EU May Reduce Industrial Tariffs

[UCFWayne]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ahead-of-eu-meeting-trump-rails-at-domestic-critics-1532524795

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/tru...ing-out-on-a-fair-trade-deal-with-europe.html

looks like all those tariffs might actually result in real free trade....

well see where it goes but this is a start:
• Increasing liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States
• Lowering industrial tariffs
• Aligning regulatory standards on medical products
• Importing more US soy beans

 

[UCFBS]

Trade wars only work when the initially targeted side capitulates. This is what needed to happen. No one will give Trump credit for this, but he actually got it done.

Now we just need to get Canada and China on-board. China may have to. Canada is a bit different though, and not without justification.

I mean, even Boeing unfairly tried to screw Bombadier, and what resulted was an AirBus acquisition and the resulting, counter Embraer acquisition by Boeing -- all because Boeing really isn't innovating any more, and playing politics.

And I say this as a former Boeing contractor who believes in many of their products. They are really just being stupid and mis-managed as of late, much like GM was through the '00s.

 

[UCFWayne]

i wonder why fried ninja has avoided this thread?

 

[Crazyhole]

Foreign tarriffs go largely unnoticed by american people. This is one thing Trump was right about, and although i dont agree with his tactics its good that they look to be working out in the long term.

 

[CommuterBob]

This is good. I hope the negotiations follow through and Trump stops making threats against our allies.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This is good. I hope the negotiations follow through and Trump stops making threats against our allies.

I love hearing soooo much about our "allies" all of a sudden. As if daring to challenge existing trade arrangements is sooooooo offensive to poor lil Canada and Europe.

Why doesn't anyone in the media whine when Canada slaps 300% tariffs on US dairy? Or the 10% tariff on US cars in Europe? Or the 20% tariff on Apples from the US? On average, the EU has slapped a 17% tariff on US Agri products.

Europe is threatening their greatest ally! How dare they!

 

[Crazyhole]

"Our allies". We only have and have ever had allies from a military point of view. The EU is only an ally because of WW2 and the Cold War. Same goes for S. Korea. They like being friends with the guy who carries the biggest stick but in reality they are all just cronies looking towards their best interests.

 

[CommuterBob]

Why doesn't anyone in the media whine when Canada slaps 300% tariffs on US dairy?

Do you even know why Canada has a tariff on US Dairy? And did you know it only applies when there's a surplus, which is something Canada tries to avoid? And did you know the rest of the time it is a typical 3% and the US charges a similar tariff on Canadian dairy? And that Canada still imports 2x as much dairy from the US as they export? Or that as part of the TPP that Trump backed out of, would have eliminated the tariff on dairy (both ways)?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...red-cows-and-270-tariffs-set-trump-off-at-g-7

 

[CommuterBob]

"Our allies". We only have and have ever had allies from a military point of view. The EU is only an ally because of WW2 and the Cold War. Same goes for S. Korea. They like being friends with the guy who carries the biggest stick but in reality they are all just cronies looking towards their best interests.

How dare they look out for their best interests! The horror!

 

[CommuterBob]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eus-wh...om-uncertainty-to-lowered-tensions-1532624882

Good article on how the talks went down and how the EU simplified the economics for Trump to understand.

"Mr. Juncker grabbed the opportunity to argue that both sides need to refrain from further punitive tariffs or they would foolishly harm themselves.

“If you want to be stupid,” he told Mr. Trump, “I can be stupid, as well.”

Backing up his points, Mr. Juncker flipped through more than a dozen colorful cue cards with simplified explainers, the senior EU official said. Each card had at most three figures about a specific topic, such as trade in cars or standards for medical devices.

“We knew this wasn’t an academic seminar,” the EU official said. “It had to be very simple.”

 

[UCFKnight85]

Do you even know why Canada has a tariff on US Dairy? And did you know it only applies when there's a surplus, which is something Canada tries to avoid? And did you know the rest of the time it is a typical 3% and the US charges a similar tariff on Canadian dairy? And that Canada still imports 2x as much dairy from the US as they export? Or that as part of the TPP that Trump backed out of, would have eliminated the tariff on dairy (both ways)?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...red-cows-and-270-tariffs-set-trump-off-at-g-7

So what? It's still a tariff. Unless your new talking point is that tariffs are bad, unless you have a great rationale on a domestic basis!

I notice you also conveniently avoided the EU part of my post.

Crazy is right btw. This nonsense about "we're attacking our allies!" is just bullshit. Our companies have to compete with EU companies on a daily basis and a lot of them are slimy assholes who will cut your throat to win business. The EU will always do what is best for EU businesses and so should we.

Just as Boeing how our "allies!!" in France and Airbus compete fairly. Hint: they don't.

 

[Crazyhole]

How dare they look out for their best interests! The horror!

Likewise

 

[Sir Galahad]

Try working in Canada, all these whining liberals complaining about borders and “immigrants “ should see how Canada handles any non citizen.

 

[btbones]

US agriculture has been hurt badly for years by cheap shit coming in from South America where they pay wages that are frighteningly low . I know this as fact . I’ve lived it .

 

[UCFWayne]

How dare they look out for their best interests! The horror!

honest question, are you happy that the eu has been screwing us? all while we back them militarily and dont get compensated?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eus-wh...om-uncertainty-to-lowered-tensions-1532624882

Good article on how the talks went down and how the EU simplified the economics for Trump to understand.

"Mr. Juncker grabbed the opportunity to argue that both sides need to refrain from further punitive tariffs or they would foolishly harm themselves.

“If you want to be stupid,” he told Mr. Trump, “I can be stupid, as well.”

Backing up his points, Mr. Juncker flipped through more than a dozen colorful cue cards with simplified explainers, the senior EU official said. Each card had at most three figures about a specific topic, such as trade in cars or standards for medical devices.

“We knew this wasn’t an academic seminar,” the EU official said. “It had to be very simple.”

so what your saying is that trump's tactics worked? #winning

 

[CommuterBob]

honest question, are you happy that the eu has been screwing us? all while we back them militarily and dont get compensated?

so what your saying is that trump's tactics worked? #winning

The EU hasn't been screwing us, contrary to Trump's hyperbole. Sure there are deals that could be adjusted, but it's hardly the cause of the trade deficit.

As for the NATO "pay their fair share" thing, I laugh at that. It's not some sort of slush fund which the countries contribute to. It's domestic defense spending for each country. If other countries spend more, the US doesn't spend less, or get some money back. Those other countries simply spend more and build up their militaries, but for what? What does it benefit Luxembourg to spend 2% of its GDP on their military? And more specifically, what does that benefit the US for them to do that? And the US has benefited from having/controlling the lion's share of the defenses, by having bases we control in other countries, and a relatively de-militarized Germany. The impacts to the US do not make the situation so dire that we have our President threatening to pull out of NATO.

 

[UCFWayne]

The EU hasn't been screwing us, contrary to Trump's hyperbole. Sure there are deals that could be adjusted, but it's hardly the cause of the trade deficit.

As for the NATO "pay their fair share" thing, I laugh at that. It's not some sort of slush fund which the countries contribute to. It's domestic defense spending for each country. If other countries spend more, the US doesn't spend less, or get some money back. Those other countries simply spend more and build up their militaries, but for what? What does it benefit Luxembourg to spend 2% of its GDP on their military? And more specifically, what does that benefit the US for them to do that? And the US has benefited from having/controlling the lion's share of the defenses, by having bases we control in other countries, and a relatively de-militarized Germany. The impacts to the US do not make the situation so dire that we have our President threatening to pull out of NATO.

i dont know all the details but it would seem that they have a number of tariffs on us goods that do not exist the other way. i dont care about the trade deficits, i just care that the trade is on equal grounds. it would seem that trumps tactics are working. i know that bothers some people, but i just care about the results.

what benefit does luxembourg have? idk about them but i wonder if you would ask ukraine the same question? i bet they would like to go back a couple years and up their spending...

 

[UCFKnight85]

The EU hasn't been screwing us, contrary to Trump's hyperbole. Sure there are deals that could be adjusted, but it's hardly the cause of the trade deficit.

As for the NATO "pay their fair share" thing, I laugh at that. It's not some sort of slush fund which the countries contribute to. It's domestic defense spending for each country. If other countries spend more, the US doesn't spend less, or get some money back. Those other countries simply spend more and build up their militaries, but for what? What does it benefit Luxembourg to spend 2% of its GDP on their military? And more specifically, what does that benefit the US for them to do that? And the US has benefited from having/controlling the lion's share of the defenses, by having bases we control in other countries, and a relatively de-militarized Germany. The impacts to the US do not make the situation so dire that we have our President threatening to pull out of NATO.

Your last comment is nonsense.

The 2% mark is not some arbitrary number that people came up with; it came out of a huge readiness study that assessed what level of spending each NATO country would have to invest at, EVERY YEAR, to be able to sustain and win a conventional ground war against Russia (or otherwise). That number was 2%. Meaning that for every NATO member to pull their proportional weight during a long term ground war, they would have had to been investing in their defense capabilities at 2% of GDP per year.

Most of these countries spend 1-1.2% of GDP on defense (Canada, Germany) would never come close to being able to sustain a war effort if they had to. Just look at what happened in Libya- NATO flew sorties and within one frigging week they were out of bombs and having to use US bombs (which we then paid to backfill). There are countless stories about NATO troops getting to Afghanistan and having to ask US forces for things like ammunition, weapon parts, etc.

The blunt fact of the matter is that if a Russia/Iran/China alliance decided to push west into Europe, the US would be doing the overwhelming amount of fighting and spending to sustain the war effort. Most of these countries would see their capabilities depleted and gone within the first few months.

How about this? Instead of questioning why the US doesn't support NATO, as we spend another $13B on our eastern European brigades, why doesn't someone ask the Europeans and Canadians if they're committed? Seems to me like everyone refusing to meet the 2% threshold isn't committed at all.

 

[CommuterBob]

i dont know all the details but it would seem that they have a number of tariffs on us goods that do not exist the other way. i dont care about the trade deficits, i just care that the trade is on equal grounds. it would seem that trumps tactics are working. i know that bothers some people, but i just care about the results.

what benefit does luxembourg have? idk about them but i wonder if you would ask ukraine the same question? i bet they would like to go back a couple years and up their spending...

The Ukraine is not a NATO member.

 

[UCFWayne]

The Ukraine is not a NATO member.

didnt they ask to join like 10+ years ago? i thought they were on their way to becoming a member. i bet they wish they wouldve joined before russia decided the grass was greener there. did russia ever give back that land?

 

[CommuterBob]

Your last comment is nonsense.

The 2% mark is not some arbitrary number that people came up with; it came out of a huge readiness study that assessed what level of spending each NATO country would have to invest at, EVERY YEAR, to be able to sustain and win a conventional ground war against Russia (or otherwise). That number was 2%. Meaning that for every NATO member to pull their proportional weight during a long term ground war, they would have had to been investing in their defense capabilities at 2% of GDP per year.

Most of these countries spend 1-1.2% of GDP on defense (Canada, Germany) would never come close to being able to sustain a war effort if they had to. Just look at what happened in Libya- NATO flew sorties and within one frigging week they were out of bombs and having to use US bombs (which we then paid to backfill). There are countless stories about NATO troops getting to Afghanistan and having to ask US forces for things like ammunition, weapon parts, etc.

The blunt fact of the matter is that if a Russia/Iran/China alliance decided to push west into Europe, the US would be doing the overwhelming amount of fighting and spending to sustain the war effort. Most of these countries would see their capabilities depleted and gone within the first few months.

How about this? Instead of questioning why the US doesn't support NATO, as we spend another $13B on our eastern European brigades, why doesn't someone ask the Europeans and Canadians if they're committed? Seems to me like everyone refusing to meet the 2% threshold isn't committed at all.

Hilarious. You really think Luxembourg spending an extra $700M on defense is going to help the US, who has a military budget 1000x larger than that increase? I guess maybe if they stockpile bombs for us.

Besides, the next war won't be a ground war.

 

[UCFWayne]

Hilarious. You really think Luxembourg spending an extra $700M on defense is going to help the US, who has a military budget 1000x larger than that increase? I guess maybe if they stockpile bombs for us.

Besides, the next war won't be a ground war.

correct me if im wrong but the point of nato wasnt about 1 specific nation but a collection of them pulling together at roughly the same percentage of gdp? together they are strong, divided they fall or something along those lines?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Hilarious. You really think Luxembourg spending an extra $700M on defense is going to help the US, who has a military budget 1000x larger than that increase? I guess maybe if they stockpile bombs for us.

Besides, the next war won't be a ground war.

Jesus. Did you even attempt to read what I wrote? Kudos, by the way, on making your example by using the smallest country in the EU.

How about Germany? A less ridiculous example to use. The largest economy in Europe and they spend a whopping 1.2% of GDP on defense.

Also, good to know that you've already war planned for the next 30 years and can assure us that there will be no further ground wars. You should send this intel to the Pentagon ASAP since they're foolishly planning capabilities right now to confront China and Russia on the ground. You know better!

 

[CommuterBob]

correct me if im wrong but the point of nato wasnt about 1 specific nation but a collection of them pulling together at roughly the same percentage of gdp? together they are strong, divided they fall or something along those lines?

Absolutely. And they agreed 4 years ago to bring spending in line with the goal within a decade. After 4 years, more countries have met the goal, and every country has already increased its spending since, just not fast enough for The Donald.

 

[sk8knight]

Hilarious. You really think Luxembourg spending an extra $700M on defense is going to help the US, who has a military budget 1000x larger than that increase? I guess maybe if they stockpile bombs for us.

Besides, the next war won't be a ground war.

Yes, it will. 85 gave the largest part of the answer, but there’s more to it. Stronger European native forces mean they can respond and hold and we don’t have to mobilize and deploy as quickly. Maintaining a force that can rapidly respond anywhere in the world is extremely expensive. Any break we get in that would be huge.

Also, defense expenditures by other countries may not be in manpower and munitions but often are investments in R&D and infrastructure. Many of our CBRN procedures and technology come from NATO advances as much as they do from US innovation. We don’t see a domestic threat from that angle so it can be hard to justify budget but the European countries still have memories of fields of death. It’s not a zero sum game but there is tradespace and a stronger contribution from the Europeans would mean the US could scale back.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Absolutely. And they agreed 4 years ago to bring spending in line with the goal within a decade. After 4 years, more countries have met the goal, and every country has already increased its spending since, just not fast enough for The Donald.

We're half way through that decade and still, only 8 of 29 NATO members have met the 2% threshold. Canada still sits at 1.1% GDP; Germany is at 1.2% GDP. Are you telling me that they're going to double their defense allocations in the remaining 5 years after spending 5 years to get those numbers to tick up by .1 or .2%?

You don't seem to get it here. Getting to 2% is not the end of this; spending 2% for decades every single year was the baseline requirement. Because only then would countries have been investing annually to sustain and win a war if need be.

Oh and good luck if a recession hits Europe. These "committed NATO members" will slash right back down below the 1% mark again.

 

[UCFWayne]

Absolutely. And they agreed 4 years ago to bring spending in line with the goal within a decade. After 4 years, more countries have met the goal, and every country has already increased its spending since, just not fast enough for The Donald.

one of the few things obama did was get a few of them to up their spending. at the same time it wasnt enough because it was only a handful that actually did anything.

no one including trump should be happy about how long its taking them to increase their spending on defense. this isnt partisan, these are the damn goals they themselves agreed to. any president past and future should demand that they live up to that deal.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Your last comment is nonsense.

The 2% mark is not some arbitrary number that people came up with; it came out of a huge readiness study that assessed what level of spending each NATO country would have to invest at, EVERY YEAR, to be able to sustain and win a conventional ground war against Russia (or otherwise). That number was 2%. Meaning that for every NATO member to pull their proportional weight during a long term ground war, they would have had to been investing in their defense capabilities at 2% of GDP per year.

Most of these countries spend 1-1.2% of GDP on defense (Canada, Germany) would never come close to being able to sustain a war effort if they had to. Just look at what happened in Libya- NATO flew sorties and within one frigging week they were out of bombs and having to use US bombs (which we then paid to backfill). There are countless stories about NATO troops getting to Afghanistan and having to ask US forces for things like ammunition, weapon parts, etc.

The blunt fact of the matter is that if a Russia/Iran/China alliance decided to push west into Europe, the US would be doing the overwhelming amount of fighting and spending to sustain the war effort. Most of these countries would see their capabilities depleted and gone within the first few months.

How about this? Instead of questioning why the US doesn't support NATO, as we spend another $13B on our eastern European brigades, why doesn't someone ask the Europeans and Canadians if they're committed? Seems to me like everyone refusing to meet the 2% threshold isn't committed at all.

It actually is 100% an arbitrary number that NATO came up. I always enjoy pointing out where you are wrong, if you weren't a little bitch you would be flipping out right now that someone did an iota of research and called out your insane bullshit.

 

[fried-chicken]

Oh my god. People ITT think this is Trump winning. America is done.

 

[chemmie]

Your last comment is nonsense.

The 2% mark is not some arbitrary number that people came up with; it came out of a huge readiness study that assessed what level of spending each NATO country would have to invest at, EVERY YEAR, to be able to sustain and win a conventional ground war against Russia (or otherwise). That number was 2%. Meaning that for every NATO member to pull their proportional weight during a long term ground war, they would have had to been investing in their defense capabilities at 2% of GDP per year.

Most of these countries spend 1-1.2% of GDP on defense (Canada, Germany) would never come close to being able to sustain a war effort if they had to. Just look at what happened in Libya- NATO flew sorties and within one frigging week they were out of bombs and having to use US bombs (which we then paid to backfill). There are countless stories about NATO troops getting to Afghanistan and having to ask US forces for things like ammunition, weapon parts, etc.

The blunt fact of the matter is that if a Russia/Iran/China alliance decided to push west into Europe, the US would be doing the overwhelming amount of fighting and spending to sustain the war effort. Most of these countries would see their capabilities depleted and gone within the first few months.

How about this? Instead of questioning why the US doesn't support NATO, as we spend another $13B on our eastern European brigades, why doesn't someone ask the Europeans and Canadians if they're committed? Seems to me like everyone refusing to meet the 2% threshold isn't committed at all.

85 is worried about Russia invading Europe, blitzkrieg-style, in an effort to take over the world with their menacing mustached leader with a maniacal laugh.

Meanwhile, there is no news to see while Russia uses technology to undermine our election.
LOL.

 

[chemmie]

Just as Boeing how our "allies!!" in France and Airbus compete fairly. Hint: they don't.

You do know that Boeing receives BILLIONS of handout dollars from our government... and I'm not just talking about their actual contracts.

Do you?

 

[UCFWayne]

85 is worried about Russia invading Europe, blitzkrieg-style, in an effort to take over the world with their menacing mustached leader with a maniacal laugh.

Meanwhile, there is no news to see while Russia uses technology to undermine our election.
LOL.

i mean didnt they take crimea and parts of eastern ukraine?

i have an idea, lets require voter id to make sure russians dont undermine the mid terms.

 

[UCFBS]

didnt they ask to join like 10+ years ago? i thought they were on their way to becoming a member. i bet they wish they wouldve joined before russia decided the grass was greener there. did russia ever give back that land?

^ This is the problem with the US media. They have failed to educate Americans on what happened in Ukraine the 5-15 years prior!

Let's see here ... "PREAMPLE" ...

Spoiler

• '90s - PRESENT - US-NATO promises not to expand west as part of '91
  • Ukraine gives up nuclear deterrent
    • Russia promises non-aggression
    • US-NATO promises never to add Ukraine NATO
  • EU promises never to add Ukraine
  • US-NATO promises not to expand west
    • Clinton violates this
    • W. avoids, until he starts asking for "coalition of the willing" in 2002+, and almost all former Soviet bloc nations offer
    • All former Soviet bloc nations offer after Russian 'intervention' (invasion) of Georgia during W.'s 'lame duck' finale
    • US-NATO welcome new membership late in W. 'lame duck' finale
    • Russia has been spending massive US media influence expenditures, as exposed by Czech BIS in '08 -- publicly (later, confirmed by Dutch, publicly, in '17)
      • Exposes Russian-DNC friendship and control over US media (also see Podesta, below), e.g.,
      • Reduce NATO ships in Black Sea to well under '91 treaty agreement = poor NATO sea defenses v. superior Russian complement
      • Keep THAAD out of continental EU, even as S-300VM exists and S-400 is being rolled out = poor NATO air defenses v. superior Russian air defense capability (air superiority)
    • Obama avoids, until after Russian 'support' (invasion) of Ukraine

Now that's just the "Russian fear" and "Russian reasons."

Let's move on to the "INFLUENCE" ... (including "OURS") ...

Spoiler

• '00s - PRESENT - Economic Membership Debate, EU v. EEU
  • European Union (EU) v. Eurasian Economic Union (EEU = Russia) debate
  • Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan leadership both state the EEU is much like the old COMECON (benefits/gives control to Russia) -- one leader (Kazi leader?) even states this publicly
    • E.g., EEU (Russia) forced Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to withdraw support for the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • Many lawyers of both Democratic and Republican alignment paid to represent pro-Moscow in Ukraine
    • Trump lawyer Cohen paid by pro-Moscow for Ukranian lobbying
    • Hillary campaign manager Podesta also paid by pro-Moscow for Ukranian lobbying

^ This is why Democrats trying to string guilty-by-association on Trump to ties of Russia are ignoring the fact that they are also just as involved -- right down to Hillary's own campaign manager!

That's why many of us theorized why the Russians went after Podesta, because Podesta was intimately involved with many of their interests. Because they wanted to know what Podesta was telling Hillary and the DNC!

And the "RESULT" ...

Spoiler

• '10 - PRESENT - Forced Leadership Changes in Ukraine
  • Elected, pro-west leader protested against, removed and indited with criminal charges, especially after she pitches EU membership (and talks of NATO)
  • Replaced, pro-Moscow leader installed (pro-EEU), eventually protested against, removed, pro-west leader re-installed
  • Russians support "rebellion" to "protect" Russians in Ukraine from post-leader removal

It's not just Cohen, but many Democrats too! Especially pre-Ukranian 'incident'!

This is why the US Media and Democrats are utterly full of BS. Even the US Intelligent reports including before Trump was even on-the-scene! Just like the Dutch confirmed! Just like the Czechs warned us about back in 2008 ... publicly!

"The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back" -- Obama, 2012, response to Romney, who had the same intelligence reports as Obama!

Again, even Podesta himself was working pro-EEU interests in Ukraine, before becoming Hillary's campaign manager. Where do you think Hillary got the "Russian narrative" the day after she lost?!

 

[Crazyhole]

85 is worried about Russia invading Europe, blitzkrieg-style, in an effort to take over the world with their menacing mustached leader with a maniacal laugh.

Meanwhile, there is no news to see while Russia uses technology to undermine our election.
LOL.

Nobody thinks there will be a ground invasion, or any invasion any time soon. What Russia is trying to do is make european countries subordinate to them through energy and economic strangling. Germany is playing right into their hands, too.

The days of imperialism in the conventional sense are over, today its all about marketeering and money from a nationalist POV.

 

[UCFKnight85]

85 is worried about Russia invading Europe, blitzkrieg-style, in an effort to take over the world with their menacing mustached leader with a maniacal laugh.

Meanwhile, there is no news to see while Russia uses technology to undermine our election.
LOL.

lulz. Hey smart guy- a Russian westward invasion is the entire reason that NATO exists. You lefties have been screaming about what a threat RUSSIA! is and why it's SO IMPORTANT to back NATO, yet here you're mocking the threat they pose.

Which is it?

If Russia isn't even remotely a threat to wage a ground war in Europe (even though they, uh, are right now), then why not just disband NATO? Let EU nations continue not spending on defense and see how things shake out if/when Russia tests their borders. Afterall they're not a threat, right?

 

[UCFBS]

No @chemmie , Mitt Romney told everyone what the problem was in 2012, Russia is our -- Europe with the US -- greatest geopolitical threat in the region.

The Russians are pushing the EEU, and that's what led to the whole Ukranian 'situation.' Even the rest of NATO was giving Germany flak for ignoring their complaints on the Russian pipeline project.

I'm a staunch American Libertarian, so I'm extremely pro-'non-interference,' even partially 'isolationist.' I want to pull out of NATO and leave Europe to fend for themselves.

I'm tired of having to solve their issues when we don't need anything from Russia or the Middle East. We haven't for over a dozen years now, and it's going to be that way for the next 100+ years.

I'm tired of selfish European nations. I'm tired of hypocritical Democrats. Even Podesta was doing the same thing Trump's laywer is being investigated over. But we haven't appointed a special council to investigate Hillary.

Sigh ... between you and @CommuterBob , this is why people are supporting Trump. Because you're hypocrites who are ignorant of Russia's history, the hypocrisy so many of our NATO "allies" and other things.

If there is one area Trump hasn't been wrong on, it's the EU -- between the NATO non-sense that even EU members are fighting about themselves, as well as one-way tarriffs, it's about time we stopped kicking things down-the-road.

 

[chemmie]

Nobody thinks there will be a ground invasion, or any invasion any time soon. What Russia is trying to do is make european countries subordinate to them through energy and economic strangling. Germany is playing right into their hands, too.

The days of imperialism in the conventional sense are over, today its all about marketeering and money from a nationalist POV.

Soooooo...nobody thinks there will be a ground invasion?

Our resident genius, 85, proved you wrong rather quickly.

Lol.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Soooooo...nobody thinks there will be a ground invasion?

Our resident genius, 85, proved you wrong rather quickly.

Lol.

No, dumbass. I said IF the Russians went west- not that they are. You are deliberately lying to make points against things I never said.

But as a reminder the Russians have been waging a ground war in Ukraine for 4 years now. Just no one seems to give a shit about Ukraine.

They waged a ground war in Georgia 10 years ago.

 

[UCFBS]

No, dumbass. I said IF the Russians went west- not that they are. You are deliberately lying to make points against things I never said.

But as a reminder the Russians have been waging a ground war in Ukraine for 4 years now. Just no one seems to give a shit about Ukraine.

They waged a ground war in Georgia 10 years ago.

Russia wages war when it doesnt get what it wants. First Georgia, then Ukraine.

Funny how the US media said W. wanted to start a war with Russia over Georgia, and constantly said the US was violating treaties under W. in the Black Sea, but then
praises Obama on how he responded to Russia after the Ukraine incident.

Ummm, maybe Obama should have taken things more seriously before? Or maybe it's also because his Secretary of State and other lawyers in the DNC were too busy making money off of pro-Moscow interests in the Ukraine?

It's amazing that the US media ignores everything before the Obama pivot. It's absolutely insulting that Trump gets the blame for it too.

But that's only because a special prosecutor has been assigned to investigate Trump.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Russia wages war when it doesnt get what it wants. First Georgia, then Ukraine.

Funny how the US media said W. wanted to start a war with Russia over Georgia, and constantly said the US was violating treaties under W. in the Black Sea, but then
praises Obama on how he responded to Russia after the Ukraine incident.

Ummm, maybe Obama should have taken things more seriously before? Or maybe it's also because his Secretary of State and other lawyers in the DNC were too busy making money off of pro-Moscow interests in the Ukraine?

It's amazing that the US media ignores everything before the Obama pivot. It's absolutely insulting that Trump gets the blame for it too.

But that's only because a special prosecutor has been assigned to investigate Trump.

Russia was a non factor until some of their lackies got dipshit John Podesta to fall for a fishing email.

Now they’re a world wide global threat and the only reason poor lil HRC lost the election!