President Trump 2.0

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s all a bit pointless complaining, when the side that won, did so according to the rules of the election which all participants knew and accepted in advance.

Unlike the previous Election…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...lty-screening/

Candidates for top national security positions in the Trump administration have faced questions that appear designed to determine whether they have embraced the president’s false claims about the outcome of the 2020 election and its aftermath, according to people familiar with cases of such screening.

The questions asked of several current and former officials up for top intelligence agency and law enforcement posts revolved around two events that have become President Donald Trump’s litmus test to distinguish friend from foe: the result of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, according to the people, who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

These people said that two individuals, both former officials who were being considered for positions within the intelligence community, were asked to give “yes” or “no” responses to the questions: Was Jan. 6 “an inside job?” And was the 2020 presidential election “stolen?”

These individuals, who did not give the desired straight “yes” answers, were not selected. It is not clear whether other factors contributed to the decision.

Pay up or we won’t defend you, Trump warns NATO

https://www.thetimes.com/article/8e5...e02c117c98fe13

Donald Trump has left the future of the alliance in doubt after he said countries that did not meet the Nato spending target would not be defended by the US.

Article 5 of the founding treaty states that an attack against one ally would be considered an attack against all.

Speaking in the White House on Thursday night, he said: “If you’re not going to pay, we’re not going to defend them.”

He went on: “The biggest problem I have with Nato … I mean, I know the guys very well. They’re friends of mine, but if the United States was in trouble, and we called them, we said, ‘We got a problem. France, we got a problem’. Couple of others, I won’t mention, you think they’re going to come and protect us? They’re supposed to, I’m not so sure.

“We’ve been supporting the whole world. When I first came in, we were paying almost 100 per cent of Nato … We were paying the bills for other countries and yet those same countries … the European countries were ripping us off in trade.”

A) France isn’t in NATO,
B) France sent troops to Afghanistan, and had troops in Desert Shield and Desert Storm
C) "Since 2001, troops from the U.S.'s NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. More than one thousand of these soldiers have paid the ultimate price"*

*from the 9/11 Memorial site - https://www.911memorial.org/learn/re...unity-responds

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Does anyone here drive a Swasticar?

more bad news as the V3 explodes ,the nazi conquest of mars will have to wait.

https://news.sky.com/story/spacex-st...orida-13323119

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pay up or we won’t defend you, Trump warns NATO

https://www.thetimes.com/article/8e5...e02c117c98fe13



A) France isn’t in NATO,
B) France sent troops to Afghanistan, and had troops in Desert Shield and Desert Storm
C) "Since 2001, troops from the U.S.'s NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. More than one thousand of these soldiers have paid the ultimate price"*

*from the 9/11 Memorial site - https://www.911memorial.org/learn/re...unity-responds

France is in NATO?

[1andrew1]

Yes, France is in NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

Originally Posted by Damien

France is in NATO?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes, France is in NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

My bad - I had forgotten they had rejoined in 2009.

B) still stands -they did these before re-joining.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Hugh

My bad - I had forgotten they had rejoined in 2009.

B) still stands -they did these before re-joining.

Didn't think they ever left as they were a Founding Member.

France never left Nato. It was not part of any of its planning or command structures from 1966 until 2009 and while it is now mostly reintegrated it does not participate in nuclear planning, a decision which may prove increasingly wise in the coming years.

[papa smurf]

i would love to be a fly on the wall when the orange man baby see's this

Trump Turnberry vandalised by pro-Palestine group

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr52q7l6drdo

he just might invoke article 5 over this

I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often to be honest.

Judging by the mess up the front of that building, they brought some serious hardware with them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often to be honest.

Judging by the mess up the front of that building, they brought some serious hardware with them.

If, and when, caught their homes or other property should also be vandalised, I’d happily do it, and not just for them, I’ll also do it for just stop oil, BLM, any group that vandalises property in the name of protest.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If, and when, caught their homes or other property should also be vandalised, I’d happily do it, and not just for them, I’ll also do it for just stop oil, BLM, any group that vandalises property in the name of protest.

So vandalism is wrong but you'd happily do it. Ermmm OK. Two wrongs don't make a right!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

So vandalism is wrong but you'd happily do it. Ermmm OK. Two wrongs don't make a right!

Sometimes they do.

If you thought your property would be under threat, by your actions, you may decide to act differently.

It’s called a deterrent.


Your attitude is very naive.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Sometimes they do.

If you thought your property would be under threat, by your actions, you may decide to act differently.

It’s called a deterrent.


Your attitude is very naive.

So what you're saying is that because the Palestinians thought their property was under threat from appropriation by Trump, it was acceptable for them to deface Trump's property in Scotland to act as a deterrent to him?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

So what you're saying is that because the Palestinians thought their property was under threat from appropriation by Trump, it was acceptable for them to deface Trump's property in Scotland to act as a deterrent to him?

There’s so much wrong in that statement, intentionally so, I can only assume. That I invite you to explain it, in the context of and referring to the applicable parts of my posts that are relevant to your answer, by quote and answer.

I’ll wait…..it’s also late so you’ve got all Monday to respond.