Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 09, 2018

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison says "the overall theme" of this week's summit meeting in Brussels "is going to be NATO's strength and unity" ... Unfortunately, Ms. Hutchison cannot predict the potential behavior of the commander in chief, President Trump, who has kept security officials across Europe sleepless in anticipation of a possible blowup like he initiated at last month's Group of Seven meeting.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

From the WaPo link ...

What the president ought to avoid is making a show of discord with the European allies as a prelude to a relations-mending summit with Mr. Putin.

That would be not just unseemly but dangerous: It could cause the Russian leader to conclude that he might get away with a new round of aggression in Europe.

Mr. Trump seems not to understand that maligning America's allies while embracing its adversaries is more than a political game; it could have catastrophic consequences.


Trump does not understand that entire nations, especially our western European Allies, are disgusted with his public ----------- of murderous dictators.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-08 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah Trump definitely isn't a Russian saboteur. It's totally all just a plot by Hillary, Obama and "the deep state" to bring down the misunderstood genius Donald Trump.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Question for Trumpsters -

Is is the grossly misunderstood Donald Trump?

or

Is it just the gross Donald Trump?

Moral people with inquiring minds would like to know.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-08 10:08 PM | Reply

Trump is doing everything he can to turn The USA into a nation which is entirely subservient to Putin and Russia.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-07-08 10:17 PM | Reply

I just hope this all able to be patched over when over or will grudges be held.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2018-07-08 10:38 PM | Reply

"Who is the one holding the grudge?"

Right now, it's Trump.

What he's asking about is, will others just let it go if America still exists when Trump is no longer President.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 01:27 AM | Reply

Trump has made the Left into big time supporters of:

1.) GHW Bush
2.) The military industrial complex
3.) Free trade and globalization

What are your values at this point because those sure don't seem to be the values you claimed during Obama's reign?

#5 | POSTED BY MILKSHAKE69

My values tell me that there's a right way and a wrong way to address these things.

Regarding Old Man Bush's NWO and the MIC, Obama was also critical of our NATO allies for not paying their fair share of securing Europe's western democracies, but Obama didn't poop tweet his anger over the issue for all to see. Add to that Trump meddling in the internal politics of our Allies like Germany, again something Obama never did.

As for globalization, Bernie Sanders also wants to re-negotiate America's trade deals, but Bernie is obviously not going to poop tweet about it.

See the difference?

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 06:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The people that have never lived up to their obligation on defense spending under NATO agreements or the one that has had to subsidize their safety at the expense of US taypayers for years finally saying enough is enough? Surely Europe has no reason to hold a grudge.

#7 | POSTED BY MILKSHAKE69

Since you've mentioned US taxpayers ...

I would like to think you're also on board with spending America's money on things that matter ... instead of wasting tens of trillions on those things you criticized in post # 5.

Here's our major spending initiatives the last 20 years.

• Two Bush Tax Cuts = $6.6 trillion (2001, 2003)
• Medicare Part D = $1 trillion (2003)
• Iraq/Afghanistan Wars = $7 trillion (2003 - 2018)
• Wall Street Bank Bailout = $12.8 trillion (2008)
• Obama Stimulus = $1 trillion (2009)
• Trump/GOP Tax Cuts = $1.5 trillion (2017)

Almost $30 trillion since 2001.

I'm all for getting our European Allies to pay their fair share with NATO, and I'm all for getting America's millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share of taxes to have a government that works for working and middle-class Americans.

#11 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 07:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

No, he didn't, and what exactly changed as a result of his anger? That's right, absolutely nothing. So, we have a completely ineffective Obama with impotent anger resulting in nothing. You find that superior to actually trying to change the behavior of our deadbeat allies?

#10 | POSTED BY MILKSHAKE69

Speaking of being honest, let's all use our eyeballs and say out loud together that Trump is an incompetent moron who finds more in common with the world's murderous dictators than with America's friends.

Nice try, hack.

#12 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 07:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is Barack Obama right to criticise Nato's free riders? Of course he is
www.theguardian.com

Here's Obama dealing with the enemies of America ... dc-cdn.s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com

Here's Trump palling around with the enemies of America ... cdni.rt.com

Every time Trump pals around with a homicidal dictator like Putin or Kim, he always has a ---- eating grin as if he's out on his first date. You may think that's that good, I don't.

#14 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 07:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

What is the US getting from nato?

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-07-09 10:18 AM | Reply

If warmongers hate it, it's a great idea. Burn NATO to the ground.

#17 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-07-09 10:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, we have a completely ineffective Obama with impotent anger resulting in nothing."

You are just so full of crap. Remember that time when Obama negotiated a deal with IRan about nuclear weapons and that idiot Trump took us out of that deal?

"We have done the same policy with NK for the last 60 years and nothing has changed. Maybe it is time to try a different approach."

Yeah, brilliant. Now N. Korea is back building nuclear weapons. That meeting changed absolutely nothing, just a photo-op. You're just another idiotic Trump ass kisser.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-09 10:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comrade Milkshake = Comrade Sheep.

#19 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-07-09 11:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

MILKLSHAKE wants us to pay our military with borrowed money. Trump complains about our NATO allies not paying their share for military but we aren't either, we are just borrowing money to pay for the military so that our richest 1% don't have to pay taxes. That whole argument about military spending is a crock of you know what. Come back and argue when the 1% are paying their real fair share of taxes, til then you argument is a joke.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-09 11:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Mr. Trump seems not to understand................it could have catastrophic consequences
.............................#1 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

I say that pretty well sums up everything that's happened since november 2016

#21 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-07-09 11:09 AM | Reply

What is the US getting from nato?

#16 | POSTED BY SNIPER

The same thing as the rest of the West, stability. Which translates into economic growth and power.

You're a fool if you think chaos benefits people like you.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-09 11:10 AM | Reply

- Comrade Milkshake = Comrade Sheep.

www.youtube.com

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 11:14 AM | Reply

NATO has kept the peace throughout Western Europe for over seven decades. (The Yugoslavian bloodbath notwithstanding.) It just has come at a inordinately high financial price for the US taxpayer. Money well spent? I think so. But it has been one heck of a lot of money spent.

#24 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-07-09 11:22 AM | Reply

The extent President Trump and the TURNCOAT Senate Trumpublicans will go to please Vladimir Putin is NOT in our national interest.

Lest we be reminded both countries possess nuclear extermination fleets silently cruising under the oceans which can kill every single living thing on the surface of our planet, thrice, AIMED AT EACH OTHER.

All of which has been put into the tiny little hands of a illiterate game-show host and a bunch of Senate transplanted hillbillies.

Former U.S. Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison has no international experience, whatsoever. She is a lawyer from Texas who worked for Guiliani's law firm from 2013 to 2017 when Trump nominated her for a permanent position to NATO.

Trump has not only failed to drain the swamp, he has actually managed to POLLUTE the swamp.

MAGA

#25 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-07-09 11:24 AM | Reply

If Europe can afford generous social welfare programs, they can afford to defend themselves and stop leeching off American taxpayers.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-09 11:25 AM | Reply

The same thing as the rest of the West, stability. Which translates into economic growth and power.

You're a fool if you think chaos benefits people like you.

#22 | Posted by jpw

Who is the big bad boogyman nato is holding off?

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-07-09 11:45 AM | Reply

#26

"Please, Vlad, please invade northern Europe!"

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 11:46 AM | Reply

The same thing as the rest of the West, stability. Which translates into economic growth and power.

All one has to do is look at those considered for NATO member status over the course of this century. The purpose is antagonizing a superpower, not stability.

#29 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-07-09 12:02 PM | Reply

"The purpose is antagonizing a superpower, not stability."

The effect of that purpose is political and economic stability, which benefits all NATO members.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 12:05 PM | Reply

NATO boogeyman?

Why the murderer Putin and 90% of the Russian public that hates your freedumbz, stupid

#31 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-09 12:05 PM | Reply

1% Bernie is for whatever way the wind is blowing.

I can't think of a legislator who has been more consistent over the years than Sanders. You may not like his philosophy, but he can hardly be characterized as wishy-washy. If you think he's catering to whatever society wants perhaps it's because society is starting to come around to his views.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 | Posted by danni

VERY well put Danni.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-07-09 12:26 PM | Reply

The guy that was for controlling immigration until he found out needed to be open borders to run for president?

Find a source for Bernie supporting "open borders." I'll wait.

The guy that owns 3 houses and made $1M+ for the last 3 years, and paid 13% in taxes on a $500K income while saying middle class America needs to pay more.

Even assuming all of that is true, it's a tu quoque logical fallacy and therefore does nothing to defeat his viewpoints or demonstrate legislative inconsistency which is obviously what i was talking about.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The effect of that purpose is political and economic stability, which benefits all NATO members.

Bringing a country like Georgia into NATO is not done to create political or economic stability, it is done to create a hot-zone to encourage instability.

#37 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-07-09 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who is the big bad boogyman nato is holding off?

#27 | POSTED BY SNIPER

The same boogeyman the right claimed the left loved right up until Trump revealed himself to be Putin's BFF.

So now they think Russia is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the gains since WWII worth throwing out the window so they can be fleeced by the new ruling class.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-09 01:23 PM | Reply

#36 he's just our newest Comrade Troll.

There's nothing remotely original in his posts, just your standard right wing brain mush.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-09 01:25 PM | Reply

#39 I'm thinking "Milkshake69" is an alternate name Nullifidian uses. It's the only food the nurses can get him to gum down, followed by his age.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 01:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

No, he didn't, and what exactly changed as a result of his anger? That's right, absolutely nothing. So, we have a completely ineffective Obama with impotent anger resulting in nothing. You find that superior to actually trying to change the behavior of our deadbeat allies?

#10 | POSTED BY MILKSHAKE69
Speaking of being honest, let's all use our eyeballs and say out loud together that Trump is an incompetent moron who finds more in common with the world's murderous dictators than with America's friends.
Nice try, hack.

#12 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-07-09 07:09 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Nice, Pinch points out how ineffective Obama was without realizing it and when called on it goes all Liberal by not debating but insults.

#41 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-07-09 01:49 PM | Reply

So now they think Russia is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the gains since WWII worth throwing out the window so they can be fleeced by the new ruling class.

"all the gains since WWII"

lol.jpg

#42 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-07-09 01:56 PM | Reply

"Nice, Pinch points out how ineffective Obama was without realizing it and when called on it goes all Liberal by not debating but insults."

Donald Trump now brags about the economy Obama brought back to life. Ineffective? Hardly. He was so effective that Trump's entire term so far is just trying to tear down the Obama legacy no matter who it hurts.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-09 02:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What is the US getting from nato?

#16 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Incredible amounts of intelligence information, bases, a buffer against Russia, and diplomatic leverage over Eastern European countries.

Stop playing Call of Duty and try researching a bit sometime.

#44 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-09 02:20 PM | Reply

Nice, Pinch points out how ineffective Obama was without realizing it and when called on it goes all Liberal by not debating but insults.

#41 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Lets see...

NATO allies increased defense spending three years in a row after Obama pushed them.
Nothing seems to have changed on North Korea with Trump except Kim now looking like a legitimate leader.
Weapons inspections in Iran and constant monitoring as they stopped their nuclear program.
Dropping of tariffs against US goods and services in the Pacific rim until Trump blew it up.
United front against Russia for the invasion of Crimea.

Seems pretty effective to me...

#45 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-09 02:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Pinch points out how ineffective Obama was without realizing it and when called on it goes all Liberal by not debating but insults.

#41 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Stevie Wonder can clearly see Trump is an competent moron who doesn't know what he's doing.

You don't belive me? Here's how Trump's bumbling is screwing the pooch in Korea ...
www.drudge.com

As for calling Milkshake69 a hack ... if this poster is actually Sheep in Milk's clothing ... oops, cuz I liked Sheep due to his allegiance to Bernie.

#46 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 02:30 PM | Reply

"Bringing a country like Georgia into NATO is not done to create political or economic stability, it is done to create a hot-zone to encourage instability."

One man's political instability feeds another man's global hegemony.

I tend to agree that NATO over expanded after the Iron Curtain fell. But that expansion is just as much economic force projection as military.

True power is economic power, military force is a hedge. In that regard, we have a lot more to lose than Russia. Russia has a GDP the size of Texas, or about 1/20th the size of NATO.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 04:09 PM | Reply

NATO allies increased defense spending three years in a row after Obama pushed them.

#45 | Posted by Sycophant

Oh hell yes......... a couple of them increased their spending from .5% to .75%of their budget.

#48 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-07-09 05:11 PM | Reply

Russia spends $66.3 billion.

France spends $57.8 billion.
UK spends $47.2 billion.
Germany spends $44.3 billion.
Italy spends $29.2 billion.

That's more than sufficient to deal with a front opening with Russia.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 06:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49

HTF would you know?

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-07-09 06:43 PM | Reply

I can read a map.

#51 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 06:51 PM | Reply

So can lots of people, but they're not claiming to know whether lack of U.S. support will amount to sufficient resources.

Hence the question: HTF would you know what is and is not sufficient?

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-07-09 06:53 PM | Reply

That's more than sufficient to deal with a front opening with Russia.

#49 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2018-07-09 06:39 PM

Probably true, but the NATO charter requires them to spend 2% of GDP on defense, here is what they really spend, according to NATO itself:

Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017)

They all still have a long way to go, they increased their budgets by $46B in 2018 and according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, that was mostly due to the "encouragement" they received at the last summit.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 06:54 PM | Reply

Hence the question: HTF would you know what is and is not sufficient?

#52 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2018-07-09 06:53 PM | FLAG:

Map reading, Clausewitz, Hart, a good technical knowledge of the equipment, readiness, the history of the Ostfront.

Oh, and nukes. The Brits and Frenchies have them too.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 06:58 PM | Reply

#54

Ah, so what you deem to be credible, yet are actually baseless, assumptions.

Thanks for the clarification.

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-07-09 07:01 PM | Reply

Okay you've set the baseline, how much more do they have to spend to have what you think is a credible deterrent?

Clearly nuclear weapons, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, worlds best tank designs, best firearm manufacturers, and 3x spending, and defending a cone shaped front while having multiple invasion routes against an enemy that completely neglected their regular army in favor of a moderately sized special forces arm that doesn't hold ground?

#56 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 07:08 PM | Reply

The newly found love of NATO by the Left is fascinating to me, Trump's bluster about pulling out if the EU doesn't meet their obligations has not only improved NATO's strength but converted long time critics of US involvement with NATO into supporters.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 07:12 PM | Reply

That's more than sufficient to deal with a front opening with Russia.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 06:39 PM | Repl

The idea is to prevent a front opening. That is, no war.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 07:20 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, the newly found love of Russia by the right is not really that surprising.

No surprise that right wingers admire a strongman who assassinates journalists, ignores the international rule of law, and sends political protesters to years in Gulag.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The newly found love of NATO by the Left is fascinating to me

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018

You have some strange ideas. This one is cousin to liberals don't keep guns.

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 07:24 PM | Reply

That's more than sufficient to deal with a front opening with Russia.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-

Less Clausewitz, more Sun Tzu.

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 07:25 PM | Reply

NATO has kept the peace. That's a big selling point. More than big, huge.

#62 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 07:27 PM | Reply

No surprise that right wingers admire a strongman who assassinates journalists, ignores the international rule of law, and sends political protesters to years in Gulag.

Wasn't that what the Reset Button was all about?

#63 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 07:29 PM | Reply

Wasn't that what the Reset Button was all about?

#63 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-0

No.

But Donald's reset is. Hard to argue not, but you're free to try.

#64 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 07:31 PM | Reply

Wasn't that what the Reset Button was all about?

#63 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-07-09 07:29 PM | FLAG: Whatabout whatabout whatabout

#65 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-09 07:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#60

Zed, if you don't think most of the left, until November 8, 2016, was at the very least mildly anti-NATO then you are lying to yourself.

Here is one of the best articles on Pro and Con arguments about NATO, from the Hoover Institution in 1999:

Hoover Policy Review: The Conservative Case for NATO

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 07:38 PM | Reply

Less Clausewitz, more Sun Tzu.

#61 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2018-07-09 07:25 PM | REPLY

It's worth reading Clausewitz before Hart. Hart shows example of Clausewitz thinking evolving over time and posits that he died before he came to the "indirect approach". The indirect approach is more or less a modern version of the Art of War.

That's the approach the Russians are taking. It's no longer a spending race with armies competing for the best way to deliver cavalry across the Fulda Gap. They can't compete in 3rd and 4th generation warfare, so they've moved on to what's considered 5th generation. It's all special forces and Internet propaganda warfare.

#67 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 07:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#65

Translation: I got nothing, as usual.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 07:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Zed, if you don't think most of the left, until November 8, 2016, was at the very least mildly anti-NATO then you are lying to yourself.
Here is one of the best articles on Pro and Con arguments about NATO, from the Hoover Institution in 1999:
Hoover Policy Review: The Conservative Case for NATO

#66 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-07-09 07:38 PM | FLAG: whatabout the left in the 90s?

#69 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-09 07:41 PM | Reply

What about the Reset Button, ROC?

Please, tell us how Secretary Clinton changed right-wing minds on Russia.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 07:42 PM | Reply

- at the very least mildly anti-NATO

The rwing has been the anti-NATO party of record for a very long time, and nothing mild about it.

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 07:43 PM | Reply

"if you don't think most of the left, until November 8, 2016, was at the very least mildly anti-NATO"

Trump is more than mildly anti-NATO.

So, that's a false equivalency, on top of a whataboutism.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 07:45 PM | Reply

If Europe can afford generous social welfare programs, they can afford to defend themselves and stop leeching off American taxpayers.

#26 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I agree 100%.

And the hundreds of billions of dollars US taxpayers are saved should be used to fund REAL American needs in healthcare, education, and infrastructure ...

More to the point -- NATO money saved can fund the following;
- Medicaid
- Food Stamps
- Veterans healthcare
- Public school upgrades / teacher's pay-raises

And long term savings can be used to pay for free college and infrastructure.

Nulli, glad to see you agree with me on all this!

#73 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 08:21 PM | Reply

Conservatives can't make up their minds on this: won't cutting defense spending tank the US economy? Worse still, what if all those European countries develop domestic arms production and stop buying American gear? I can just hear all the right wingers gnashing their teeth.

#74 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-09 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

won't cutting defense spending tank the US economy?

They won't cut defense spending, they'll just buy more gear and stack it up in Arizona somewhere instead of Europe.

#75 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-07-09 08:49 PM | Reply

A continuation of the $ being the reserve currency of the planet. NATO allows for US power projection globally, fronted by a coalition of vassal states. You know, the thing that makes your country "great". The funny thing is that Marine Le Pen (an ardent Trump supporter btw) believes Trump will "liberate" Europe; from American hegemony.
If Trump thinks NATO is a bad thing, then I will have to agree with him. Whilst he's at it, he should dismantle the UKUS Five eyes agreement. Then we'd have a truly multipolar world and everyone can then negotiate in their interests, either bilaterally or as trading blocks (e.g. EU, GCC, ASEAN etc). Obama called Europe "old" and was greeted with cries from the right of being "disrespectful" of traditional allies. Some even "apologised" for his presidency.
Trump utters worse and the right condone his actions.
I can tell you from personal experience that Germans would rather see the back of US bases there; they have no practical use anymore. SoKo the same. Japan too. Lots of money to saved right across the world. MAGA squared if you like.

#76 | Posted by tunde at 2018-07-10 05:22 AM | Reply

Col Pat Lang gives short shrift to 3rd 4th and 5th generation military epoch naming. It just made the COINistas sound as if they knew what they were talking about. Bill Lind has a lot to answer for.

#77 | Posted by tunde at 2018-07-10 05:26 AM | Reply

Slayer's 'Seasons in the Abyss' is a great song ... and it aptly describes a Trump led America ensuring the world goes to hell in a handbasket.

#78 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 06:21 AM | Reply

Here's Obama palling around with the enemies of America :
www.google.com

www.google.com

www.google.com

www.google.com
Every time Trump Obama pals around with a homicidal dictator like Putin or Kim, he always has a ---- eating grin as if he's out on his first date. You may think that's that good, I don't.

#14 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-09 07:22 AM
Do you have any integrity left?

#79 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 09:27 AM | Reply

Can anyone tell me why we should pay for the defense of Europe who combined has a greater GNP than the USA? It has been 74 years sense the end of WWII and 27 sense the USSR fell apart. Why not spend our money here? There is nothing in the NATO treaty that requires us to station troops in Europe. There is nothing in the NATO treaty that require us to cut checks to subsidize the military in 23 other nations. It is better to have a highly mobile and professional force.

#80 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-07-10 10:00 AM | Reply

Do you have any integrity left?

#79 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I recently posted a link where Obama was very critical of NATO countries for not paying their fair share ... so there you go, I have plenty of integrity.

There's right way and a wrong way to do these sort of things.

Obama and his SecDef Robert Gates were professional and responsible in sending the message to our NATO allies that they need to pay their fair share.

On the other hand, Trump is a total incompetent jaghoff and moron by publically poop-tweeting at our NATO allies that they need to pay up while kissing Putin's ass in the process -- even Stevie Wonder can clearly see that that's whack.

#81 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 10:18 AM | Reply

Can anyone tell me why we should pay for the defense of Europe who combined has a greater GNP than the USA? It has been 74 years sense the end of WWII and 27 sense the USSR fell apart. Why not spend our money here? There is nothing in the NATO treaty that requires us to station troops in Europe. There is nothing in the NATO treaty that require us to cut checks to subsidize the military in 23 other nations. It is better to have a highly mobile and professional force.

#80 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

I agree 100%.

And the hundreds of billions of dollars US taxpayers saved should be used to fund REAL American needs in healthcare, education, and infrastructure ...

More to the point -- NATO money saved can fund the following;
• Medicaid
• Food Stamps
• Veterans healthcare
• Public school upgrades / teacher's pay-raises

And long term savings can be used to pay for free college and infrastructure.

Docnjo, glad to see you agree with me on all this!

#82 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 10:21 AM | Reply

#82 | Posted by PinchALoaf, The recent rise in the economy has diminished the need for welfare of all types. We already spend more on schools than every other country in the world, what we need are better preforming teachers, and enforce discipline among students. There is no such thing as "free college", if we pay for someone's education, maybe we should have them learn something of value to the community. We don't need any more women's studies graduates.(our welfare rolls already have enough people on it).

#83 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-07-10 10:40 AM | Reply

"We already spend more on schools than every other country in the world"

We spend more money on schools, yet we pay our teachers less. Spending money on schools means having nice buildings. It doesn't mean having a good education system.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The recent rise in the economy has diminished the need for welfare of all types. We already spend more on schools than every other country in the world, what we need are better preforming teachers, and enforce discipline among students. There is no such thing as "free college", if we pay for someone's education, maybe we should have them learn something of value to the community. We don't need any more women's studies graduates.(our welfare rolls already have enough people on it).

#83 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Bzzzzzzztttt !!!!!!!!!

WRONG

We're already the richest country in world, and yet we argue over effing food stamps.

Arguing over money just for the sake of arguing is dysfunctional.

If we're going to demand that NATO countries pay their fair share, than US taxpayers have every right to DEMAND that the money saved be put to good use that directly helps regular Americans.

Very very simple stuff -- you need to free your mind.

#85 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 10:49 AM | Reply

US taxpayers have every right to DEMAND that the money saved be put to good use - #85 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 10:49 AM
1.paying down the US taxpayer debt
2.not taking it from the US taxpayer

#86 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#85 | Posted by PinchALoaf Define "regular Americans". Want to help everyone? Start paying off the national debt. At this moment, over 40% of our tax revenue goes to service that debt. Not having that debt would free up a lot of funds to pay for many of the things you value. It also increases the money supply that is used to create jobs.

#87 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-07-10 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#86 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Paying down the debt?

We just gave $2 trillion in free money to corporations already making record profits.

Do you see the disconnect?

Or more to the point ... do you have the integrity to admit the glaring disconnect to what you're saying?

Again, if we're going to demand that NATO countries pay their fair share, than US taxpayers have every right to DEMAND that the money saved be put to good use that directly helps regular Americans.

#88 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:14 AM | Reply

It also increases the money supply that is used to create jobs.

#87 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Creating jobs?

We aready have more jobs than people looking for jobs. It's in all the news, right here ...

money.cnn.com

#89 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:19 AM | Reply

US taxpayers have every right to DEMAND that the money saved be put to good use that directly helps regular Americans. - #88 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:14 AM |
Which my 2 step process for any funds that result in eliminating military spending do.

We just gave $2 trillion in free money to corporations already making record profits. Do you see the disconnect?
The disconnect between pretending that taking less money in taxes is the same as giving someone free money? Yes, I definitely do see that disconnect.

#90 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Avigdore, Docnjo, and the two knuckleheads who flagged posts #86 and #87 NW ...

You guys need to truly FREE your minds -- here, let me help you.

"There are none so blind as will not see and none so deaf as will not hear"
-- Matthew Henry

Too many Americans are stubbornly stuck in their willful ignorance and would rather be exploited than truly reap the rewards of their labor.

It's way beyond pathetic -- wake up people, free your minds.

#91 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:31 AM | Reply

Again, if we're going to demand that NATO countries pay their fair share, than US taxpayers have every right to DEMAND that the money saved be put to good use that directly helps regular Americans.

#88 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-07-10 11:14 AM | FLAG:

The flaw in both sides argument is that other NATO members spending more doesn't mean we spend less. It just means they spend more. That's it.

#92 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-10 11:40 AM | Reply

"There is nothing in the NATO treaty that requires us to station troops in Europe."

Arguably it makes US nuclear deterrence more credible.

#93 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-10 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The flaw in both sides argument is that other NATO members spending more doesn't mean we spend less. It just means they spend more. That's it.

#92 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

What I'm saying isn't flawed.

But I do understand what you're saying ...

Rightfully changing the conversation to what we're going to do with the money saved, whether it's saved or spent on more uneeded military hardware, is the whole point of arguing over money.

Trump wants to wreck NATO over money? Ok, what are we going to do with the supposed savings is a legitimate question.

And I'd add that ALWAYS questioning how taxpayer money is spent are ALWAYS legitimate questions.

#94 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:51 AM | Reply

#91 | Posted by PinchALoaf Free yours, what is the opposite of exploited? Unemployed. No job is out in the market is there out of the largess of an employer, it is there to create a profit. Tax a corporation enough, they move to where the tax overhead is lower. One thing we should admit, there is no such thing as corporate income. All income is individual and should be taxed as such. How about a new rule, the maximum an individual can be taxed is 50%, from all sources. That would still keep the very wealthy here. Hell, maybe all those celebrities could start living in California again. That rule would give us about a trillion dollar surplus at today's level of expenditure.

#95 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-07-10 11:55 AM | Reply

Free yours, what is the opposite of exploited? Unemployed. No job is out in the market is there out of the largess of an employer, it is there to create a profit. Tax a corporation enough, they move to where the tax overhead is lower. One thing we should admit, there is no such thing as corporate income. All income is individual and should be taxed as such. How about a new rule, the maximum an individual can be taxed is 50%, from all sources. That would still keep the very wealthy here. Hell, maybe all those celebrities could start living in California again. That rule would give us about a trillion dollar surplus at today's level of expenditure.

#95 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Thanks for making my point in post # 94.

Here's some more help for you in freeing your mind ...

Who Stole The American Dream?
youtu.be

#96 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:59 AM | Reply

"what is the opposite of exploited? Unemployed."

What a great summation of the alienation of workers in a capitalist system.

#97 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-10 12:00 PM | Reply

#94 | Posted by PinchALoaf DO you ever go to work? Do you have a job, I guess the prospective of someone who lives at the expense of others is a little skewed to the left. I know I do, but I got screwed up doing the empire's dirty work, and I had a contract.

#98 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-07-10 12:00 PM | Reply

--What a great summation of the alienation of workers in a capitalist system.

#97 | Posted by DirkStruan

What we need is one of Comrade Stalin's 5-year plans!

#99 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The conservatives lost all their credibility about money in the arguments leading up to the Bush tax cuts. They have never recovered any credibility since. The idea that America is "spending" more than our NATO allies is nonsense, we are spending "pretend" money. With the current tax law the CBO says our debt will double in 10 years. Those awful allies are spending real money because they don't have the reserve currency of the world which enables us to print as much as we want. As Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved it, deficits don't matter."

#100 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Too many Americans are stubbornly stuck in their willful ignorance and would rather be exploited than truly reap the rewards of their labor.
It's way beyond pathetic -- wake up people, free your minds. - #91 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 11:31 AM

One of us seems to be saying that the government should exploit the tax payers less, the other seems to be saying that the government should continue to exploit the tax payers the same and somehow that continued level of exploitation means those tax payers are truly reaping the rewards of their (the tax payer's) labor...by giving those rewards to the government.
Wake up, indeed.

#101 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 12:08 PM | Reply

DO you ever go to work? Do you have a job, I guess the prospective of someone who lives at the expense of others is a little skewed to the left. I know I do, but I got screwed up doing the empire's dirty work, and I had a contract.

#98 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

If working wages from the 1970s rose at the same rate of growth as the economy, I would not have ever paid close enough attention to what's going on in 2018, understand? I'd been like everyone else; fat, dumb, and happy.

Wake, up, and, free, your, mind.

#102 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 12:10 PM | Reply

#85 | At this moment, over 40% of our tax revenue goes to service that debt. Not having that debt would free up a lot of funds to pay for many of the things you value.
#87 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Do you have a source for that?

"Interest on debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it borrowed to finance past deficits -- that is, on the federal debt held by the public, which reached $14 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2016. In 2016, these interest payments claimed $240 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget."

www.cbpp.org

#103 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-10 12:11 PM | Reply

"One of us seems to be saying that the government should exploit the tax payers less, the other seems to be saying that the government should continue to exploit the tax payers the same and somehow that continued level of exploitation means those tax payers are truly reaping the rewards of their (the tax payer's) labor...by giving those rewards to the government."

Instead of worrying that some of our tax dollars might flow to someone not deserving enough I think we should be considering what tax rates enabled our nation to have the most prosperous population in the world. We taxed ourselves much higher in those days, including the wealthy. We created the world's biggest middle class and the largest economy in the world. My daughter just came back from traveling around in Indiana and other states. She could not believe the terrible condition of the major highways outside of Florida. The Libertarians are watching things deteriorate so that eventually our population will be willing to privatize them so that then Interstate highways will all be toll roads. Eisehower and Roosevelt are turning over in their graves watching the leadership of this nation today.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 12:36 PM | Reply

What we need is one of Comrade Stalin's 5-year plans!

#99 | Posted by nullifidian

How about just a actual Plan.

That would be good, too.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-10 12:56 PM | Reply

I think we should be considering what tax rates enabled our nation to have the most prosperous population in the world. We taxed ourselves much higher in those days, including the wealthy. We created the world's biggest middle class and the largest economy in the world. - #104 | Posted by Danni at 2018-07-10 12:36 PM
Ok. Canada has the world's richest middle class.
finance.yahoo.com
Shall we copy their tax brackets for a few years and see how it goes?

#106 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 01:12 PM | Reply

"Want to help everyone? Start paying off the national debt."

Dicnjo, you're a GOP voter.
The GOP never pays off the debt.
They always increase it.

You don't want to help everyone.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 01:44 PM | Reply

"Want to help everyone? Start paying off the national debt."

Docnjo, you're a GOP voter.
The GOP never pays off the debt.
They always increase it.

You don't want to help everyone.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 01:44 PM | Reply

The GOP never pays off the debt.
They always increase it. - #108 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 01:44 PM

As opposed of the Democrats who lowered the debt?
What WAS
the party of the last president who oversaw a lowering of the yearly federal debt?
Hint: 1956 & 1957
What was the party of the president who increased the debt the most in total dollars (#44 with $7.917 trillion) or in % of debt (#32 at an increase of 1048%)?

#109 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 02:05 PM | Reply

Ok, what are we going to do with the supposed savings is a legitimate question.

#94 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-07-10 11:51 AM | FLAG:

We have no intention of saving that money, so it's a pointless question. All we're trying to do is get other people to spend more.

#110 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-10 02:26 PM | Reply

As opposed of the Democrats who lowered the debt?
What WAS the party of the last president who oversaw a lowering of the yearly federal debt?
Hint: 1956 & 1957
What was the party of the president who increased the debt the most in total dollars (#44 with $7.917 trillion) or in % of debt (#32 at an increase of 1048%)?

#109 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Fact: The last 4 Democratic presidents all decreased the public debt as a share of GDP while the last four Republican presidents all increased it.

Fact: Only two Presidents have decreased the deficit in the last 40 years. Both were Democrats.

Fact: Clinton left office with a surplus and Bush managed to turn it into a deficit in 2002.

Fact: The 2009 Budget Deficit of $1.4 trillion was from Bush's budget passed before Obama took office.

Fact: The 2017 Budget Deficit from Obama's last budget was $665 trillion, approximately $800 trillion less then the last Budget Deficit from Bush's last budget.

Fact: Of the Budgets Obama actually signed while in office, the debt increased by less than $7 trillion.

Fact: The Federal Government lost approximately $4 trillion in revenue during Obama's presidency due to the Great Recession. This represents approximately half of the increase in the national debt during this time.

Fact: Deficits under Trump have nearly doubled from under Obama.

#111 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 02:50 PM | Reply

"All we're trying to do is get other people to spend more."

On weapons systems we make.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 02:54 PM | Reply

#111 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 02:50 PM
Deflections and dodges from my questions?
Fact.

#113 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 03:01 PM | Reply

On weapons systems we make.

#112 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-07-10 02:54 PM | FLAG:

Only a little bit. All the members being pressured have indigenous defense industries. They make their own fighters, helicopters, tanks, machine guns, artillery, cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, stealth combat drones, tankers, etc.

#114 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-10 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fact: Only two Presidents have decreased the deficit in the last 40 years. Both were Democrats. - #111 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 02:50 PM
And so that you don't feel too ignored, George W. Bush's deficit in 2006 was $574 billion. In 2007 George W. Bush's deficit was $501 billion, a decrease of the deficit by $73 billion. His father started his term with a FY90 deficit of $376 billion and decreased the deficit by $29 billion by the time he left office in FY93 to a deficit of $347 billion.

Where's Laura? I need an OOPSIE-DAISY for Sycophant here.

#115 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 03:09 PM | Reply

We have no intention of saving that money, so it's a pointless question.

#110 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

It's not pointless a question, it's a legitimate question.

Again, I understand totally what you're saying.

The question I'm asking would gain traction if the media actually reported in a legitimate manner as I'm suggesting, instead of ONLY focusing on Trump's outrageous behavior and poop tweeting.

#116 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-10 03:12 PM | Reply

"In 2007 George W. Bush's deficit"

George W Bush's term didn't end in 2007.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 06:26 PM | Reply

George W Bush's term didn't end in 2007. -#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 06:26 PM
Was there supposed to be a point to that?
Here, let me explain to you since you seem to be missing it.
I gave 2 examples in case Sycophant meant beginning of term to end (father) or year to year(son).
Either way, the 'Fact' is false. I made sure I didn't have to retort it a 2nd time.
I expected you to have been able to figure that out.

#118 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 07:41 PM | Reply

@#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 06:26 PM
Also, why are you avoiding #109?

#119 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 07:45 PM | Reply

#109? Eisenhowr is ancient history. Year over year is unnecessary and possibly deceptive when we're looking at a Presudebts entire tenure. Saying Obama increased the debt by putting Bush's credit card spending on the books is simply a lie.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 07:56 PM | Reply

#115 talks about the deficit, which is not the debt.

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 07:58 PM | Reply

You spoke to debts in your 108, which is why I replied to it in 109.
Speaks talked of deficits in 111, which is why I replied to it in 115.
You were talking debts when you mistakenly said that:
"The GOP never pays off the debt.
They always increase it. - #108 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 01:44 PM "

We know that you erred, are you just now realizing it?

#122 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 08:13 PM | Reply

I fail to see how requiring the other NATO countries pay their agreed fiscal obligations will 'wreck' them.

#123 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-07-10 08:29 PM | Reply

At most it will 'check' them.

#124 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 08:46 PM | Reply

Trump is only doing Putin's bidding, as usual. The Russians have always hated NATO. Therefore Trump is seeing to NATO's demise.

#125 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-07-10 09:54 PM | Reply

He's off to quite a start.

Baby Trump threw a tantrum today and did his best to knock all the blocks down.

What a POS the idiots of America elected. What a complete embarrassment.

Putin's baby boy.

F*** y** if you support this traitor.

#126 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-11 07:12 AM | Reply

Putin's baby boy.

#126 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2018-07-11 07:12 AM | FLAG:

66% of Russian exports are energy.
40% of Russian's energy exports go to European NATO members.

NATO is doing a fine job bankrolling Putin and his oligarchs.

#127 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-11 03:18 PM | Reply

#127 - Trump said that, sort of. Nice you care to repeat his talking points. You starting to love him these days, Sitz?

Trump blasts NATO, has no idea what NATO is about, that they were there for us with the first use of Article 5, blasts them for not giving 2% (when half give more, and the 2% number is the target to reach by 2020). He ignores all the sanctions, the fact that Germany lead on the Russian sanctions, and then says 2% isn't enough - it needs to be 4% - something we don't even do. In short, he lies about everything, or is too stupid to know the facts, and looks like an idiot.

And then he's off to kiss Putin's ring in the hopes that Trump Moscow will someday be built, and to pick up some tips on how to implement an Oligarchy like Putin did so Trump can maybe come closer to being the world's richest man - which currently is Putin.

Any point he tried to make is worthless at this point.

#128 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-11 05:59 PM | Reply

I fail to see how requiring the other NATO countries pay their agreed fiscal obligations will 'wreck' them.

#123 | Posted by MSgt

Yes, of course you fail to see.

The whole idea behind NATO is to present a united alliance against Russian (soviet) aggression.

Trump is wrecking that alliance in order to please Putin.

NATO countries have already agreed to increase their defense spending by 2023.

Trump has no idea how to lead an alliance.

#129 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-11 06:14 PM | Reply

NATO is doing a fine job bankrolling Putin and his oligarchs.

#127 | Posted by sitzkrieg

America buys 20 billion worth of good from Russia a year. So apparently we are also "doing a fine job bankrolling Putin and his oligarchs".

Apparently.

#130 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-11 07:31 PM | Reply

"We know that you erred, are you just now realizing it?"

I erred?

Which GOP President(s) left America with less debt than he inherited?

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 07:39 PM | Reply

Apparently.
#130 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-07-11 07:31 PM | FLAG:

We are. Lovely isn't it?

NATO fears Russia so much that it buys enough to fund the entire Russian war machine twice over.

#132 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-12 09:36 AM | Reply

He ignores all the sanctions, the fact that Germany lead on the Russian sanctions

#128 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2018-07-11 05:59 PM | FLAG:

Germany is sanctioning Russia so hard that they're doubling the Nord Stream pipeline capacity. More economic integration and energy dependence than ever before.

#133 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-12 09:47 AM | Reply

I think we're going to have to disagree.
Germany already relies on Russia for most of their natural gas.
This Nord Stream 2 isn't going to change that equation.
If you're concerned, offer a solution.

#134 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-12 10:00 AM | Reply

Oh - and "Germany is sanctioning Russia so hard that they're doubling the Nord Stream pipeline capacity" is a nice snark, but absent of any fact. It's a nice little emotional rejoinder, though. :)

#135 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-12 10:03 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort