Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:03 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
That's not what 'honestly' means. That's bizarre.
If you plainly state what you think I was saying, I'll tell you if you are right or wrong.
  #252  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:06 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If you plainly state what you think I was saying, I'll tell you if you are right or wrong.
I think you are saying that you that Trump has weakened NATO, but not too much, so it's not a big deal.
  #253  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:21 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I think you are saying that you that Trump has weakened NATO, but not too much, so it's not a big deal.
I would not say Trump has weakened it for the simple reason that I don't know if NATO has been weakened. But I am also not saying he hasn't weakened it. I simply don't know the strength of NATO relative to when Trump took office. As they say, that's way above my pay grade. But if it has been weakened, it's a big deal. Obviously, the more it's been weakened, the bigger the deal.
  #254  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:36 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
Remember that list of things Trump has said and done with respect to NATO that you conceded were things Putin wanted because they made NATO membership less attractive? Well making NATO membership less attractive weakens NATO.
  #255  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Remember that list of things Trump has said and done with respect to NATO that you conceded were things Putin wanted because they made NATO membership less attractive? Well making NATO membership less attractive weakens NATO.
You say it weakens NATO. Fine. But I don't know that to be true. Or untrue.
  #256  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:58 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
Right like, "It weakens NATO, but does it weaken weaken NATO?"

I'm picking up what you're putting down.
  #257  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:03 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Right like, "It weakens NATO, but does it weaken weaken NATO?"

I'm picking up what you're putting down.
I don't know what "weaken weaken" means, and I posted this earlier:

"I responded to the first part of that sentence, and not the "weakening weakening" part, because I don't know what you mean."

I'm not sure how much more there is to say here....

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-17-2019 at 05:04 PM.
  #258  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:40 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You say it weakens NATO. Fine. But I don't know that to be true. Or untrue.
NATO is not just military hardware, it is an organization of people.

People are stronger when their morale is high.

This is lowering morale.

This is weakening NATO.

If the allies in NATO cannot depend on eachother to come to their mutual aid, then NATO is broken.
  #259  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:51 PM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,445
If the argument is moved toward asking over and over about a definition for "weakening", I will not be at all surprised.
  #260  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:36 PM
Mike Mabes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 397
I don’t think Putin needs to blackmail Trump (although he might be) to get him to do what he wants. He may just be using a combination of flattery and promises in their conversations. Trump knows absolutely nothing about geopolitical affairs. Putin does. He’s probably convinced Trump that he is not a bad guy at all, that he just wants to “whatever is necessary to find a peaceful solution to these problems.” That a Russian military presence in the Middle East “is a good thing” and that he and Trump will work together for the good of all mankind. Maybe they will get a Noble Prize together like Sadat and Begin. And, as an added bonus, Trump will be able to do hundreds of millions of dollars of business in Russia.

Either one of those things would be enough for Trump to do whatever Putin wants.
  #261  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:45 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
If the argument is moved toward asking over and over about a definition for "weakening", I will not be at all surprised.


Lance Turbo said this:

"Sure Donald Trump is weakening NATO, but he's not weakening weakening NATO."

I plainly asked him what "weakening weakening" means. I do not understand the distinction between "weakening" and "weakening weakening". So do me a favor. And I am asking you this nicely. If you can't read and follow a discussion two other people are having, would it be too much to suggest you just not respond?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-17-2019 at 07:48 PM.
  #262  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:57 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
NATO is not just military hardware, it is an organization of people.

People are stronger when their morale is high.

This is lowering morale.

This is weakening NATO.
Fine. NATO is being weakened because morale is lower under Trump. I don't know how you actually know that this has happened, but I'll accept you at your word.

I now acknowledge that NATO has been weakened under Trump.
  #263  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:02 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post


Lance Turbo said this:

"Sure Donald Trump is weakening NATO, but he's not weakening weakening NATO."

I plainly asked him what "weakening weakening" means. I do not understand the distinction between "weakening" and "weakening weakening". So do me a favor. And I am asking you this nicely. If you can't read and follow a discussion two other people are having, would it be too much to suggest you just not respond?
I thought that was answered.

In any case, insert your favorite affirmative adverb for the first "weakening". "Really", "Actually", "Literally". If it were spoken, the meaning would be more distinct. In written form, the nuance doesn't come through as easily.

You had acknowledged that Trump's actions were harmful to NATO. You also seemed to indicate that it was not harmful enough to NATO to raise to the level you have set for what is an acceptable harm to NATO.

so read it this way "Sure Donald Trump is weakening NATO, but he's not really weakening NATO." Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-17-2019 at 08:02 PM.
  #264  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:02 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
I don’t think Putin needs to blackmail Trump (although he might be) to get him to do what he wants. He may just be using a combination of flattery and promises in their conversations. Trump knows absolutely nothing about geopolitical affairs. Putin does. He’s probably convinced Trump that he is not a bad guy at all, that he just wants to “whatever is necessary to find a peaceful solution to these problems.” That a Russian military presence in the Middle East “is a good thing” and that he and Trump will work together for the good of all mankind. Maybe they will get a Noble Prize together like Sadat and Begin. And, as an added bonus, Trump will be able to do hundreds of millions of dollars of business in Russia.

Either one of those things would be enough for Trump to do whatever Putin wants.
If you've read the whole thread, it will come as no surprise that I agree with your general conclusion. Blackmail is not necessary to get Trump to act as he does, Trump is ignorant of geopolitical affairs, the whole bit. As to what Putin may say to him, who knows, but those seem like reasonable enough guesses.
  #265  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:23 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
In any case, insert your favorite affirmative adverb for the first "weakening". "Really", "Actually", "Literally". If it were spoken, the meaning would be more distinct. In written form, the nuance doesn't come through as easily.
Thanks for telling me what Lance Turbo meant.

Quote:
You had acknowledged that Trump's actions were harmful to NATO. You also seemed to indicate that it was not harmful enough to NATO to raise to the level you have set for what is an acceptable harm to NATO.
If you remember, I said nations pulling out of NATO would be an example of a weakening. I said it right the fuck up front. Is that a level? If so, yes, I set a level. Happy?
  #266  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:46 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If you've read the whole thread, it will come as no surprise that I agree with your general conclusion. Blackmail is not necessary to get Trump to act as he does, Trump is ignorant of geopolitical affairs, the whole bit. As to what Putin may say to him, who knows, but those seem like reasonable enough guesses.
That effectively is worse than having him be blackmailed. He's an asset to everyone who happens to call him at the right moment.
  #267  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:02 PM
Mike Mabes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
That effectively is worse than having him be blackmailed. He's an asset to everyone who happens to call him at the right moment.
If only we had a recent example.
  #268  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:05 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
That effectively is worse than having him be blackmailed. He's an asset to everyone who happens to call him at the right moment.
I suggest this reply should have gone to Mike Mabes, since I was essentially repeating what he said, but yeah, that makes sense. It's a lot easier to sweet talk someone, who is susceptible to it, into doing something than having to go out and dig up actual, real-life dirt on him.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-17-2019 at 10:06 PM.
  #269  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:44 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
You keep using the term "conspiracy theory". I don't think that phrase means what you think it does.
It applies perfectly to the notion that the President of the US acts under control of a foreign power because -insert nefarious reason here-.

In fact it fits to a T with the definition shared not long ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
A conspiracy theory is using bad evidence to say that I have proven something. I have no evidence and I have proved jack doodle.

It is entirely possible that there are behind-the-scene reasons for Trump's unexplainable actions which we would accept as reasonable if we knew about them. I am not saying nor declaring otherwise.

I'm saying that if someone has a gun pointed at your face, is ranting their head off, and their eyes are all bloodshot, you are stupid to decide that they will probably not shoot.

You are betting the future and security of our nation on this man. Do you have any reason to think that he's trustworthy?
On post #208 you listed a number of reasons and concluded, regarding Trump actions "Blackmail can do it. I can't think of anything else that does."

I'm going to quote Sherlock again: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

There are other things that would explain the things you said besides Trump being blackmailed, that you couldn't think of them means that either you really can't (even though some were already given in this thread) or, more probably, you don't accept them, you are making a choice on what you believe and that is that Trump is being controlled by Russia through blackmail.

As for your question, not trustworthy =/= Trump works for the Russians because they are blackmailing him. You think they guy is untrustworthy and unfit to the position (which I agree) fine, but when you start buying and perpetuating conspiracy theories (like the one you advanced about paedophilia) you've lost me.
  #270  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:07 AM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is online now
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
If only we had a recent example.
I think the transcript of his call to Erdogan is likely much more treasonous than his call to Zelensky. Let's not argue about the definition of treason again. I can't think of a better word when describing Trump's interactions with other countries.

Treason; criminal disloyalty to the state. Yeah, that describes it.

Last edited by steatopygia; 10-18-2019 at 01:10 AM.
  #271  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:05 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,008

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I would like to have understood your response to this point. But I don't.


Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
All kidding aside, on this board the key things to pay attention to are:

1. Overuse of asking for cites,
2. Fixation on the use of a particular word, such as asking for precise definitions and then quibbling with them,
3. If someone provides ten points in favor of an idea or whatever, proceeding to nitpick the hell out of one in order to "disprove" the other nine,
4. Altering the basics of the debate or moving the goalposts of a standard of proof, forcing others to essentially go back to square one,
5. An extreme focus on the process of a debate, rather than the main point (e.g., if someone says the sky is blue, the troll/sealioner will focus discussion individually/serially on the words, meaning, and standard of proof for "sky," "is," and "blue" rather than coming out with a competing argument that the sky is a different color.

This is definitely a phenomenon that is hard to see at first because it is subtle, but once you notice it, it becomes obvious. One question to keep in mind is, "Is this poster just making others do a lot of work/citing/arguing without contributing a similar degree of effort?"
This is a warning for accusing another poster of trolling or being a troll.

[/moderating]
  #272  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:29 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
As for your question, not trustworthy =/= Trump works for the Russians because they are blackmailing him. You think they guy is untrustworthy and unfit to the position (which I agree) fine, but when you start buying and perpetuating conspiracy theories (like the one you advanced about paedophilia) you've lost me.
Just because someone was jailed for statutory rape in their 30s doesn't mean that they'll abuse your tween daughter if you hire them as a babysitter. It would still be stupid.

It's not a conspiracy theory that Trump has close connections to people who trafficked in children, both before and after Epstein. That is documented reality. It's not based on speculation nor innuendo. It's statically impossible for anyone to accomplish without a concerted effort to do.

Trustworthiness is not global. I might not trust someone with my tween daughter and yet still trust them to calculate my taxes. These are separate concerns.

If a guy keeps hanging out with people who traffick women and children and there's some amount of evidence that he may have done the same, then making a national security bet that he didn't go all in is stupid. It's a concern because there's genuine reason to be concerned in that specific area. It might be unjustified, if you had perfect knowledge of all things. It's possible that he's completely innocent. It's possible that a guy can have ten friends who are all goths and not himself be a goth. But making those bets, in the face of national security is reckless.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 10-18-2019 at 12:31 PM.
  #273  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:11 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460

`


Final thoughts on NATO:

I can also imagine a scenario in which NATO was strengthened because Trump said he was going to pull us out:

Trump makes his statement. Members of NATO, the actual people involved in it on a day to day basis, are appalled. Morale takes a dive. But, the fact that Trump made his statement encourages people in the US and elsewhere to raise a ruckus about Trump's ridiculous idea. These people stress the importance of NATO to the security of the west. We are all reminded of this, as are NATO workers, and this reaffirms the worth of what they do. Morale rises to new heights. Now, I say again, I have no idea what the morale of NATO is. But I think this scenario is plausible, and diminished morale is not a foregone conclusion.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-18-2019 at 02:14 PM.
  #274  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:06 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post

If you remember, I said nations pulling out of NATO would be an example of a weakening. I said it right the fuck up front. Is that a level? If so, yes, I set a level. Happy?
You did not say that that was your only benchmark for determining if NATO had been weakened, just that that was an example.

IMHO, if nations are pulling out of NATO, it is not weakened, it is broken. It is the weakening of NATO that will cause nations to consider pulling out of it.
  #275  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:07 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
You're a big fan of Occam's Razor...

Which requires more assumptions, your convoluted reverse fakey jake morale boost scenario or... ?

There was never a doubt that the US would fulfill its Article V obligations until Trump. Now there is and NATO is weaker as a result.
  #276  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:22 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
It applies perfectly to the notion that the President of the US acts under control of a foreign power because -insert nefarious reason here-.

In fact it fits to a T with the definition shared not long ago.
To be a conspiracy theory as the phrase is understood, it needs to explain a situation or event as a conspiracy among powerful and/or hidden figures, when other explanations seem more probable. (Aronovitch, 2009).

If you want to reject the notion of Trump being a thrall of Putin as a conspiracy theory, you must provide one or more alternative explanations that are clearly better explanations of why Trump acts the way he does. That is what conspiracy theory means.

Providing explanations of roughly equal probability is advancing competing theories, it does not reduce the "compromat" theory to a conspiracy theory. If you wish to use "conspiracy theory" as a derogative to dismiss the notion that Putin has Trump by the balls, you have to provide something that is clearly better.
  #277  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:31 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is online now
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,895
" ...something that is clearly better."

I believe the competing theory is "stupidity and incompetence".

Last edited by steatopygia; 10-18-2019 at 03:31 PM.
  #278  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:51 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
" ...something that is clearly better."

I believe the competing theory is "stupidity and incompetence".
Its a possible theory. It does however, require Trumps stupidity and incompetence to always come out in Putins favor. As Trump keeps coming down on the side of Putins agenda over and over again, randomness seem a more and more remote possibility.
  #279  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:53 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
IMHO, if nations are pulling out of NATO, it is not weakened, it is broken. It is the weakening of NATO that will cause nations to consider pulling out of it.
"Well, of course!" would be my first reaction. But this is how silly this has gotten. I am forced to ask you now, what is your standard of weakened vs broken? If one nation pulls out, is that broken, or just weakened? Two? Seven?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You're a big fan of Occam's Razor...
There was never a doubt that the US would fulfill its Article V obligations until Trump. Now there is and NATO is weaker as a result.
Says who that there is a doubt? Who precisely is saying that? Yes, it plausible. It's reasonable. And for all I know you are 100% correct. But the only proof you've offered is that you say it's so.

I will respond, but man, I would really rather drop this. I have nothing more to say.
  #280  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:02 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
P.S.

Sorry about the silly remark
  #281  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:21 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Says who that there is a doubt? Who precisely is saying that? Yes, it plausible. It's reasonable. And for all I know you are 100% correct. But the only proof you've offered is that you say it's so.

I will respond, but man, I would really rather drop this. I have nothing more to say.
Do you want answers to the two questions you just asked or do you want to drop it?

I'm going to answer.

This article was already posted in this thread and you participated in discussion of it...

'Very aggressive': Trump suggests Montenegro could cause world war three

Here's some quotes...

Quote:
In an interview with Fox News, Trump also called into question Nato’s founding principle. He was asked about Article 5, Nato’s common defence clause which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all.
Quote:
“Trump sows further doubt whether the US under his leadership would defend our allies. Another gift to Putin,” Nicholas Burns, who was US ambassador to Nato after the 9/11 attacks, wrote on Twitter.
Here's a different article from a year before that one...

Where Does Trump Really Stand on NATO's Article Five?

Quote:
He may no longer think the alliance is obsolete, but his commitment to its core elements remains in doubt.
Quote:
President Trump is the only American president since NATO’s founding who has not explicitly endorsed Article Five.
These aren't the only articles. These are representative of numerous articles on the subject. Pick an article about Trump's position on NATO and you will likely find someone expressing doubt about the US commitment to Article V under Trump.
  #282  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:42 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
Furthermore it is absolutely bonkers to start a thread with this in the OP...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
3. What has Trump done that suggests he is being blackmailed, that is, something he would not have done unless that is in fact the case.
...and also be of the opinion that NATO stuff is not directly relevant.
  #283  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:57 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
As I said, I will respond.

"Trump sows further doubt...." - This is one person, on Twitter, doubting the US defending allies. Yes, Burns was ambassador to NATO, but NATO is not required for the US to defend allies. He did not refer directly to NATO and he is not part of NATO now. I am not just discounting this, it's something, I suppose. But not very much, IMO, about NATO. That is the full quote by Burns at that link. ISTM you are making a leap here.

As for the other article you linked to, and others you alluded to, I will take you at your word such evidence is there. Because again, as I've said, I am not ruling out the possibility of a weakened NATO.
  #284  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:59 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Furthermore it is absolutely bonkers to start a thread with this in the OP...

...and also be of the opinion that NATO stuff is not directly relevant.
Okay, now I think you are just looking for an argument. Thanks for the discussion.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-18-2019 at 05:00 PM.
  #285  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:30 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
"Well, of course!" would be my first reaction. But this is how silly this has gotten. I am forced to ask you now, what is your standard of weakened vs broken? If one nation pulls out, is that broken, or just weakened? Two? Seven?
I already answered this, but I will try to answer more fully:

One. If one country of NATO pulls out because it does not feel that NATO is fulfilling its mandate of mutual protection, then NATO is broken. It no longer serves its purpose, as if one can pull out because they do not see it as useful, others will quickly follow, and any members that remain will know that they cannot count on their allies to come to their aid if they are attacked.

The weakening is what is making NATO members start thinking about pulling out, something they wouldn't have even considered pre-Trump.
  #286  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:58 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As I said, I will respond.

"Trump sows further doubt...." - This is one person, on Twitter, doubting the US defending allies. Yes, Burns was ambassador to NATO, but NATO is not required for the US to defend allies. He did not refer directly to NATO and he is not part of NATO now. I am not just discounting this, it's something, I suppose. But not very much, IMO, about NATO. That is the full quote by Burns at that link. ISTM you are making a leap here.

As for the other article you linked to, and others you alluded to, I will take you at your word such evidence is there. Because again, as I've said, I am not ruling out the possibility of a weakened NATO.
This is ridiculous. It is a Tweet from a former NATO ambassador quoted in an article about a Trump interview with Tucker Carlson where they discuss NATO. I guess technically it's leap to assume the Tweet is related to the interview, but it is an extremely reasonable leap.

If that's not good enough for you, you can always look at the Tweet in context.

Allow me to save you some time...

"A lot of different four word phrases acronomize to NATO. How do I know he didn't mean the National Association of Theatre Owners? I could easily come up with a scenario in which that organization might have some founding documents and those documents may very well contain an Article V. I'm not saying anything one way or the other since I'm not an expert in such matters. Occam's Razor. Peace. Finally, if I've made one thing clear in post after post after post in this thread it's that I don't want to talk about it."
  #287  
Old 10-21-2019, 04:52 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,046
This thread has mostly died but, I feel, I should add an addendum to my argument of also noting the (I believe) 20+ people with business and close political ties to Trump who have been arrested for financial crimes.

Criminal activity is something which can be used as blackmail fodder. Who all here (raise your hand) thinks that Trump has never committed a financial crime on foreign soil? (Note that you do not need to physically travel to a place to commit a crime in that place.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017