Is Trump an Asset of Russia (Or Some Other Foreign Power)?

[Lance_Turbo]

@Fiddle_Peghead

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…

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.

“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?

He may no longer think the alliance is obsolete, but his commitment to its core elements remains in doubt.

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.

[Lance_Turbo]

Furthermore it is absolutely bonkers to start a thread with this in the OP…

@Fiddle_Peghead

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.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

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.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Lance_Turbo

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.

[k9bfriender]

@Fiddle_Peghead

“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.

[Lance_Turbo]

@Fiddle_Peghead

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.”

[Sage_Rat]

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.)