Trump privately handed Merkel an invoice for $374 BILLION! AWKWARD!

[kenny]

Just when you thought German chancellor Angela Merkel's visit couldn't have been any worse, it has been recently reported that President Donald Trump actually printed out an invoice for $374 billion—money Trump believes Germany owes to NATO, with interest—and handed it to Merkel during their closed doors meeting, The Sunday Times reported.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54130/trump-merkel-nato/?src=socialflowFB

 

[lovedogs]

hahaha I saw that and cringed. He literally doesn't know how NATO works. How is that even possible?!?!

 

[kenny]

hahaha I saw that and cringed. He literally doesn't know how NATO works. How is that even possible?!?!

He was elected by dummies.

 

[lovedogs]

He was elected by dummies.

How tiny his brain is makes me SAD!

 

[bunnycat]

Number of days without the US being a global embarrassment. Zero.

 

[lovedogs]

Number of days without the US being a global embarrassment. Zero.

I feel like we need to go into negative numbers at this point. Each day Chump is SCROTUS = Global embarrassment

 

[ruby59]

I feel like we need to go into negative numbers at this point. Each day Chump is SCROTUS = Global embarrassment

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...man-officials-claim-that-trump-gave/22012666/

Unnamed German source said this and apparently it never happened.

 

[cmd2014]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...man-officials-claim-that-trump-gave/22012666/

Unnamed German source said this and apparently it never happened.

So we are to take the word of Sean Spicer over a multitude of news outlets who are now reporting that this did, in fact, happen? Because he's shown himself to be so honest and upstanding about White House related issues?

Plus, this article actually highlights Trump's tweets which indicate that he does not understand how NATO works. No wonder poor Angela looked pained.

 

[katharath]

Can't you just picture that ham fisted idiot handing over an invoice? God, what an utter fool.

 

[katharath]

So we are to take the word of Sean Spicer over a multitude of news outlets who are now reporting that this did, in fact, happen? Because he's shown himself to be so honest and upstanding about White House related issues?

Plus, this article actually highlights Trump's tweets which indicate that he does not understand how NATO works. No wonder poor Angela looked pained.

Whaaat??? Are there still people that actually believe anything Trump says? At this point?

 

[ruby59]

So we are to take the word of Sean Spicer over a multitude of news outlets who are now reporting that this did, in fact, happen? Because he's shown himself to be so honest and upstanding about White House related issues?

Plus, this article actually highlights Trump's tweets which indicate that he does not understand how NATO works. No wonder poor Angela looked pained.

And with the blind hatred some of you here have for our President I find it difficult to take your word for what you manage to dredge up as well.

 

[ruby59]

And with the blind hatred some of you here have for our President I find it difficult to take your word for what you manage to dredge up as well.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...intimidating-300bn-bill-for-defence-dl7dk629k

Original article with no proof to back it up. Yea, the President pulled out this bill out of his pocket. Do they have a stack of blank ones ready to make out.

 

[the_mother_thing]

IF this happened, it was probably to make a point; not an actual invoice. In other words, 'time to pay the piper'. But since no major media source is covering it, and no evidence, I am not buying it.

It amazes me how many people are so pathetically desperate for negative news that they are eagerly lined up at Chump's butt to inhale his farts in hopes of catching a whiff of something sour.

 

[cmd2014]

To make what point? That Trump has no understanding of how the NATO treaty works? Ivo Daalder (your own former US ambassador to NATO) has publicly taken exception to Trump's aggregious mishandling of truth on this matter. I certainly hope that he didn't embarrass the US with Dr. Merkel, but given how unembarrassed he seems to be about any of the other international incidents created by his public gaffes, you can see how it might be easy to believe this account.

The sad/scary thing is how many people will repeat Trump's tweets as if they're truth. Because they won't know any better. As in, "pay what piper", exactly? This suggests that countries actually pay into NATO, which they don't, at least not directly. Or that other countries somehow force the US to make budget decisions about defense spending? (Because we don't). Or that the 2% of GDP figure is a contractual obligation (because it isn't). Or that NATO countries haven't willingly stepped up to support the US post 911? (Because here's a hint, we did. As part of our commitment to NATO. Oh, and out of decency too, through civilian organizations like the Red Cross and any other way we could think of to help.) Something that Trump forgets when he's being bombastic about not paying our way.

 

[ruby59]

IF this happened, it was probably to make a point; not an actual invoice. In other words, 'time to pay the piper'. But since no major media source is covering it, and no evidence, I am not buying it.

It amazes me how many people are so pathetically desperate for negative news that they are eagerly lined up at Chump's butt to inhale his farts in hopes of catching a whiff of something sour.

And aren't these the same ones who constantly are telling me that I should be getting my news from more reliable sources?

 

[ruby59]

To make what point? That Trump has no understanding of how the NATO treaty works? Ivo Daalder (your own former US ambassador to NATO) has publicly taken exception to Trump's aggregious mishandling of truth on this matter. I certainly hope that he didn't embarrass the US with Dr. Merkel, but given how unembarrassed he seems to be about any of the other international incidents created by his public gaffes, you can see how it might be easy to believe this account.

The sad/scary thing is how many people will repeat Trump's tweets as if they're truth. Because they won't know any better. As in, "pay what piper", exactly? This suggests that countries actually pay into NATO, which they don't, at least not directly. Or that other countries somehow force the US to make budget decisions about defense spending? (Because we don't). Or that the 2% of GDP figure is a contractual obligation (because it isn't). Or that NATO countries haven't willingly stepped up to support the US post 911? (Because here's a hint, we did. As part of our commitment to NATO. Oh, and out of decency too, through civilian organizations like the Red Cross and any other way we could think of to help.) Something that Trump forgets when he's being bombastic about not paying our way.

Do you know this man personally? Are you there during negotiations?

You have no more clue to what this man knows or does not know than the rest of us. It is all assumptions on your part coming from a place of hatred.

As for believing Trump's tweets, how is it any different then all of you believing every bit of flotsum coming out of the media.

 

[the_mother_thing]

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, right, with US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis before a press conference at the NATO headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday.

Associated Press/Virginia Mayo

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reportedly said Wednesday that NATO member countries should start paying more on defense or the US may "moderate" its commitment to the alliance.

"I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States, and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms," Mattis told NATO defense ministers, according toThe Washington Post.

Only five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 28 member countries last year met the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense," Mattis said.

Here's a breakdown of each country's contribution, based on 2016 figures provided by NATO:

United States, 3.61%.
Greece, 2.38%.
Britain, 2.21%.
Estonia, 2.16%.
Poland, 2%.
France, 1.78%.
Turkey, 1.56%.
Norway, 1.54%.
Lithuania, 1.49%.
Romania, 1.48%.
Latvia, 1.45%.
Portugal, 1.38%.
Bulgaria, 1.35%.
Croatia, 1.23%.
Albania, 1.21%.
Germany, 1.19%.
Denmark, 1.17%.
Netherlands, 1.17%.
Slovakia, 1.16%.
Italy, 1.11%.
Czech Republic, 1.04%.
Hungary, 1.01%.
Canada, 0.99%.
Slovenia, 0.94%.
Spain, 0.91%.
Belgium, 0.85%.
Luxembourg, 0.44%.

Even GREECE pulls its weight!

 

[cmd2014]

Do you know this man personally? Are you there during negotiations?

You have no more clue to what this man knows or does not know than the rest of us. It is all assumptions on your part coming from a place of hatred.

As for believing Trump's tweets, how is it any different then all of you believing every bit of flotsum coming out of the media.

Ruby,

Given that you do not know me, I would advise you to be careful about making assumptions about my alleged feelings of hatred. I do not appreciate being the target of Ad Hominem attacks, and they do not reflect well on you.

And yes, when people choose to speak, especially when it is done publicly and in writing, I choose to believe that they do, in fact, mean what they say. Especially when that person is a powerful world leader talking about world events and issues. And I weigh the content of what they say, including whether or not it reflects an accurate representation of the issue and/or facts. I then use that to form an opinion about not only the quality of the message, but the character and level of informedness of the one speaking it. Everyone should be doing the same.

As for the NATO Alliance goal of 2% per country's GDP spent on developing and equipping their own militaries, that is exactly what it is...a goal. Not a contract, and certainly not a cash payment into NATO (ETA: "contribution" here does not mean a payment into NATO. It just means how much each country is spending on their military in comparison to their GDP.) There is no "owing" of money to the US for defense provided to other NATO countries by the US. US defense spending is solely for the purpose of defending US national security interests. The US is welcome to alter their stance on US defense spending (as determined in the budget set out by your congress I believe), however, this will affect US national security interests in a manner that the US is unwilling to allow to occur. That is the political reality of being a world superpower. This is what your own former US ambassador to NATO was attempting to publicly educate Trump about following his ill informed tweets. Sadly, he has doubled down as he has seemingly tended to do. So Mattis and others who are now representatives of the US executive branch will make noise as directed by the White House, but I don't foresee any cuts to defense spending coming any time soon in the US budget. In fact, it looks like Trump intends to increase spending.

This is not the worst thing, as the US military is a huge employer to millions of enlisted people and non-enlisted support staff, VA hospital employees, government employees, defense contractors, etc., and is a purchaser of huge amounts of resources (supporting agriculture, manufacturing companies, etc.) and helps drive the US economy in many places where it would otherwise stall. The military also provides training and education opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it. Many of whom translate that into successful civilian careers after they are discharged. So there are many reasons why a government might choose to invest in defense spending even aside from military action/national security issues.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And yes, when people choose to speak, especially when it is done publicly and in writing, I choose to believe that they do, in fact, mean what they say. Especially when that person is a powerful world leader talking about world events and issues.

Well, Trump didn't say he did it (gave Merkel an invoice), and Spicer (Trump's mouthpiece) said it wasn't true so, there you have it.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby,

Given that you do not know me, I would advise you to be careful about making assumptions about my alleged feelings of hatred. I do not appreciate being the target of Ad Hominem attacks, and they do not reflect well on you.

And yes, when people choose to speak, especially when it is done publicly and in writing, I choose to believe that they do, in fact, mean what they say. Especially when that person is a powerful world leader talking about world events and issues. And I weigh the content of what they say, including whether or not it reflects an accurate representation of the issue and/or facts. I then use that to form an opinion about not only the quality of the message, but the character and level of informedness of the one speaking it. Everyone should be doing the same.

As for the NATO Alliance goal of 2% per country's GDP spent on developing and equipping their own militaries, that is exactly what it is...a goal. Not a contract, and certainly not a cash payment into NATO (ETA: "contribution" here does not mean a payment into NATO. It just means how much each country is spending on their military in comparison to their GDP.) There is no "owing" of money to the US for defense provided to other NATO countries by the US. US defense spending is solely for the purpose of defending US national security interests. The US is welcome to alter their stance on US defense spending (as determined in the budget set out by your congress I believe), however, this will affect US national security interests in a manner that the US is unwilling to allow to occur. That is the political reality of being a world superpower. This is what your own former US ambassador to NATO was attempting to publicly educate Trump about following his ill informed tweets. Sadly, he has doubled down as he has seemingly tended to do. So Mattis and others who are now representatives of the US executive branch will make noise as directed by the White House, but I don't foresee any cuts to defense spending coming any time soon in the US budget. In fact, it looks like Trump intends to increase spending.

This is not the worst thing, as the US military is a huge employer to millions of enlisted people and non-enlisted support staff, VA hospital employees, government employees, defense contractors, etc., and is a purchaser of huge amounts of resources (supporting agriculture, manufacturing companies, etc.) and helps drive the US economy in many places where it would otherwise stall. The military also provides training and education opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it. Many of whom translate that into successful civilian careers after they are discharged. So there are many reasons why a government might choose to invest in defense spending even aside from military action/national security issues.

'The sad/scary thing is how many people will repeat Trump's tweets as if they're truth. Because they won't know any better. "

Now let us see. You are able to judge Spicer, Angela, Trump and from your post above, other people" but you are off limits? Since you do not personally know any of these people, how are you yourself making anything but "assumptions?"

 

[lovedogs]

To make what point? That Trump has no understanding of how the NATO treaty works? Ivo Daalder (your own former US ambassador to NATO) has publicly taken exception to Trump's aggregious mishandling of truth on this matter. I certainly hope that he didn't embarrass the US with Dr. Merkel, but given how unembarrassed he seems to be about any of the other international incidents created by his public gaffes, you can see how it might be easy to believe this account.

The sad/scary thing is how many people will repeat Trump's tweets as if they're truth. Because they won't know any better. As in, "pay what piper", exactly? This suggests that countries actually pay into NATO, which they don't, at least not directly. Or that other countries somehow force the US to make budget decisions about defense spending? (Because we don't). Or that the 2% of GDP figure is a contractual obligation (because it isn't). Or that NATO countries haven't willingly stepped up to support the US post 911? (Because here's a hint, we did. As part of our commitment to NATO. Oh, and out of decency too, through civilian organizations like the Red Cross and any other way we could think of to help.) Something that Trump forgets when he's being bombastic about not paying our way.

I would wager that many Trump supporters also have no idea how NATO works, so just parrot what he says (or call us "haters").

 

[the_mother_thing]

I would wager that many Trump supporters also have no idea how NATO works, so just parrot what he says (or call us "haters").

Most people don't know how a lot of stuff 'works' that they haven't been directly involved or employed in it; and yes, some make a bunch of ignorant & biased assumptions and judgments without taking the time to understand that 'thing' ... kind of like judging "many Trump supporters" ... as if liberals and/or HRC supporters have a monopoly on or some elevated level of intellect over the rest of the population.

I don't call liberals 'haters'; I do call a LOT of them hypocrites once they demonstrate such behavior ... like judging a group of people for their different or opposing beliefs while chanting how we (society) should be more tolerant, understanding, empathetic, etc.

 

[House Cat]

Most people don't know how a lot of stuff 'works' that they haven't been directly involved or employed in it; and yes, some make a bunch of ignorant & biased assumptions and judgments without taking the time to understand that 'thing' ... kind of like judging "many Trump supporters" ... as if liberals and/or HRC supporters have a monopoly on or some elevated level of intellect over the rest of the population.

I don't call liberals 'haters'; I do call a LOT of them hypocrites once they demonstrate such behavior ... like judging a group of people for their different or opposing beliefs while chanting how we (society) should be more tolerant, understanding, empathetic, etc.

I take it to mean that Trump is feeding on the ignorance of his supporters and that is the reason for the use of "many Trump supporters" here.

I do not believe anyone is claiming superiority.

 

[cmd2014]

'The sad/scary thing is how many people will repeat Trump's tweets as if they're truth. Because they won't know any better. "

Now let us see. You are able to judge Spicer, Angela, Trump and from your post above, other people" but you are off limits? Since you do not personally know any of these people, how are you yourself making anything but "assumptions?"

I have commented on the veracity of what they have publicly said, not made assumptions about supposed private feelings of hate. These are two different things.

Sean Spicer has said things at the behest of his employer that have been of limited truthfulness based on fact checks. Because of this observed pattern of behavior, I have come not to trust his words in his role as spokesperson for the White House. In short: he has been shown to spin the truth. That's his job.

Angela Merkel has expressed her beliefs through her words and actions as leader of Germany. Her policies may or may not always reflect her private thoughts, but there has been a high level of congruence between what she has said and what she has done. I have also not seen her publicly say anything that has been in poor taste, mean spirited, or verifiably untrue. In my opinion, she also deserves my respect for being a woman of a certain age, from a Soviet Block country, in the era of the Cold War, who nevertheless earned a Ph.D. in the intellectually challenging and male dominated field of chemistry and who went on to become the Chancellor of Germany. I'm not seeing much to disparage here, are you?

Trump shows who he is through his tweets. At least some of these have been grossly factually inaccurate.

I have commented on what I have observed: that many people tend to repeat what Trump has said (in this specific case about NATO) without understanding that it is factually inaccurate.

Now I'd love if you could tell me how this reflects feelings of hate in my heart, because nothing I have said or done has expressed this. But I suspect you're resorting to attacking the person because you're having difficulty attacking the argument.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I take it to mean that Trump is feeding on the ignorance of his supporters and that is the reason for the use of "many Trump supporters" here.

I do not believe anyone is claiming superiority.

That's your interpretation. I am basing mine on Lovedogs' actual words rather than trying to read her mind.

But back on topic - does anyone have actual proof Chump gave Merkel an invoice in anticipation she would write a check from Germany to NATO, or is this entire thread (and linked article) just more fodder to fuel liberal hatred of the president?

 

[lovedogs]

I take it to mean that Trump is feeding on the ignorance of his supporters and that is the reason for the use of "many Trump supporters" here.

I do not believe anyone is claiming superiority.

Unsurprisingly, HC, you are correct about what I meant. And Jen: my words were LITERALLY "many Trump supporters", not "jocojen". So you obviously didn't base anything on my words.

EDIT: here's an incredibly biased conservative website who is lauding this embarrassment. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-outrageous-invoice-for-unpaid-nato-defenses/

The Hill is reporting it, as are other outlets.

 

[cmd2014]

Oh, just reading the comments section is making me sad. Well, if spreading fake news and misinformation about foreign affairs was the goal...I guess he's winning. What's the Churchill saying? “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” (Edit: oops, FAKE QUOTE. Or at least not Churchill. Oh well, truthier than the rest I suppose).

 

[the_mother_thing]

Unsurprisingly, HC, you are correct about what I meant. And Jen: my words were LITERALLY "many Trump supporters", not "jocojen". So you obviously didn't base anything on my words.

No offense to HC, but I don't really care what someone else thinks or assumes about your comment (especially when it's one of 'the gang') when it's quite clear to me how judgmental & negative your statement was. Here is what you said:

"I would wager (you appear to believe) that many Trump supporters (your stereotype) also have no idea how NATO works (your negative assumption of their intelligence or ignorance), so just parrot what he says (or call us "haters") (your assumptions of negative motive/behavior)."

Like HRC's "deplorables" comment (which she at least attempted an apology for), your words cast a negative generalization on a large group of people apparently based on their political beliefs; and I am assuming because they oppose your own, but perhaps you have some facts & stats to back up your statement. And if so, I will happily stand corrected. If not, perhaps consider choosing your words more carefully/thoughtfully next time if you don't want you/your opinions viewed as hypocritical 'liberal parroting'.

 

[Tekate]

Jo, the reason why people believe Trump adherents no little about NATO is because he seems to know little about NATO.

No offense to HC, but I don't really care what someone else thinks or assumes about your comment (especially when it's one of 'the gang') when it's quite clear to me how judgmental & negative your statement was. Here is what you said:

"I would wager (you appear to believe) that many Trump supporters (your stereotype) also have no idea how NATO works (your negative assumption of their intelligence or ignorance), so just parrot what he says (or call us "haters") (your assumptions of negative motive/behavior)."

Like HRC's "deplorables" comment (which she at least attempted an apology for), your words cast a negative generalization on a large group of people apparently based on their political beliefs; and I am assuming because they oppose your own, but perhaps you have some facts & stats to back up your statement. And if so, I will happily stand corrected. If not, perhaps consider choosing your words more carefully/thoughtfully next time if you don't want you/your opinions viewed as hypocritical 'liberal parroting'.

I think a reason why the left believes that Trump voters do not understand how NATO works is because it seems like Trump doesn't know how it works.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...p-jabs-media-germany-morning-tweets/99345790/

http://addictinginfo.org/2017/03/19...d-trump-had-to-educate-him-on-how-nato-works/

I'd say USA today isn't a 'liberal site".. addicting info? not sure. So here's Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/17/trump-presses-merkel-hard-on-nato-dues-during-visit.html

Did Fox not research enough? Is Fox biased to Trump? Is it true Germany HAS kept up their part in paying for NATO? Because according to this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/19/germany-rejects-trump-nato-us-defence
Germany thinks they owe nothing... Does Trump not know how NATO works? It certainly 'looks like he doesn't".. The problem with Trump (one of the many he has imho) is he doesn't research and learn, he leaves that to his subordinates and they don't seem to be the best or the brightest, they want change but don't really understand how to bring it forth, by governing and working together (I mean republican to republican).

To people like Clinton, the right is deplorable, for it seems all they care about is the Howard Roark model of the individual, low taxes, trickle down (known not to work even though DF thinks it does ) and to people on the right Clinton seemed a snark, money hungry, lying, communist (neither definition is correct on both sides but it seems like this is what people thought)

I'd also say that the view of the right can be seen to be typical 'right wing parroting' with the typical 'snowflake' and 'nanny' comments. I don't think either are correct here personally, but it comes across that way to me. When in spite of clear, facts the right refuses to believe it.

 

[lovedogs]

Tekate summed it up perfectly. How is it a stretch to think that Trump supporters don't understand NATO when Trumo HIMSELF doesn't understand it? Why would people support someone if they knew how ignorant he is on these issues? This isn't some judgemental liberal conspiracy theory---trump has shown time and time again to have zero understanding of NATO. thus, I assume people who support him believe him (therefore also not understanding), otherwise those people wouldn't support him because they would realize he's a moron.