Pro-Russia Trump Led Republicans Vote Against NATO

[McDad]

Can we get a twofor with the UN?

Fine by me.

 

[utvolpj]

It may well have been a good 18th century position.

It's a good position if you want to stay out of foreign wars. Being contractually obligated to defend others is not a solid plan for our tax dollars. Maybe they should spend some of theirs instead

 

[tvolsfan]

It's a good position if you want to stay out of foreign wars. Being contractually obligated to defend others is not a solid plan for our tax dollars. Maybe they should spend some of theirs instead

Countries in NATO tend not to be invaded. Countries not in NATO, especially those close to Russia, seem to get invaded frequently. Seems like NATO expansion is a good way to prevent wars.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Several questions:
1. Does Congress vote on who is let in NATO, or is that a NATO decision?
2. Congressional reps are there to represent the people of their district; how is NATO business germane to those Americans in their districts?
3. Why do some of you care if Swe and Fin are NATO members?
4. Why do some of you agree these idiot politicians made the right choice on the matter?

The House conducted a completely meaningless vote. They have no say in the matter, but it does give Trump flunkies, like Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert a chance to cozy up to Trump and pander to his supporters again. They never pass up a chance to do that.

 

[tvolsfan]

The House conducted a completely meaningless vote. They have no say in the matter, but it does give Trump flunkies, like Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert a chance to cozy up to Trump and pander to his supporters again. They never pass up a chance to do that.

That’s all this was.

 

[utvolpj]

Countries in NATO tend not to be invaded. Countries not in NATO, especially those close to Russia, seem to get invaded frequently. Seems like NATO expansion is a good way to prevent wars.

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the defense of weak, European countries?

 

[Orangeburst]

The House conducted a completely meaningless vote. They have no say in the matter, but it does give Trump flunkies, like Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert a chance to cozy up to Trump and pander to his supporters again. They never pass up a chance to do that.

So it was a meaningless vote brought to the floor by the Dem majority
Yet the Trumpers are pandering

 

[tvolsfan]

So it was a meaningless vote brought to the floor by the Dem majority
Yet the Trumpers are pandering

This is fair

 

[tvolsfan]

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the defense of weak, European countries?

It’s not. Still good policy.

 

[McDad]

The House conducted a completely meaningless vote. They have no say in the matter, but it does give Trump flunkies, like Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert a chance to cozy up to Trump and pander to his supporters again. They never pass up a chance to do that.

An unfortunate truth for almost all politicians.

 

[BowlBrother85]

So it was a meaningless vote brought to the floor by the Dem majority
Yet the Trumpers are pandering

That's true, There was no point to that vote... an attention-seeking ploy. The House engages in too many hollow gestures.

 

[McDad]

It’s not. Still good policy.

Tough balancing act for me.

 

[McDad]

That's true, There was no point to that vote... an attention-seeking ploy. The House engages in too many hollow gestures.

I'm torn on meaningless gestures. On the one hand, it's a waste of time and energy. Otoh, they have less time to screw something else up when they're pursuing symbolism.

 

[ButchPlz]

Countries in NATO tend not to be invaded. Countries not in NATO, especially those close to Russia, seem to get invaded frequently. Seems like NATO expansion is a good way to prevent wars.

Oh look, another warmongering world cop wanting to volunteer young Americans to go die for and pay for other countries so he can be entertained with war footage and commentary while he wastes away as 300+ lbs of useless meat.

 

[rekinhavoc]

That's true, There was no point to that vote... an attention-seeking ploy. The House engages in too many hollow gestures.

Both sides do this with bills. They will put in a poison pill so the other party and sometimes their own party won't support it. Then they say we tried and use the blame game to campaign.

Both parties are repugnant.

 

[tvolsfan]

Oh look, another warmongering world cop wanting to volunteer young Americans to go die for and pay for other countries so he can be entertained with war footage and commentary while he wastes away as 300+ lbs of useless meat.

I feel like there is some projection here.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the defense of weak, European countries?

You consistently demonstrate a simple-minded approach to practically every issue. In your mind, benefits to the American people are either derived directly, or not at all. There just isn't an intellectual curiosity at work. None of your logic involves multi-dimensional thinking.

Here's why the United States needs NATO

1) NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the U.S. economy. U.S. trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO. U.S. exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016.

2) NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars.

3) NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself.

4) NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe.

 

[TRUEFANVol]

Still better than the communists you guys support support[VIDEO=][/VIDEO]

I actually don't support either side but thanks for playing

 

[tvolsfan]

You consistently demonstrate a simple-minded approach to practically every issue. In your mind, benefits to the American people are either derived directly, or not at all. There just isn't an intellectual curiosity at work. None of your logic involves multi-dimensional thinking.

Here's why the United States needs NATO

1) NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the U.S. economy. U.S. trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO. U.S. exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016.

2) NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars.

3) NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself.

4) NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe.

Reminds me of Trump and KORUS.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Reminds me of Trump and KORUS.

By protecting NATO allies, the United States is also protecting its own economy. It shouldn't be a hard concept.

 

[utvolpj]

You consistently demonstrate a simple-minded approach to practically every issue. In your mind, benefits to the American people are either derived directly, or not at all. There just isn't an intellectual curiosity at work. None of your logic involves multi-dimensional thinking.

Here's why the United States needs NATO

1) NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the U.S. economy. U.S. trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO. U.S. exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016.

2) NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars.

3) NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself.

4) NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe.

Or I'm on a phone at work and you're simply not worth the effort. You routinely find biased examples to support your view. I've read a couple and they're worthless, simple minded articles

Funding the defense of the world is either mandated or it's not. I don't consider arming a corrupt Ukraine and spending $100bil to be worthy of my tax dollars. It's Europe so they can do it. Defense spending is essentially money laundering anyways

Forgive me if a European explaining why the us needs to keep funding NATO doesn't really blow my skirt up. Referencing WW2 when it was caused by a massive European failure is laughable. If they weren't morons it would have never happened.

 

[Vol8188]

Several questions:
1. Does Congress vote on who is let in NATO, or is that a NATO decision?
2. Congressional reps are there to represent the people of their district; how is NATO business germane to those Americans in their districts?
3. Why do some of you care if Swe and Fin are NATO members?
4. Why do some of you agree these idiot politicians made the right choice on the matter?

To 3 the answer is the notion that treaties lead to war.

 

[McDad]

You consistently demonstrate a simple-minded approach to practically every issue. In your mind, benefits to the American people are either derived directly, or not at all. There just isn't an intellectual curiosity at work. None of your logic involves multi-dimensional thinking.

Here's why the United States needs NATO

1) NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the U.S. economy. U.S. trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO. U.S. exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016.

2) NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars.

3) NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself.

4) NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe.

If you want to be genuinely objective about it, you need to compare our trade, peace, and other benefits with NATO and non-NATO countries.

 

[McDad]

By protecting NATO allies, the United States is also protecting its own economy. It shouldn't be a hard concept.

Does the concept hold when Americans are dying or getting maimed for oil? It's a commodity critical to our economy.
I bet you remember the lamentations over the gulf war and "fighting for oil".

 

[McDad]

To 3 the answer is the notion that treaties lead to war.

I dont care if Swe and Fin engage in war as long as it isn't against America.