Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 11, 2024

Donald Trump said during a campaign event that when he held office previously that he told NATO allies that the US would not aid them if Russia attacked them and that Trump would encourage Russia to do so if they are not meeting NATO spending recommendations.

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.

Dotard is a Russian asset and a traitor to the United States. How anybody could even consider voting for this rapist POS is beyond me. The country has a lot of R's and that doesn't stand for party affiliation.

#1 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2024-02-11 07:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

How anybody could even consider voting for this rapist POS is beyond me

#1 | POSTED BY _GUNSLINGER_

The reasons are knowable and simple. Just profoundly nasty.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2024-02-11 07:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The------------------- can't get enough of Putin's DNA.

#3 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-02-11 09:19 AM | Reply

Trump and the GOP to our NATO Allies:
'Pay up, or I will tell Daddy Vladdy Collection Service to invade your country and do whatever the hell they want to you'...Donald and the GOP Ivans.

This is treason.

Once again.

#4 | Posted by Wardog at 2024-02-11 10:14 AM | Reply

Reminder of how the MAGA liar talks out of both sides of his mouth:

Darth Putin
@DarthPutinKGB

The problem with Trump saying he'd encourage me to attack NATO is that it makes it harder for my trolls to argue I would never have attacked Ukraine if he was still POTUS.

So they're the victims in this one.

twitter.com

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-02-11 10:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Donald Trump's NATO Comment Sparks Furious Backlash: 'Unhinged'
www.newsweek.com

... Former President Donald Trump has sparked fierce backlash after he suggested he would "encourage" Russia to attack NATO countries falling short of guideline financial contributions to the alliance.

During a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Trump appeared to recall a conversation with an unnamed politician he described as "one of the presidents of a big country."

The Republican presidential nominee frontrunner said the anonymous leader had asked whether the U.S. would protect the NATO nation, if Russia attacked.

"I said, 'You didn't pay, you're delinquent?'" Trump told the crowd on Saturday. "In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills."

A bedrock principle of NATO is its Article 5, mandating that an armed attack on one alliance country is seen as an attack against all member states. Member countries have a defense-pending target of approximately 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP), although this is a guideline and many countries do not reach this threshold despite increases in spending since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The White House slammed the remarks, denouncing the former president's comments as "appalling and unhinged." ...


#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-11 11:56 AM | Reply

@#6 ... "I said, 'You didn't pay, you're delinquent?'" Trump told the crowd on Saturday. "In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills." ...

In a ~turn-about is fair play~ moment, does fmr Pres Trump's comment mean that the unpaid (or not fully paid) contractors of fmr Pres Trump can "do whatever the hell the want" with the Trump properties they worked on?

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-11 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Nato chief says Trump remarks may put US and EU lives at risk

Jens Stoltenberg says Nato ready and able to defend all allies', after Trump invited Russia to attack member countries

The Nato chief, Jens Stoltenberg, has said any attack on the western military alliance would be met with a "united and forceful response", after Donald Trump invited Russia to attack member countries that he perceived as not meeting their financial obligations.

The White House described the remarks as "appalling and unhinged"."

excerpts

www.theguardian.com

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-11 12:03 PM | Reply

"told NATO allies that the US would not aid them if Russia attacked them"

Yet another violation of Trump's Oath of Office.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-11 12:04 PM | Reply

Guess Jeff, MSGT, BOAZo, will remain cowed and silent.

Eberly will go with:
'Now, now, Francis, Mr. Trump would probly give them 30 days notice, which seems reasonable under these circumstances. You libs are such worry warts...grow used to it why doncha. BTW, I am quite rich, and he would never do that to me.
So relax.

#10 | Posted by Wardog at 2024-02-11 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As one of, if not the earliest and most consistently vocal of the Never Trump Generation 1 folks, I've taken a lot of ---- over the years from my old GOP friends.

Trust me, there's a reason I'm not on the list for events the gentry types who still dream of recapturing the party from MAGA hold.

I will not soft pedal this. I will not tell myself or anyone else comfortable lies about the Republican party. I will not tell you there are secret words from a mystical focus group seance that will convert the Red Hat Trucknutz Cadre back to the Reagan GOP.

I have a long record of very accurately seeing ahead to what Republicans will *really* do viz Trump, as opposed to what people *dream* they'll do.

How many times have I gotten the call of "Oh, you can't attack X or Y...they're one of the good ones" only to see the "good one" bend the knee to Trump in hours or days? (Sue Collins, anyone?)

When did they stand and fight? When did they say, "I won't serve in a party that serves this monster."

Only a handful; Liz, Adam, David, Denver...and they're gone.

Not one Republican elected (correct me if I'm wrong) has come out today with both barrels blazing on Trump's latest Russia capitulation. In fact, per Marco's "What, me worry?" interview with Tapper today, they're doing the opposite.

It's not enough that they're compliant taint-sniffing Quislings. It's not enough that he's a rapist, a fraud, and slipping deeper into mental illness and sociopathy. It's they they're fine with it as long as they keep the sweaty, febrile MAGA masses happy and keep their jobs.

There are no good guys in office staying in the fight. The MAGA GOP is corrupt to the core, craven to its bones, and its utter abandonment of every shred of principle in Trump's service is a disqualifier for redemption.

Stop trying to put the paddles on the chest of this zombie party.


~ Rick Wilson ~

#11 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2024-02-11 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"It's not enough that they're compliant taint-sniffing Quislings."

I'm a humble man.

A man of Faith.

Being a compliant taint-sniffing Quisling has always been enough for me.
--Eberly

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-11 01:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Darth Putin
@DarthPutinKGB
Russia has only three friends it can rely on. Its army, its navy, and its
@GOP.

#13 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-02-11 02:26 PM | Reply

It's kinda impressive that Rick Wilson wrote a whole post about JeffyBelle.

Kudos!

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-11 02:57 PM | Reply

@#11 ... this zombie party, ...

That, aside from fmr Pres Trump himself, is a main issue here.

The GOP is not a zombie party.

It is real. It is alive.

And it is likely to win the Oval Office in November.

So, instead of pronouncing it as a walking dead, maybe it would be more appropriate to confront the party that faces you.

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-11 11:18 PM | Reply

Where are the usual deplorables to chime in and defend Deranged Donald?

#16 | Posted by e1g1 at 2024-02-12 10:18 AM | Reply

Can't Ex-Pres Cheesburger just have a stroke and lose the ability speak already?

#17 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-02-12 01:22 PM | Reply

Canada isn't spending two percent so I guess MAGATs want the Russian army along the 49th parallel.

#18 | Posted by northguy3 at 2024-02-12 07:21 PM | Reply

want the Russian army along the 49th parallel.

So long as they bring some of those hot chicks I see in the ads.

#19 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-02-12 07:49 PM | Reply

Glad someone else also poted a blog about this...

Trump and the GOP have brain rot bad.
Damned dangerous...

#20 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-02-12 08:59 PM | Reply

Where are the usual deplorables to chime in and defend Deranged Donald?
#16 | POSTED BY E1G1

They are still crying over Joe Biden's post-superbowl meme.

#21 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-02-12 11:05 PM | Reply

Canada isn't spending two percent so I guess MAGATs want the Russian army along the 49th parallel.

#18 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3 AT 2024-02-12 07:21 PM | FLAG:

If Canada can't spent 2%, why should they be in NATO? The required spending is relatively paltry to be a member in good standing of the world's premier defensive alliance.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-13 12:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If Canada can't spent 2%, why should they be in NATO? The required spending is relatively paltry to be a member in good standing of the world's premier defensive alliance.
#22 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

If Canada can't spend 2% then why should a US President encourage a foreign adversary to attack them when that President is obligated by the Constitution to honor the treaty?

#23 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-02-13 04:23 PM | Reply

"If Canada can't spent 2%, why should they be in NATO?"

Canada is a founding member of NATO.

Not every country is lucky enough to have a Booming Biden economy after Covid but they have pledged to spend more. As soon as they can find 20 billion dollars while running a 40 billion dollar deficit.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-02-13 06:16 PM | Reply

#23 because he's a ------ that operates on hyperbole.

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-13 07:10 PM | Reply

Donner, full of it. It's 2%. They can manage that regardless of boom or bust. It's a paltry commitment.

The only reason they don't is because they don't believe it's important. It took Trump bullying to get some of them back on track before Putin invaded Ukraine. Now all of a sudden it's popular again for Continental powers. Political Whimsy to not even keep up 2% says you are an unreliable member and in bad standing.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-13 07:13 PM | Reply

@#2 ... It's 2% ...

It is more than that, significantly more.

It is whether or not the "an attack on one of us is n attack on all of us" holds.

So, at this point, my questions would be more along the lines of whether or not those countries would stand by their commitment to defend against an aggressor, much more than whether or not they meet their financial target.

This is typical Republican, to my eyes, making the issue about some thing for political points, rather than actually trying to resolve the problem.

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-13 08:06 PM | Reply

these bargain shoppers should be ejected from NATO

#28 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-13 08:13 PM | Reply

deadbeats

#29 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-13 08:15 PM | Reply

@#28 ... these bargain shoppers should be ejected from NATO ...

Why?

#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-13 08:28 PM | Reply

@#29 ... deadbeats ...

When it matters?


What evidence does your new alias have to the contrary?

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-13 08:29 PM | Reply

these bargain shoppers should be ejected from NATO

#28 | POSTED BY LIBS_OF_DR

This post isn't about foreign countries.
This is about a person currently seeking the Presidency claiming that when he previously held office that violated US law by failing to honor a treaty.

#32 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-02-14 12:25 AM | Reply

" violated US law by failing to honor a treaty.

#32 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2024-02-14 12:25 AM | FLAG: "

The treaty works both ways. Some NATO Allie's were not meeting their 2% GDP defense spending requirement. Pony up or deal with the consequences. That should have always been the case regardless of who was in the WH.

#33 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-02-14 01:06 AM | Reply

@#33 ... The treaty works both ways. Some NATO Allie's were not meeting their 2% GDP defense spending requirement. Pony up or deal with the consequences. ...

The NATO treaty that the US has agreed to is more than just the 2% thing.

But, imo, the important aspect of this discussion is fmr Pres Trump apparently giving the OK to Pres Putin to invade a NATO country. Shortly after Pres Putin said in the Tucker Carlson interview that Poland asked to be invaded my Hitler.

What's up with that?


Was fmr Pres Trump's comment coordinated with/by Pres Putin's comment?

#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-14 01:25 AM | Reply

Some NATO Allie's were not meeting their 2% GDP defense spending requirement. Pony up or deal with the consequences. That should have always been the case regardless of who was in the WH.
#33 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Please show me where in the treaty that a 2% spending requirement is defined. Furthermore please show me where in the treaty that it states that the consequence of failing to meet that requirement includes exempting other nations from honoring their defensive pact and gives leaders of those other nations the authority to call upon non-allied aggressors to attack those nations with short falls in a manner that Donald Trump claims to have threatened?

Allow me to help you out. You can't show me where any of those things exist in the treaty because once again you are lying. There is no such requirement. There is a 2% spending guideline but failure to achieve that level of spending does not grant other member nations an exemption from the pact.

Also, please explain why you decided to lie to provide cover to Donald Trump, someone who you claim to detest, on this matter.

#35 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-02-14 01:54 AM | Reply

8m not going to defend or justify a bunch of claims I never made.

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-02-14 02:00 AM | Reply

Some NATO Allie's were not meeting their 2% GDP defense spending requirement. That should have always been the case regardless of who was in the WH.
#33 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Pony up or deal with the consequences.

You are saying it's okay for Russia to attack NATO members that aren't spending 2% on NATO.

You're saying NATO should not honor our promise, over a few points of GDP.

You are working against NATO.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-14 02:14 AM | Reply

8m not going to defend or justify a bunch of claims I never made.

#36 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You claimed that the treaty includes a "2% GDP defense spending requirement"
Pretty impressive that it took you less than an hour from posting that assertion to denying you ever said such thing.

#38 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-02-14 02:21 AM | Reply

That is part of the treaty. Obama bitched that some Allie's weren't meeting it as did W.

Do you even understand how treaties and agreements work?

#39 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-02-14 02:49 AM | Reply

@#39 ... That is part of the treaty. ...

It is good that your current alias now seems to acknowledge that it is only a part of the treaty.

#40 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-14 03:00 AM | Reply

@#37 ... You are working against NATO. ...

Oh yeah, big time. It is so obvious.

But a question that lingers in my mind is why does that current alias seem to be working so hard against, not just NATO, but other aspects of democracy as well?



#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-14 03:08 AM | Reply

That is part of the treaty. Obama bitched that some Allie's weren't meeting it as did W.
Do you even understand how treaties and agreements work?
#39 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Do you understand the difference between "requirement" and "guideline"?

#42 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-02-14 09:46 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 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort