of the nations not paying their 'fair' share in the operational budget costs of NATO? Yes, I'm sure, but it isn't Germany. The only 'sin' that Germany has committed is that they aren't yet spending 2% of their GDP on their own military infrastructure. We could likely learn a lot by following Germany's example in that. The U.S. spends 3.3% of its GDP on the war machine.

So yes, we could ask some of those smaller nations to kick in a bit more towards the budgetary needs of NATO, but Germany isn't one of them. What NATO wants Germany to do is spend a bit more money on their own war machine and they are working towards that goal. As some have pointed out, it's not quite as easy as throwing an extra 500 billion dollars in the war budget and then tell the military, "Look, go out and find something to spend this money on!"

There is no right of ownership associated with being a paying member of NATO. The nations vote on who gets to run the show for awhile and then they vote on someone else. Trump can't buy bullying rights with NATO.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Traveling teacher]

Guess trump wasnt corrected when he
cut line in 1st grade!!!!

 

[LostMarbels]

Hi LM,

You responded, and thanks for that:


Yes, but per the NATO financial agreements based on GDP we should be paying more than everyone else. However, yes, there are some nations that don't pull their weight, but the European nations in NATO, some of them are very small and peaceable nations. They try their best to stay out of conflicts. They aren't particularly bellicose like we are. Luxembourg is a founding country in NATO, but they are a very small country and the whole purpose of NATO was to be a big brother to the many small countries that might one day have to stand before communist aggressors. It was never intended to be a quid pro quo organization. The whole plan was that all these smaller countries wouldn't have to each serve up and support some giant war machine to protect themselves. They could count on their like minded nations in arms to help them out when necessary.

No, the U.S. isn't granted any right of directorship or dictatorship because of its greater contribution. Now, one of the sites that I researched said that the entire annual budget of NATO was about 1.5 billion dollars. That same site also said that over the last few years the U.S. has giving less than 500 million/year towards that total. That equates to less than 33%. The U.S. GDP is expected to be, in 2017, 19 trillion dollars. The next closest is Germany with 3.4 trillion dollars. France 2.6 trillion. UK 2.4 trillion. Italy 2 trillion. Canada 1.8 trillion. Spain 1.3 trillion. The rest are all less than a trillion in GDP.

Based on what the NATO alliance has verbally agreed to as the provision for their support then:

The U.S. with a 19 trillion dollar GDP should be 5.5 times more than Germany. 7 times more than France and UK. 9.5 times more than Italy and 10 times more than Canada and a whopping 13 times more than Spain. All the rest we should be paying at least 19 times more than they do.

According to this article: US Pays 22.1% of NATO Budget; Germany 14.7%; 13 Allies Pay Less Than 1%

Germany paid 14% which is about half of what the U.S. paid. France paid 10% and UK almost 10%.
Yes, many of the smaller nations paid less than 1% but when we measure their contributions against their GDP's the shouldn't have to pay a whole lot. The galling part is that President Trump made rectal show of himself standing up to Angela Merkel and telling her that they owed the U.S. money! Germany is the second largest supporter, in terms of dollars paid towards the NATO budget. Germany is paying their fair share. They're actually paying almost half of what we pay and yet, by GDP, they should only have to pay 1/5th of what we pay.

President Trump has got this all wrong and it's not a bit of a surprise that all the nation leaders in attendance were snickering behind his back. Now, are some of the nations not paying their 'fair' share in the operational budget costs of NATO? Yes, I'm sure, but it isn't Germany. The only 'sin' that Germany has committed is that they aren't yet spending 2% of their GDP on their own military infrastructure. We could likely learn a lot by following Germany's example in that. The U.S. spends 3.3% of its GDP on the war machine.

So yes, we could ask some of those smaller nations to kick in a bit more towards the budgetary needs of NATO, but Germany isn't one of them. What NATO wants Germany to do is spend a bit more money on their own war machine and they are working towards that goal. As some have pointed out, it's not quite as easy as throwing an extra 500 billion dollars in the war budget and then tell the military, "Look, go out and find something to spend this money on!"

There is no right of ownership associated with being a paying member of NATO. The nations vote on who gets to run the show for awhile and then they vote on someone else. Trump can't buy bullying rights with NATO.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Look up supplemental indirect funding. I even posted the numbers in my post.

 

[jgarden]

A so called leader who’s former communist countries population is smaller than Detroit.

Israel s a small country - can you imagine the reaction if he had tried pushing Netanyahu out of the way?

As for the 2% controversy, perhaps other NATO countries, as sovereign nations, would rather spend their limited resources on healthcare - an alien concept where Trump is concerned!