Everyone's got something to say about Trump – except world leaders who might have to deal with him

The world is screwed if there is a second Trump presidency. Europe will be surrendered to Russia and East Asia to China. Make America Great Again will turn into Make America North Korea Again. I guess there will be an eventual conflict between the United States of Trump and the other powers, but it will be far little too late to preserve our prosperity.

And then, a minority of world leaders is openly cheering for Trump to make a comeback. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban backed Trump in 2016, and said the war in Ukraine wouldn’t be happening if Trump was still president. In a speech last month, he cried: “Come back, Mr. President! Make America great again, and bring us peace!”

The Trump/MAGA Axis of Authoritarians is quite a rogue's gallery.

2024 is going to be a dark circus.

Interesting to see what these other world leaders have to say but largely irrelevant...

The most important voices to be heard regarding Trump are the 12 jurors that will decide his fate in his classified steal and stash case, and those in Georgia that will hear evidence of his conspiracy to interfere in an election....

As for the classified case, the jury would only have to convict him of one of the 37 charges for him to "don" an orange jumpsuit...

As his former confidants and protectors Bill Barr and Jonathan Turley have said, "Trump is toast"....

Bye-Don, Hello Leavenworth...

ALT headline; "weasel-y and weak career politicians are afraid of Donald Trump"

That photo looks like some kind of AI job - out you go, exit is that way Donald ;)

After his fiasco with classified documents can Trump be trusted with foreign intelligence ever again?

After his fiasco with classified documents can Trump be trusted with foreign intelligence ever again?

If he were elected President again, something I doubt will happen but for the sake of argument assume it does, I think the military and intelligence organizations will be exceptionally circumspect about what intelligence they share with him, maintaining tight control over any documents.

Well, they can control the documents much easily when they bring them to his cell.

The world's leaders have lots to say about Trump; just not for public consumption.

Everyone's got something to say about Trump – except world leaders who might have to deal with him

That's right because at the end of the day those other leaders pay attention to Trump, and respect him.

There is a reason why Russia wasn't attacking Ukraine like it does now.

Putin started planning his Ukraine invasion in 2019, so he didn't care less if Trump was in office, or not. But Trump probably would not have given the level of support to Ukraine given by the Biden administration.

Everyone's got something to say about Trump – except world leaders who might have to deal with him

That's right because at the end of the day those other leaders pay attention to Trump, and respect him.

ROFL...along with all these other world leaders...

https://apnews.com/article/821dafb0b18a4dadb086216c08067df3

There is a reason why Russia wasn't attacking Ukraine like it does now.

You mean the guy that called Putin a "genius"? If he was still President, he'd be sending Javelins and HIMARS to his BFF Vlad...

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923

Putin started planning his Ukraine invasion in 2019, so he didn't care less if Trump was in office, or not.

Planning and executing are two entirely different things, always.

But Trump probably would not have given the level of support to Ukraine given by the Biden administration.

I would agree with that.

The world's leaders have lots to say about Trump; just not for public consumption.

And definitely not in his face.

bass4funk

   Putin started planning his Ukraine invasion in 2019, so he didn't care less if Trump was in office, or not.

> Planning and executing are two entirely different things, always.

A war like Putin's invasion does not happen overnight and needs planning, and logistics. He knew in 2019, he was going to invade, and had Trump won his second term, the invasion would have still gone ahead. Putin does not care about Trump.

   But Trump probably would not have given the level of support to Ukraine given by the Biden administration.

> I would agree with that.

had Trump won his second term, the invasion would have still gone ahead

Trump is the only U.S. president of the 21st century during whose administration Russia did not invade anyone.

As such, the reality does not support your claim. I know your claim aligns with your political ideology (as expressed often here on this site) and makes it look good, but that's about it.

And even the most ardent Trump haters cannot seriously suggest that he would've said he was okay with a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine. Biden said that.

And once Biden said that, not long after ending U.S. energy independence very soon after taking office (thus giving up a major card to play against Putin), well, he might as well have rolled out a red carpet for Putin from the Kremlin right into Ukraine.

Your claim that this invasion would've happened under a second Trump presidency is utterly groundless.

A war like Putin's invasion does not happen overnight and needs planning, and logistics.

Yes.

He knew in 2019, he was going to invade,

He also had alternate plans just in case Trump would have won, knowing how crazy and unpredictable Trump could be.

and had Trump won his second term, the invasion would have still gone ahead.

I seriously doubt it.

Putin does not care about Trump.

He doesn't have to and that is ok, he is not on the grounds planning the attacks.

Trump is the only U.S. president of the 21st century during whose administration Russia did not invade anyone.

As such, the reality does not support your claim. I know your claim aligns with your political ideology (as expressed often here on this site) and makes it look good, but that's about it.

And even the most ardent Trump haters cannot seriously suggest that he would've said he was okay with a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine. Biden said that.

And once Biden said that, not long after ending U.S. energy independence very soon after taking office (thus giving up a major card to play against Putin), well, he might as well have rolled out a red carpet for Putin from the Kremlin right into Ukraine.

Your claim that this invasion would've happened under a second Trump presidency is utterly groundless.

Exactly.

Based

As such, the reality does not support your claim. I know your claim aligns with your political ideology (as expressed often here on this site) and makes it look good, but that's about it.

You do not know what my political ideology is.

You are an error.

Putin invaded Crimea in 2014. He didn't stop with his plans when Trump took office. Putin would have known that Trump wouldn't support Ukraine with weapons. He went ahead with his Ukraine invasion knowing NATO would support Ukraine. Trump would have been the weak one.

Well, it's definitely not conservative so that kind of narrows it down.

It's tiring when I have told you numerous times I'm into cooperatives that are not left or right.

It's a bit paradoxical to try to ride the high-horse on international themes such as the rule of law, freedom of speech, etc. when the chief proponent of that is a shyster to declared bankruptcy 7 times to avoid paying bills, plays with his own value to avoid paying taxes, but motivate lower interest rates as it suits him, sex scandals and a federal indictment on criminal charges for obstructing justice...but has his best chronys on the international stage are dictators and a war criminal (and one trying to overthrow the over-sight of judicial law) - perhaps he'll fair well...he's in his own company

It’s interesting how conservative values have changed under Trump. Free trade and fiscal conservatism clearly went out of the window.

Roxy Music sang same old scene but conservatism certainly changed under Trump.

Or the other way around, as bad as Putin is, the man didn't think Trump was weak, unlike this President that everyone walks over.

Or is it possible that with his asset in the White House, Putin didn't think there was any urgency in invading Ukraine?

not have the US pay the largest portion to fund it.

Completely unrealistic. Nobody expects the Netherlands to outspend the US on defense, even percentage wise. It would be less effective coming from the EU as well as they have 30 countries to rally to do anything.

We don't know this, but definitely not the way this admin is doing, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have supplied the Ukrainians with the tools they need to defend themselves.

Oh, I see totally different and bigly successful, huh? Like the reversing of 20 years of failure in Afghanistan that didn't happen in the Trump first term.

Putin continued in Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk oblasts during Trump's term. Putin is not afraid of Trump.

The world's leaders have lots to say about Trump; just not for public consumption.

And definitely not in his face.

We have plenty of videos and images of European leaders talking down to Trump like he needs remedial education. Trump was too stupid to realize the implied insult, though.

Hypotheticals can be interesting.

Imagine if Trump hadn’t won the nomination in 2016 and a competent Republican had won the election and not taken an absolute hiding after one term.

As bass has pointed out, swamp-dwelling Neocon RINOs can be successful presidents.

Bush 2 served 2 terms. Trump got the living daylights spanked out of him by a declining Biden who stayed in his basement.

Anyway, hypotheticals can be fun, can’t they?

Then it won't be difficult to explain then. You claimed the US pays the largest amount "in" NATO in terms of % of GDP. But in fact, Greece spends the largest % of GDP.

I was referring to the rest of Europe

There is a NATO agreement that member countries will pay 2% of GDP on defense. The majority do not at the moment.

Which is so wrong.

bass4funk

   Then it won't be difficult to explain then. You claimed the US pays the largest amount "in" NATO in terms of % of GDP. But in fact, Greece spends the largest % of GDP.

> I was referring to the rest of Europe

Greece is in Europe and a NATO member

   There is a NATO agreement that member countries will pay 2% of GDP on defense. The majority do not at the moment.

Which is so wrong.

The agreement was by 2024. The war in Ukraine has changed the situation with Germany and France spending more on defense.

Even if every member country spend 2% of GDP, America would still be nearly 4% regardless. Under Biden, the defense budget was increased.

Instead of attempting to politically suffocate Trump with a pillow.

Define the audience that Trump has influence over and determine the necessities, the reasoning to how you can get this demographic to sympathize with your points.

Trying to drown, cancel, your opponent, in this case nemesis, just makes Trump stronger.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

Greece is in Europe and a NATO member

There is a NATO agreement that member countries will pay 2% of GDP on defense. The majority do not at the moment.

Again, Europe should pay 80% since it involves them more directly.

The agreement was by 2024. The war in Ukraine has changed the situation with Germany and France spending more on defense.

As they absolutely should.

Even if every member country spend 2% of GDP, America would still be nearly 4% regardless. Under Biden, the defense budget was increased.

Yeah, but damn our infrastructure. Oh, well this time too shall pass....

US Universities have some of the most gifted debating societies globally.

All are recognized cutting edge reasoning i.e. the ability to summarize and emphasize your opponent's single grossest error. The skill to anticipate.

Trump on trial, will only provide DeSantis with the whip hand.

Has US politicians lost there mojo? The ability to challenge?

And that is why the richest blue states are now hemorrhaging, with less government spending, and fewer taxes, people spend more in the consumer market and invest more in small businesses that money in the form of taxes is put back and recycled into the economy, you have growth, tax people more and people will have less disposable income to use and to put back into the economy you have slow stagnation. So I prefer less government and less taxation.

I believe the Trump tax cuts have safely disproved this canard that less taxes equals higher revenue.

I don't know about all that but the vast majority of homeless people don't have to be on the streets, it's by choice.

It's expensive to house people in prison where you will have to pay for their food and lodging.

I believe in limited support for 6-8 months, which forces you to get off your posterior rear end.

It's also expensive to house the children of these families in prison.

Support for small business

Going to be tough for small businesses to operate with the infrastructure in shambles since you hollowed out the government.

I believe the Trump tax cuts have safely disproved this canard that fewer taxes equals higher revenue.

Yeah, the left keeps saying that nonsense.

https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

It's expensive to house people in prison where you will have to pay for their food and lodging.

It's also expensive to house the children of these families in prison.

Privatize it then.

Going to be tough for small businesses to operate with the infrastructure in shambles since you hollowed out the government.

Wouldn't make any difference, it's not like the Dems would do anything about fixing them.

Wouldn't make any difference, it's not like the Dems would do anything about fixing them.

Then find a way to fix them and no privatization and tax cuts will not fix infrastructure. We need at least one party trying to fix things.

Privatize it then.

You do realize you have to pay private companies to do your dirty work, right? And you would have us be the disgrace of the world with prison labor and conditions worse than El Salvador prisons.

bass4funk

Greece is in Europe and a NATO member

>    There is a NATO agreement that member countries will pay 2% of GDP on defense. The majority do not at the moment.

> Again, Europe should pay 80% since it involves them more directly.

Once again you fail to understand the finances of the NATO countries.

   The agreement was by 2024. The war in Ukraine has changed the situation with Germany and France spending more on defense.

> As they absolutely should.

>    Even if every member country spend 2% of GDP, America would still be nearly 4% regardless. Under Biden, the defense budget was increased.

Yeah, but damn our infrastructure. Oh, well this time too shall pass....

What does that mean?