DNC leak

[Ethel mermania]

Given that even the FBI thinks the leaks were orchestrated by Russia, does that mean anyone complaining about Twitter is in fact rooting for Russia over America and wants Trump to be President?

We are looking for Putin to do a LBO of the United states, and take it over as CEO of USA Inc
He will sell California and Oregon to China to satisfy anti-trust concerns..

[Gauthier]

It makes the accusation more than rash unthinking finger-poking though.

You're going to need to be more clear; what exactly makes which accusation more than finger-pointing?

If you're looking for outright cartoon villain confessions you'll never be satisfied. But if you take recent observations into account, the picture painted is that Russia wants Trump to win the White House, primarily on hoping he follows through on his vow to weaken or destroy NATO by pulling the U.S. out of it.

[Yorkers]

Is anyone surprised that the Democrats are being very corrupt? Did nobody forget about their entire history with Tammany Hall?

[Yorkers]

You're going to need to be more clear; what exactly makes which accusation more than finger-pointing?

If you're looking for outright cartoon villain confessions you'll never be satisfied. But if you take recent observations into account, the picture painted is that Russia wants Trump to win the White House, primarily on hoping he follows through on his vow to weaken or destroy NATO by pulling the U.S. out of it.

A probably because Trump is the only candidate who wants to be diplomatic towards Russia, rather than the rest of the Republicans who want to bomb it to pieces?

Also, Trump's comment on the Baltic states are wholly justified. They don't contribute their fair share to NATO, so if they get invaded, fuck them.

[Ethel mermania]

The interesting thing with all the cover up and deception. No one is questioning the veracity of the documents.

[Gauthier]

If you're looking for outright cartoon villain confessions you'll never be satisfied. But if you take recent observations into account, the picture painted is that Russia wants Trump to win the White House, primarily on hoping he follows through on his vow to weaken or destroy NATO by pulling the U.S. out of it.

A probably because Trump is the only candidate who wants to be diplomatic towards Russia, rather than the rest of the Republicans who want to bomb it to pieces?

Also, Trump's comment on the Baltic states are wholly justified. They don't contribute their fair share to NATO, so if they get invaded, fuck them.

So weakening or destroying a multi-nation defense coalition is now being "diplomatic towards Russia" now? Then again that's what Trump probably thinks. And congratulations on the Chamberlain Award.

[Yorkers]

A probably because Trump is the only candidate who wants to be diplomatic towards Russia, rather than the rest of the Republicans who want to bomb it to pieces?

Also, Trump's comment on the Baltic states are wholly justified. They don't contribute their fair share to NATO, so if they get invaded, fuck them.

So weakening or destroying a multi-nation defense coalition is now being "diplomatic towards Russia" now? Then again that's what Trump probably thinks. And congratulations on the Chamberlain Award.

No, but winding down our involvement in an organization where we do everyone's bitch work and the other members act like lazy welfare queens is good for us, and dropping the war-mongering rhetoric that we need to intervene in Ukraine or against Assad is being diplomatic towards Russia.

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

[New Werpland]

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

Except for the fact that, you know, it's started the first war in Europe since the 90's.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

Well good thing that will never happen. Russia is dangerous because we allow it to be.

[New Werpland]

It makes the accusation more than rash unthinking finger-poking though.

You're going to need to be more clear; what exactly makes which accusation more than finger-pointing?

Well first of all they clearly haven't pulled it straight out of nowhere. I'd call it complete finger pointing if they claimed it was all manufactured or something, but they didn't.

Robby Mook is simply saying "hey we did it, but look who's benefiting."

[Cymrea]

So weakening or destroying a multi-nation defense coalition is now being "diplomatic towards Russia" now? Then again that's what Trump probably thinks. And congratulations on the Chamberlain Award.

No, but winding down our involvement in an organization where we do everyone's bitch work and the other members act like lazy welfare queens is good for us, and dropping the war-mongering rhetoric that we need to intervene in Ukraine or against Assad is being diplomatic towards Russia.

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

Define what the fair share of European nations is. Because any fucking loud mouth can (and does) look at a collection of much smaller nations and denigrate their individual contributions.

America is much larger, spends a fuckton of money on its military - by choice - and chooses to lead and be an example. But doing so and then whining about how we always have to lead and be an example is fucking hypocritical. And selfish. And far too many folks demonstrate those unfortunate traits. The whole bloody point of NATO is collective defense. Not some pissing contest where we shit-talk our smaller partners.

And if you don't see Russia as a very real adversary, you are grossly deluded. Tuck back NATO and see which piece of eastern Europe Putin bites off next.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but winding down our involvement in an organization where we do everyone's bitch work and the other members act like lazy welfare queens is good for us, and dropping the war-mongering rhetoric that we need to intervene in Ukraine or against Assad is being diplomatic towards Russia.

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

Define what the fair share of European nations is. Because any fucking loud mouth can (and does) look at a collection of much smaller nations and denigrate their individual contributions.

America is much larger, spends a fuckton of money on its military - by choice - and chooses to lead and be an example. But doing so and then whining about how we always have to lead and be an example is fucking hypocritical. And selfish. And far too many folks demonstrate those unfortunate traits. The whole bloody point of NATO is collective defense. Not some pissing contest where we shit-talk our smaller partners.

And if you don't see Russia as a very real adversary, you are grossly deluded. Tuck back NATO and see which piece of eastern Europe Putin bites off next.

NATO says they should spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Barely any of them do it.

[Gauthier]

No, but winding down our involvement in an organization where we do everyone's bitch work and the other members act like lazy welfare queens is good for us, and dropping the war-mongering rhetoric that we need to intervene in Ukraine or against Assad is being diplomatic towards Russia.

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

Define what the fair share of European nations is. Because any fucking loud mouth can (and does) look at a collection of much smaller nations and denigrate their individual contributions.

America is much larger, spends a fuckton of money on its military - by choice - and chooses to lead and be an example. But doing so and then whining about how we always have to lead and be an example is fucking hypocritical. And selfish. And far too many folks demonstrate those unfortunate traits. The whole bloody point of NATO is collective defense. Not some pissing contest where we shit-talk our smaller partners.

And if you don't see Russia as a very real adversary, you are grossly deluded. Tuck back NATO and see which piece of eastern Europe Putin bites off next.

He stated that he doesn't give a fuck if Putin overruns the entirety of Eastern Europe because They Don't Pay Their Share.

Because NATO is now a cable channel or Netflix.

[Cymrea]

NATO says they should spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Barely any of them do it.

What are these members spending their GDP on instead?

[Hirota]

It DID trend. https://twitter.com/KateKisset/status/756661336373768192

And then stopped.

I didn't say that or anything of the sort. I simply demonstrated your claim was factually wrong.

CENSORSHIP!!1!

Nor did I say anything of the sort there either. But whatever you want to imagine that will keep you happy, I suppose.

[Ostroeuropa]

He stated that he doesn't give a fuck if Putin overruns the entirety of Eastern Europe because They Don't Pay Their Share.

Because NATO is now a cable channel or Netflix.

Nations freeriding on others defence spending shouldn't be protected.
If its true that we simply cannot afford to lose these nations, erect tariffs against them so they will end up reimbursing you for defending them.
In the process this also weakens their economy and makes theme less important in the first place.
I'm sure other arrangements can also be made. The point is to prevent freeriding.

[New Werpland]

Define what the fair share of European nations is. Because any fucking loud mouth can (and does) look at a collection of much smaller nations and denigrate their individual contributions.

America is much larger, spends a fuckton of money on its military - by choice - and chooses to lead and be an example. But doing so and then whining about how we always have to lead and be an example is fucking hypocritical. And selfish. And far too many folks demonstrate those unfortunate traits. The whole bloody point of NATO is collective defense. Not some pissing contest where we shit-talk our smaller partners.

And if you don't see Russia as a very real adversary, you are grossly deluded. Tuck back NATO and see which piece of eastern Europe Putin bites off next.

NATO says they should spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Barely any of them do it.

Because NATO desperately need the Baltics to spend money on defense.

It's not as if they'd get bulldozed no matter what if Russia decided to invade.

[Ostroeuropa]

NATO says they should spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Barely any of them do it.

What are these members spending their GDP on instead?

That is completely irrelevant to their NATO obligations.
If the obligations were binding, only 5 countries would be in NATO.

UK, Italy, France, Poland, and the USA.

[Ostroeuropa]

NATO says they should spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Barely any of them do it.

Because NATO desperately need the Baltics to spend money on defense.

It's not as if they'd get bulldozed no matter what if Russia decided to invade.

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

The only argument against it is that it hurts their feelings and makes them feel like they are paying tribute. In effect they would be, but without also having to fork over a bended knee and admission of inferiority. It's simply a business transaction between equal nations, which has similarities to the old tributary state model.

Because the alternative is to have the US have the oblgiations of owning tributary states... without any tribute.

[Gravlen]

And then stopped.

I didn't say that or anything of the sort. I simply demonstrated your claim was factually wrong.

CENSORSHIP!!1!

Nor did I say anything of the sort there either. But whatever you want to imagine that will keep you happy, I suppose.

You didn't, but in case you failed to notice, that's the claim this entire thread is predicated on.

[Gauthier]

Because NATO desperately need the Baltics to spend money on defense.

It's not as if they'd get bulldozed no matter what if Russia decided to invade.

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

So like Trump, you consider NATO to be a protection racket rather than a mutual defense alliance.

[Imperializt Russia]

And then stopped.

I didn't say that or anything of the sort. I simply demonstrated your claim was factually wrong.

What?

[New Werpland]

What are these members spending their GDP on instead?

That is completely irrelevant to their NATO obligations.
If the obligations were binding, only 5 countries would be in NATO.

UK, Italy, France, Poland, and the USA.

You've got that wrong.

Italy spends 1.3% and Turkey spends 2.3%

[Ostroeuropa]

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

So like Trump, you consider NATO to be a protection racket rather than a mutual defense alliance.

If it's mutual, why aren't they doing anything meaningful to defend us? Or paying anything meaningful towards it?
Like I said, getting whiney about it is tantamount to demanding a free ride.

"I know, let's weaken our protector by free riding when we acknowledge we're absolutely fucked without them! That's a great idea!"

[Ostroeuropa]

That is completely irrelevant to their NATO obligations.
If the obligations were binding, only 5 countries would be in NATO.

UK, Italy, France, Poland, and the USA.

You've got that wrong.

Italy spends 1.3% and Turkey spends 2.3%

So I did. Thankyou for correcting me.

[Gauthier]

So like Trump, you consider NATO to be a protection racket rather than a mutual defense alliance.

If it's mutual, why aren't they doing anything meaningful to defend us? Or paying anything meaningful towards it?
Like I said, getting whiney about it is tantamount to demanding a free ride.

"I know, let's weaken our protector by free riding when we acknowledge we're absolutely fucked without them! That's a great idea!"

"The continental United States needs troops from the Baltic States to rally to its defense." Good one.