Trump Just Said on 60 Minutes That He Knows More About NATO Than Mattis...

[Lewdog]

Republicans have had the majority in Congress since 2014? You want to talk about dumb spending... should we talk about the bridge in Alaska, or the dam that's not needed in KY that McConnell got so that he could let his buddy get the contract? I can go on and on with some of the dumb spending.

The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment

Mitch McConnell gets nearly $3 billion for Kentucky dam project in congressional deal

Dude, whether you want to admit it or not, the problem transcends party lines. If you don't believe that,
I can't fix stupid.

Oh it does, but Republicans will always run on balancing the budget and then not do it. It is one thing to add to the deficit, but a totally different thing to run a platform of balancing the budget, only to get elected and then vote to do big spending with kickbacks to your buddies and blame it on the other party.

Both parties have kickbacks, that's why they become multi millionaires on their wages. Simply amazes me with what shenanigans are going on up on the hill.
The difference between me and you is that I can admit that both parties are complicit equally if the truth be known. You have your head buried in the sand as to what
your party does.

I have been a Republican ALL my life until 2016. I know both parties do big spending without fiscal responsibility and get way too much from lobbyist... but the difference is, Republicans will say they won't do that, and they will cut social programs and make it so people want to and have to work... and then sign a budget that doesn't do that even though they hold the majority and use bipartisanship with Democrats as their scapegoat. Democrats will say we need more social programs and less wasteful spending on a huge military, and then sign huge budgets and use the scapegoat of the money for the military being in there as a bipartisan work with Republicans as a scapegoat. It's 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

Another liberal claiming to have been a Republican? What is with you guys? Like we haven't seen the way you've posted since you got here?

I've ALWAYS said this since the day I joined this forum. I HATED Hillary Clinton. Liberals on this forum hated me when I first joined. Feel free to go back and look.

 

[rightwinger]

WTF?

He seriously just said he knows more about NATO than Mattis and that Mattis didn't tell him that NATO is stopping WWIII.

He learned it all when he was in military school

 

[rightwinger]

WTF?

He seriously just said he knows more about NATO than Mattis and that Mattis didn't tell him that NATO is stopping WWIII.

NATO has never stopped WWIII. It almost caused it in 1983 and 1984, but
it's never prevented it. NATO might help prevent a conventional war, but
if someone wants to laucn their missiles...NATO ain't gonna stop them.
There are only two NATO countries with Nukes besides the United States
and their arsenals are limited.

Mattis' job as a general and/or SoD would be in the military capabilities.
The logistics and the meshing of the combined militaries as a single fighting
force. It would have nothing to do with the politics of such. As of a year
ago, the German Air Force only possessed enough missiles to arm four of
its front line fighter jets. They are supposed to have 84 of them online
ready to fly and fight. Mattis would be concerned with having another
country make up for that short fall. (Probably the U.S.) It would be Trump's
job to get the Germans to have 84 jets online as the treaty demands.

We are wasting time and money trying to work with the Western European
Countries. Our bases overseas should be moved forward to Poland and the
other former members of the Warsaw Pact and have them nose-to-nose with the Russians.

Those countries, when the War on Terror began, were the first to send troops
to help us. Not the Gutless, Western Europeans.

There is no doubt that Trump would know more about the operating capitol
and politics of NATO over Mattis or any other General.

Europe has been relatively peaceful since we formed NATO 70 years ago

The longest period of peace in hundreds of years

 

[Lewdog]

WTF?

He seriously just said he knows more about NATO than Mattis and that Mattis didn't tell him that NATO is stopping WWIII.

NATO has never stopped WWIII. It almost caused it in 1983 and 1984, but
it's never prevented it. NATO might help prevent a conventional war, but
if someone wants to laucn their missiles...NATO ain't gonna stop them.
There are only two NATO countries with Nukes besides the United States
and their arsenals are limited.

Mattis' job as a general and/or SoD would be in the military capabilities.
The logistics and the meshing of the combined militaries as a single fighting
force. It would have nothing to do with the politics of such. As of a year
ago, the German Air Force only possessed enough missiles to arm four of
its front line fighter jets. They are supposed to have 84 of them online
ready to fly and fight. Mattis would be concerned with having another
country make up for that short fall. (Probably the U.S.) It would be Trump's
job to get the Germans to have 84 jets online as the treaty demands.

We are wasting time and money trying to work with the Western European
Countries. Our bases overseas should be moved forward to Poland and the
other former members of the Warsaw Pact and have them nose-to-nose with the Russians.

Those countries, when the War on Terror began, were the first to send troops
to help us. Not the Gutless, Western Europeans.

There is no doubt that Trump would know more about the operating capitol
and politics of NATO over Mattis or any other General.

Europe has been relatively peaceful since we formed NATO 70 years ago

The longest period of peace in hundreds of years

Most of the violence in the world is in areas that the countries have very little influence in NATO.

 

[easyt65]

The funny thing is that we think the same thing about you!

I know....

SEE, THERE YOU GO PROVING MY POINT!

BWUHAHAHAHA!

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, whether you want to admit it or not, the problem transcends party lines. If you don't believe that,
I can't fix stupid.

Oh it does, but Republicans will always run on balancing the budget and then not do it. It is one thing to add to the deficit, but a totally different thing to run a platform of balancing the budget, only to get elected and then vote to do big spending with kickbacks to your buddies and blame it on the other party.

Both parties have kickbacks, that's why they become multi millionaires on their wages. Simply amazes me with what shenanigans are going on up on the hill.
The difference between me and you is that I can admit that both parties are complicit equally if the truth be known. You have your head buried in the sand as to what
your party does.

I have been a Republican ALL my life until 2016. I know both parties do big spending without fiscal responsibility and get way too much from lobbyist... but the difference is, Republicans will say they won't do that, and they will cut social programs and make it so people want to and have to work... and then sign a budget that doesn't do that even though they hold the majority and use bipartisanship with Democrats as their scapegoat. Democrats will say we need more social programs and less wasteful spending on a huge military, and then sign huge budgets and use the scapegoat of the money for the military being in there as a bipartisan work with Republicans as a scapegoat. It's 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

Another liberal claiming to have been a Republican? What is with you guys? Like we haven't seen the way you've posted since you got here?

I've ALWAYS said this since the day I joined this forum. I HATED Hillary Clinton. Liberals on this forum hated me when I first joined. Feel free to go back and look.

Funny, for someone that claims to HATE Hillary Clinton...about 80% of your strings are hit pieces on Donald Trump and I didn't see any that went after Clinton! Why would liberals have hated you for being anti Trump?

 

[Lewdog]

Oh it does, but Republicans will always run on balancing the budget and then not do it. It is one thing to add to the deficit, but a totally different thing to run a platform of balancing the budget, only to get elected and then vote to do big spending with kickbacks to your buddies and blame it on the other party.

Both parties have kickbacks, that's why they become multi millionaires on their wages. Simply amazes me with what shenanigans are going on up on the hill.
The difference between me and you is that I can admit that both parties are complicit equally if the truth be known. You have your head buried in the sand as to what
your party does.

I have been a Republican ALL my life until 2016. I know both parties do big spending without fiscal responsibility and get way too much from lobbyist... but the difference is, Republicans will say they won't do that, and they will cut social programs and make it so people want to and have to work... and then sign a budget that doesn't do that even though they hold the majority and use bipartisanship with Democrats as their scapegoat. Democrats will say we need more social programs and less wasteful spending on a huge military, and then sign huge budgets and use the scapegoat of the money for the military being in there as a bipartisan work with Republicans as a scapegoat. It's 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

Another liberal claiming to have been a Republican? What is with you guys? Like we haven't seen the way you've posted since you got here?

I've ALWAYS said this since the day I joined this forum. I HATED Hillary Clinton. Liberals on this forum hated me when I first joined. Feel free to go back and look.

Funny, for someone that claims to HATE Hillary Clinton...about 80% of your strings are hit pieces on Donald Trump and I didn't see any that went after Clinton! Why would liberals have hated you for being anti Trump?

See there is your problem. It's not an either or situation. I've said I didn't like either candidate and didn't vote for President because of it. Of course most of my recent posts are about Trump... HE'S PRESIDENT. Clinton is no longer relevant. The only people Clinton is still relevant for are Trump supporters who use her when they have nothing to defend Trump with.

Clinton is a crook that should be in jail. Bill should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

Trump is nothing but a high-end snake oil salesman that can't tell the truth, and has 35% of the population ready to spend the entire national budget on an imaginary monorail.

 

[Oldstyle]

Both parties have kickbacks, that's why they become multi millionaires on their wages. Simply amazes me with what shenanigans are going on up on the hill.
The difference between me and you is that I can admit that both parties are complicit equally if the truth be known. You have your head buried in the sand as to what
your party does.

I have been a Republican ALL my life until 2016. I know both parties do big spending without fiscal responsibility and get way too much from lobbyist... but the difference is, Republicans will say they won't do that, and they will cut social programs and make it so people want to and have to work... and then sign a budget that doesn't do that even though they hold the majority and use bipartisanship with Democrats as their scapegoat. Democrats will say we need more social programs and less wasteful spending on a huge military, and then sign huge budgets and use the scapegoat of the money for the military being in there as a bipartisan work with Republicans as a scapegoat. It's 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

Another liberal claiming to have been a Republican? What is with you guys? Like we haven't seen the way you've posted since you got here?

I've ALWAYS said this since the day I joined this forum. I HATED Hillary Clinton. Liberals on this forum hated me when I first joined. Feel free to go back and look.

Funny, for someone that claims to HATE Hillary Clinton...about 80% of your strings are hit pieces on Donald Trump and I didn't see any that went after Clinton! Why would liberals have hated you for being anti Trump?

See there is your problem. It's not an either or situation. I've said I didn't like either candidate and didn't vote for President because of it. Of course most of my recent posts are about Trump... HE'S PRESIDENT. Clinton is no longer relevant. The only people Clinton is still relevant for are Trump supporters who use her when they have nothing to defend Trump with.

Clinton is a crook that should be in jail. Bill should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

Trump is nothing but a high-end snake oil salesman that can't tell the truth, and has 35% of the population ready to spend the entire national budget on an imaginary monorail.

Yet somehow that "snake oil salesman" keeps on getting things done that the career politicians couldn't? How does that work, Lewdog? Is Trump just REALLY lucky?

 

[Oldstyle]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

 

[Lewdog]

I have been a Republican ALL my life until 2016. I know both parties do big spending without fiscal responsibility and get way too much from lobbyist... but the difference is, Republicans will say they won't do that, and they will cut social programs and make it so people want to and have to work... and then sign a budget that doesn't do that even though they hold the majority and use bipartisanship with Democrats as their scapegoat. Democrats will say we need more social programs and less wasteful spending on a huge military, and then sign huge budgets and use the scapegoat of the money for the military being in there as a bipartisan work with Republicans as a scapegoat. It's 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

Another liberal claiming to have been a Republican? What is with you guys? Like we haven't seen the way you've posted since you got here?

I've ALWAYS said this since the day I joined this forum. I HATED Hillary Clinton. Liberals on this forum hated me when I first joined. Feel free to go back and look.

Funny, for someone that claims to HATE Hillary Clinton...about 80% of your strings are hit pieces on Donald Trump and I didn't see any that went after Clinton! Why would liberals have hated you for being anti Trump?

See there is your problem. It's not an either or situation. I've said I didn't like either candidate and didn't vote for President because of it. Of course most of my recent posts are about Trump... HE'S PRESIDENT. Clinton is no longer relevant. The only people Clinton is still relevant for are Trump supporters who use her when they have nothing to defend Trump with.

Clinton is a crook that should be in jail. Bill should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

Trump is nothing but a high-end snake oil salesman that can't tell the truth, and has 35% of the population ready to spend the entire national budget on an imaginary monorail.

Yet somehow that "snake oil salesman" keeps on getting things done that the career politicians couldn't? How does that work, Lewdog? Is Trump just REALLY lucky?

Gets what done? If taking credit for other people's work is a talent, yes he's good at it. Remember all those articles of Trump bragging about Ford hiring more people and opening more plants because of him? A year later and they are about to lay off thousands because of the economy caused by Trump's trade war. It's kind of like the weather in Kentucky... wait 24 hours and it will change.

But see Trump likes to take credit when something good happens, and blames everyone else when something bad happens. That's the TOTAL OPPOSITE of a good leader.

 

[Lewdog]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

She's not relevant... there was just an article today about how many democrats have told her they don't want her support because it does more damage than good.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

She's not relevant... there was just an article today about how many democrats have told her they don't want her support because it does more damage than good.

Yet she can still rake in the cash speaking to the "true believers". She's a rock star in liberal strongholds, Lewdog...she's just toxic everywhere else! But then again...so is Nancy Pelosi!

 

[oreo]

WTF?

He seriously just said he knows more about NATO than Mattis and that Mattis didn't tell him that NATO is stopping WWIII.

Meet your Commander & Chief--a man that wrote in his book, that his Personal Viet Nam was avoiding sexually transmitted diseases.
Trump's Vulgar Admission: Avoiding STDs was "my personal Vietnam" with "few uninfected" women

 

[WheelieAddict]

No one should care what trump says, more lies than truth every time

 

[Lewdog]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

She's not relevant... there was just an article today about how many democrats have told her they don't want her support because it does more damage than good.

Yet she can still rake in the cash speaking to the "true believers". She's a rock star in liberal strongholds, Lewdog...she's just toxic everywhere else! But then again...so is Nancy Pelosi!

It's Capitalism. You should be happy for her right?

 

[Oldstyle]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

She's not relevant... there was just an article today about how many democrats have told her they don't want her support because it does more damage than good.

Yet she can still rake in the cash speaking to the "true believers". She's a rock star in liberal strongholds, Lewdog...she's just toxic everywhere else! But then again...so is Nancy Pelosi!

It's Capitalism. You should be happy for her right?

Thrilled actually. I don't want Hillary in jail. I want her scheming to get one more run at the Presidency! I want Nancy Pelosi to be the presumptive Speaker of the House if the Democrats win. I'd love to see a Joe Biden nomination. I'd even be happy to see Elizabeth Warren run for President. Let's be honest here, Lewdog...the Democratic Party is a shambles. The "old guard" refuses to go away and the young ones like the pretty idiotic one from New York City are clueless!

 

[Lewdog]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

She's not relevant... there was just an article today about how many democrats have told her they don't want her support because it does more damage than good.

Yet she can still rake in the cash speaking to the "true believers". She's a rock star in liberal strongholds, Lewdog...she's just toxic everywhere else! But then again...so is Nancy Pelosi!

It's Capitalism. You should be happy for her right?

Thrilled actually. I don't want Hillary in jail. I want her scheming to get one more run at the Presidency! I want Nancy Pelosi to be the presumptive Speaker of the House if the Democrats win. I'd love to see a Joe Biden nomination. I'd even be happy to see Elizabeth Warren run for President. Let's be honest here, Lewdog...the Democratic Party is a shambles. The "old guard" refuses to go away and the young ones like the pretty idiotic one from New York City are clueless!

Both parties are in shambles. When a Democrat wins a seat in the Senate in Alabama... and a Democrat is running neck and neck with a Republican in Texas just 2 years after that same candidate was popular enough to run for the Republican nomination...

Maybe eventually people will start voting the issues and not the for the letter after a person's name. I doubt McGrath wins in KY, but the fact the President feels he needs to come to KY to do a rally to try and help Barr keep his seat should tell you they are scared as hell.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

WTF?

He seriously just said he knows more about NATO than Mattis and that Mattis didn't tell him that NATO is stopping WWIII.

I read a report recently indicating that the dumber a person is the the more likely that person is to think he is smart......or right....

apparently you can be too stupid to realize just how stupid you are....

kind of explains modern conservatives......

if this board is an example

It is called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Trump is the poster child for this.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As for Clinton's "relevancy"? She's still out there raising money and campaigning against Trump. You might want to tell HER that she's not relevant because I get the feeling that Hillary still thinks she's a viable candidate!

She's not relevant... there was just an article today about how many democrats have told her they don't want her support because it does more damage than good.

Yet she can still rake in the cash speaking to the "true believers". She's a rock star in liberal strongholds, Lewdog...she's just toxic everywhere else! But then again...so is Nancy Pelosi!

What's the lightest weight class? I think it's called "minimimweight".

Reading this discussion is polite torture. Two entirely gullible people, one a moron Trump supporter and the other an "independent" who didn't vote cuz "both sides".

Fought to the predictable draw.

 

[DJT for Life]

WTF?

He seriously just said he knows more about NATO than Mattis and that Mattis didn't tell him that NATO is stopping WWIII.

NATO has never stopped WWIII. It almost caused it in 1983 and 1984, but
it's never prevented it. NATO might help prevent a conventional war, but
if someone wants to laucn their missiles...NATO ain't gonna stop them.
There are only two NATO countries with Nukes besides the United States
and their arsenals are limited.

Mattis' job as a general and/or SoD would be in the military capabilities.
The logistics and the meshing of the combined militaries as a single fighting
force. It would have nothing to do with the politics of such. As of a year
ago, the German Air Force only possessed enough missiles to arm four of
its front line fighter jets. They are supposed to have 84 of them online
ready to fly and fight. Mattis would be concerned with having another
country make up for that short fall. (Probably the U.S.) It would be Trump's
job to get the Germans to have 84 jets online as the treaty demands.

We are wasting time and money trying to work with the Western European
Countries. Our bases overseas should be moved forward to Poland and the
other former members of the Warsaw Pact and have them nose-to-nose with the Russians.

Those countries, when the War on Terror began, were the first to send troops
to help us. Not the Gutless, Western Europeans.

There is no doubt that Trump would know more about the operating capitol
and politics of NATO over Mattis or any other General.

Europe has been relatively peaceful since we formed NATO 70 years ago

The longest period of peace in hundreds of years

Probably because American has 7,000 nukes aimed at Russia