CitizenVectron Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 And all Stockholm had to do was agree to sell Budapest some JAS-39 fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Great news. Wish it wasn't coming at a time when a person with a shot at the presidency was working to dismantle the alliance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Masterful gambit, President Putin. All you had to do was literally nothing and this could have been prevented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, CayceG said: Masterful gambit, President Putin. All you had to do was literally nothing and this could have been prevented. I am flying my NATO flag in his honor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 3 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: And all Stockholm had to do was agree to sell Budapest some JAS-39 fighters. And sell out a few Kurds for the Turkish ratification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 3 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said: Great news. Wish it wasn't coming at a time when a person with a shot at the presidency was working to dismantle the alliance. Yes, he wants to, but leaving NATO would require a 2/3 majority vote from the Senate which will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 2 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said: Yes, he wants to, but leaving NATO would require a 2/3 majority vote from the Senate which will never happen. If he really wanted to, he could challenge that law in front of SCOTUS to determine whether it's even constitutional to begin with. There are other ways he could undermine NATO through non-participation in Alliance activities or not funding the US share that are short of outright leaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: If he really wanted to, he could challenge that law in front of SCOTUS to determine whether it's even constitutional to begin with. There are other ways he could undermine NATO through non-participation in Alliance activities or not funding the US share that are short of outright leaving. This is more what I was alluding to. Basically all the ways that count: Spending decreases, non-participation, not honoring the agreement should it come to it, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: If he really wanted to, he could challenge that law in front of SCOTUS to determine whether it's even constitutional to begin with. There are other ways he could undermine NATO through non-participation in Alliance activities or not funding the US share that are short of outright leaving. To be fair, so far all Trump has said is that he wouldn't help NATO allies who "didn't pay their share" (which I don't think he understands what that actually means) in the case of a Russian invasion, and every NATO ally that borders Russia/Belarus does, in fact, "pay their share." Point being, I know Trump wants to suck off vladdy daddy in every way he can, but straight up leaving NATO or stripping funding isn't possible without congressional support (at least I can't find anything that says the President can unilaterally cut off NATO funding) and not participating at all would be political suicide (even if that means no US boots on the ground). I would be more concerned if shit pops off in the Balkans again, considering Montenegro and Macedonia are members now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 54 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said: To be fair, so far all Trump has said is that he wouldn't help NATO allies who "didn't pay their share" (which I don't think he understands what that actually means) in the case of a Russian invasion, and every NATO ally that borders Russia/Belarus does, in fact, "pay their share." Point being, I know Trump wants to suck off vladdy daddy in every way he can, but straight up leaving NATO or stripping funding isn't possible without congressional support (at least I can't find anything that says the President can unilaterally cut off NATO funding) and not participating at all would be political suicide (even if that means no US boots on the ground). I would be more concerned if shit pops off in the Balkans again, considering Montenegro and Macedonia are members now. It seems like they can't do all of that, until Trump orders it and people listen even though it's against the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 If Trump wins the presidency then he likely has the House at a minimum too. If he tells them not to approve any spending then they won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Just now, GeneticBlueprint said: If Trump wins the presidency then he likely has the House at a minimum too. If he tells them not to approve any spending then they won't. As far as I'm aware, both the House and the Senate have to approve NATO spending/cutting in the defense budget. Cutting NATO spending would be a non-starter in any budget in the Senate. So... thank god for the Senate? ... that's a frightening sentence... Then again, maybe Trump doubles down on anti-NATO rhetoric that he's willing a complete government shutdown over NATO spending... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 3 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: If he really wanted to, he could challenge that law in front of SCOTUS to determine whether it's even constitutional to begin with. That would be far more what I'm worried about, though I don't think the court would go that far, even in their current makeup. Then again they are potentially about to take the teeth out of every executive regulatory body, so... The Supreme court becoming a weapon of the executive is something Andrew Jackson could have only dreamed about. (He famously ignored the supreme court when they said it was unconstitutional to bar native Americans from non-native lands and allowed them to be kicked out anyway. Jackson was the worst.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.