Newt on Trump

[Correll]

I posted a fine example several times. YOu ignore it, and then claim I have given you nothing.

THat's called lying.

The picture was just to give me some variety as I repeatedly point out your complete failure and dishonesty.

I also note that you have moved the goal post a little. Upped your demand to a "list".

Interesting.

Covering your ass because you fear that at some point you have to admit that I already provided ONE fine example of how he would do it?

One that you heard but did not understand when you heard it. Until I pointed it out and explained it to you.

Of course the response is as vapid as the Candidate. The absence of specifics is there (again—as it’s always been).
You couldn’t post one so I don’t expect a list. But continue with the lie that you’re more than you are; it’s gotten Trump this far.

And nothing but more lies.

It always amazes me that lefties like your self can lie and lie and lie, and it never occurs to them, that if the Truth is not on their side, that that means that THEY are on the WRONG side.

Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man

I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.

I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.

YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.

I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.

Wrong again

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

 

[Liminal]

You didn't point out anything, you only think you did.

Newt did NOT endorse Trump.

ANyone who read the article and had the reading comprehension of the 6th grader would know that.

I have pointed this out AGAIN for you.

YOu have still not defended your claim with anything other than empty assertions.

How about you cut and paste the part when Newt supposedly endorsed Trump?

Or try to, because you can't, because he did not do it.

For you to claim that I did not point out "anything" is you being a lying troll.

So then he just said nice things about Trump for no reason.....is that right?

No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Rhetorical Question: Obviously you can't.

BUT lets look at what they reveals of you.


YOu have just revealed that you cannot grasp the idea that if you don't support a candidate for Office, then you cannot imagine saying or admitting anything positive about them.

This is the thinking of a DEEPLY dishonest person, and shows that your judgement/statements on your ideological enemies has zero credibility.

Again, your insatiable need to personalize everything.

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Liminal]

Of course the response is as vapid as the Candidate. The absence of specifics is there (again—as it’s always been).
You couldn’t post one so I don’t expect a list. But continue with the lie that you’re more than you are; it’s gotten Trump this far.

And nothing but more lies.

It always amazes me that lefties like your self can lie and lie and lie, and it never occurs to them, that if the Truth is not on their side, that that means that THEY are on the WRONG side.

Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man

I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.

I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.

YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.

I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.

Wrong again

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

 

[Correll]

Newt did NOT endorse Trump.

ANyone who read the article and had the reading comprehension of the 6th grader would know that.

I have pointed this out AGAIN for you.

YOu have still not defended your claim with anything other than empty assertions.

How about you cut and paste the part when Newt supposedly endorsed Trump?

Or try to, because you can't, because he did not do it.

For you to claim that I did not point out "anything" is you being a lying troll.

So then he just said nice things about Trump for no reason.....is that right?

No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Rhetorical Question: Obviously you can't.

BUT lets look at what they reveals of you.


YOu have just revealed that you cannot grasp the idea that if you don't support a candidate for Office, then you cannot imagine saying or admitting anything positive about them.

This is the thinking of a DEEPLY dishonest person, and shows that your judgement/statements on your ideological enemies has zero credibility.

Again, your insatiable need to personalize everything.

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Let me walk this by you slowly.

Here is me saying something positive about Bernie Sanders.

"I think Bernie Sanders is a very intelligent man".

Now, was that an endorsement of Bernie Sanders for the Office of the President of the United States?

Do you think that I, just because I am capable of recognizing that an aging communist is intelligent, that I actually LIKE that aging communist?

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

 

[Liminal]

So then he just said nice things about Trump for no reason.....is that right?

No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Rhetorical Question: Obviously you can't.

BUT lets look at what they reveals of you.


YOu have just revealed that you cannot grasp the idea that if you don't support a candidate for Office, then you cannot imagine saying or admitting anything positive about them.

This is the thinking of a DEEPLY dishonest person, and shows that your judgement/statements on your ideological enemies has zero credibility.

Again, your insatiable need to personalize everything.

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Let me walk this by you slowly.

Here is me saying something positive about Bernie Sanders.

"I think Bernie Sanders is a very intelligent man".

Now, was that an endorsement of Bernie Sanders for the Office of the President of the United States?

Do you think that I, just because I am capable of recognizing that an aging communist is intelligent, that I actually LIKE that aging communist?

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

If Newt isn't endorsing Trump then maybe he's smarter than he seems.

 

[Correll]

And nothing but more lies.

It always amazes me that lefties like your self can lie and lie and lie, and it never occurs to them, that if the Truth is not on their side, that that means that THEY are on the WRONG side.

Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man

I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.

I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.

YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.

I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.

Wrong again

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.

Nor, have I claimed that my opinion should be given any special weight beyond what it has from the reasonableness of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

 

[Liminal]

Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man

I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.

I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.

YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.

I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.

Wrong again

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.

Nor, have I claimed that my opinion should be given any special weight beyond what it has from the reasonableness of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

 

[Correll]

No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Rhetorical Question: Obviously you can't.

BUT lets look at what they reveals of you.


YOu have just revealed that you cannot grasp the idea that if you don't support a candidate for Office, then you cannot imagine saying or admitting anything positive about them.

This is the thinking of a DEEPLY dishonest person, and shows that your judgement/statements on your ideological enemies has zero credibility.

Again, your insatiable need to personalize everything.

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Let me walk this by you slowly.

Here is me saying something positive about Bernie Sanders.

"I think Bernie Sanders is a very intelligent man".

Now, was that an endorsement of Bernie Sanders for the Office of the President of the United States?

Do you think that I, just because I am capable of recognizing that an aging communist is intelligent, that I actually LIKE that aging communist?

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

If Newt isn't endorsing Trump then maybe he's smarter than he seems.

I post a very interesting article about a meeting between a long time Insider and the Front Runner of the GOP and a HUUUGE outsider, and what the Insider had to say about the Man behind the Image.

And I end up spending my time trying to get libs to understand the difference between saying something positive about someone and endorsing them for office.

It is absurd.

Your Minds are completely closed.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"Very much different than the caricature than the Main Stream Media and the Political Class would have you believe."



in other words, the people who have been paying attention to the reality of his rhetoric.

I posted a comment from a real intellectual and a former SPeaker of the House on his personal interactions with Trump.

In it, many of the assumptions about Trump, for example, not open to criticism, are shown to be incorrect.

Do you have a comment on this discrepancy?

I feel for you Correll. It gets frustrating to try engage in meaningful discussion with closed minds. But it is there loss.

 

[Liminal]

Again, your insatiable need to personalize everything.

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Let me walk this by you slowly.

Here is me saying something positive about Bernie Sanders.

"I think Bernie Sanders is a very intelligent man".

Now, was that an endorsement of Bernie Sanders for the Office of the President of the United States?

Do you think that I, just because I am capable of recognizing that an aging communist is intelligent, that I actually LIKE that aging communist?

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

If Newt isn't endorsing Trump then maybe he's smarter than he seems.

I post a very interesting article about a meeting between a long time Insider and the Front Runner of the GOP and a HUUUGE outsider, and what the Insider had to say about the Man behind the Image.

And I end up spending my time trying to get libs to understand the difference between saying something positive about someone and endorsing them for office.

It is absurd.

Your Minds are completely closed.

It still looks remarkably like one asshole endorsing another.

 

[Correll]

I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.

I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.

YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.

I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.

Wrong again

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
ass of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

At this point in time, with the Threat of the Soviet Union gone, and thus no threat of Soviet World Domination, my "idea" about the strategic value of NATO is that it is a large negative as it commits US to defend a bunch of people who are fully capable of defending themselves for no positive return on US interests.

Trump seems to share my opinion on that to some extent.

If we move away from a military designed to fight the Soviet Union, then we can structure our military to deal with the threats that actually exist, such as Muslim Terrorism.

This will, in effect, increase our Military Strength and Effectiveness.

 

[Correll]

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Let me walk this by you slowly.

Here is me saying something positive about Bernie Sanders.

"I think Bernie Sanders is a very intelligent man".

Now, was that an endorsement of Bernie Sanders for the Office of the President of the United States?

Do you think that I, just because I am capable of recognizing that an aging communist is intelligent, that I actually LIKE that aging communist?

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

If Newt isn't endorsing Trump then maybe he's smarter than he seems.

I post a very interesting article about a meeting between a long time Insider and the Front Runner of the GOP and a HUUUGE outsider, and what the Insider had to say about the Man behind the Image.

And I end up spending my time trying to get libs to understand the difference between saying something positive about someone and endorsing them for office.

It is absurd.

Your Minds are completely closed.

It still looks remarkably like one asshole endorsing another.

Only because you refuse to see anything else.

And your inability to understand the meaning of the word "endorse" is especially pathetic.

 

[Liminal]

I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.

Wrong again

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
ass of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

At this point in time, with the Threat of the Soviet Union gone, and thus no threat of Soviet World Domination, my "idea" about the strategic value of NATO is that it is a large negative as it commits US to defend a bunch of people who are fully capable of defending themselves for no positive return on US interests.

Trump seems to share my opinion on that to some extent.

If we move away from a military designed to fight the Soviet Union, then we can structure our military to deal with the threats that actually exist, such as Muslim Terrorism.

This will, in effect, increase our Military Strength and Effectiveness.

Good thing we don't have to be concerned about an aggressive expansionist Russia threatening Poland or the Baltic states. No worries there. And who could possibly be concerned about new Russian/Chinese military cooperation agreements?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Fig Newton belongs with Ted Cruz they both change faster than a chameleon changes its colors..

Yep.

They're both a couple of good "chrisitans" who share the same family values, all righty.

You are that one that just ignored my answer to your question about the topic.

To talk about me.

Here it is again, as if you care.


No, he was asked some questions about the meeting and he answered.

HIs answers were mostly positive, regarding Trump.

That in no way is an endorsement you fool.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

So then he was endorsing Trump.......or maybe not. Thanks for clarifying.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that saying that someone is smart, or not "pandering to negative impulses" is not the same as saying that that person should be the next President of the United States?

Let me walk this by you slowly.

Here is me saying something positive about Bernie Sanders.

"I think Bernie Sanders is a very intelligent man".

Now, was that an endorsement of Bernie Sanders for the Office of the President of the United States?

Do you think that I, just because I am capable of recognizing that an aging communist is intelligent, that I actually LIKE that aging communist?

CAN YOU HEAR ME?!

If Newt isn't endorsing Trump then maybe he's smarter than he seems.

I post a very interesting article about a meeting between a long time Insider and the Front Runner of the GOP and a HUUUGE outsider, and what the Insider had to say about the Man behind the Image.

And I end up spending my time trying to get libs to understand the difference between saying something positive about someone and endorsing them for office.

It is absurd.

Your Minds are completely closed.

It still looks remarkably like one asshole endorsing another.

Family values.....how would you like your kids to turn out like Mr. Trumps. I don't endorse Trump, but the man raised good responsible children

It's pretty easy to spoil your kids when you can buy them anything. How did he avoid doing that?

 

[Correll]

They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.

They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.

Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.

THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.

Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
ass of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

At this point in time, with the Threat of the Soviet Union gone, and thus no threat of Soviet World Domination, my "idea" about the strategic value of NATO is that it is a large negative as it commits US to defend a bunch of people who are fully capable of defending themselves for no positive return on US interests.

Trump seems to share my opinion on that to some extent.

If we move away from a military designed to fight the Soviet Union, then we can structure our military to deal with the threats that actually exist, such as Muslim Terrorism.

This will, in effect, increase our Military Strength and Effectiveness.

Good thing we don't have to be concerned about an aggressive expansionist Russia threatening Poland or the Baltic states. No worries there. And who could possibly be concerned about new Russian/Chinese military cooperation agreements?

No, we don't.

European nations, if they care to do something about it, have far more military potential than they need to deter Russian aggression, or if they want to play with nuclear fire, to defeat Russia in a war.

They don't need US anymore.

Russia is NOT going to invade Germany, Finlandize the rest of Europe and thus Dominate the World to our great loss.

China? If we stop feeding the Tiger to the tune of 300 billion a year, they will get less scary real fast.

 

[Liminal]

Politicians and dummies always plan for the last war and never anticipate the next one. That's why we have to be prepared to fight every kind of war all the time.

 

[Liminal]

No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
ass of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

At this point in time, with the Threat of the Soviet Union gone, and thus no threat of Soviet World Domination, my "idea" about the strategic value of NATO is that it is a large negative as it commits US to defend a bunch of people who are fully capable of defending themselves for no positive return on US interests.

Trump seems to share my opinion on that to some extent.

If we move away from a military designed to fight the Soviet Union, then we can structure our military to deal with the threats that actually exist, such as Muslim Terrorism.

This will, in effect, increase our Military Strength and Effectiveness.

Good thing we don't have to be concerned about an aggressive expansionist Russia threatening Poland or the Baltic states. No worries there. And who could possibly be concerned about new Russian/Chinese military cooperation agreements?

No, we don't.

European nations, if they care to do something about it, have far more military potential than they need to deter Russian aggression, or if they want to play with nuclear fire, to defeat Russia in a war.

They don't need US anymore.

Russia is NOT going to invade Germany, Finlandize the rest of Europe and thus Dominate the World to our great loss.

China? If we stop feeding the Tiger to the tune of 300 billion a year, they will get less scary real fast.

Who said anything about Germany? Try to address the issues at hand.

 

[Correll]

I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
ass of my supporting argument(s).

So, now that we've taken care of your strawman, do you have any comment on what I actually said?

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

At this point in time, with the Threat of the Soviet Union gone, and thus no threat of Soviet World Domination, my "idea" about the strategic value of NATO is that it is a large negative as it commits US to defend a bunch of people who are fully capable of defending themselves for no positive return on US interests.

Trump seems to share my opinion on that to some extent.

If we move away from a military designed to fight the Soviet Union, then we can structure our military to deal with the threats that actually exist, such as Muslim Terrorism.

This will, in effect, increase our Military Strength and Effectiveness.

Good thing we don't have to be concerned about an aggressive expansionist Russia threatening Poland or the Baltic states. No worries there. And who could possibly be concerned about new Russian/Chinese military cooperation agreements?

No, we don't.

European nations, if they care to do something about it, have far more military potential than they need to deter Russian aggression, or if they want to play with nuclear fire, to defeat Russia in a war.

They don't need US anymore.

Russia is NOT going to invade Germany, Finlandize the rest of Europe and thus Dominate the World to our great loss.

China? If we stop feeding the Tiger to the tune of 300 billion a year, they will get less scary real fast.

Who said anything about Germany? Try to address the issues at hand.

I said something about Germany. It was part of my addressing the issues you raised.

Try reading my post again, only this time with comprehension.

 

[Liminal]

My comment is that you obviously have no idea about the strategic value of the NATO alliance.

At this point in time, with the Threat of the Soviet Union gone, and thus no threat of Soviet World Domination, my "idea" about the strategic value of NATO is that it is a large negative as it commits US to defend a bunch of people who are fully capable of defending themselves for no positive return on US interests.

Trump seems to share my opinion on that to some extent.

If we move away from a military designed to fight the Soviet Union, then we can structure our military to deal with the threats that actually exist, such as Muslim Terrorism.

This will, in effect, increase our Military Strength and Effectiveness.

Good thing we don't have to be concerned about an aggressive expansionist Russia threatening Poland or the Baltic states. No worries there. And who could possibly be concerned about new Russian/Chinese military cooperation agreements?

No, we don't.

European nations, if they care to do something about it, have far more military potential than they need to deter Russian aggression, or if they want to play with nuclear fire, to defeat Russia in a war.

They don't need US anymore.

Russia is NOT going to invade Germany, Finlandize the rest of Europe and thus Dominate the World to our great loss.

China? If we stop feeding the Tiger to the tune of 300 billion a year, they will get less scary real fast.

Who said anything about Germany? Try to address the issues at hand.

I said something about Germany. It was part of my addressing the issues you raised.

Try reading my post again, only this time with comprehension.

No, it's just another one of your rambling incoherent screes designed for distraction rather than actually addressing the questions. You shouldn't try bluffing your way through subjects like this when it's already so obvious that your knowledge is all superficial and anecdotal.

 

[Liminal]

Fig Newton belongs with Ted Cruz they both change faster than a chameleon changes its colors..

Yep.

They're both a couple of good "chrisitans" who share the same family values, all righty.

It's easy to see why Gingrich likes Trump; their political philosophies and personal attributes are very much alike. So flexible and adaptable in their positions, almost as if they don't actually stand for anything at all.