Nom de Plume said:

---

I do love how non-Trump lovers are "leftists".

Y'all are far right. I guess we're lefter than radical right.

"Taking" Greenland with these antics is so silly. I expect more from a president. Nothing he says means anything.

---

Get over it. The majority of those against him are leftists. When posting on an internet forum to get a point across, we aren't going to type "leftists, a percentage classical liberals, never-trumpers, certain groups of libertarians, etc"

The most disgusting group of people who are causing issues in this country are leftists, so that's what we use when making quick posts. Deal with it and move on, buddy.

Fdsa said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Think about this…the most indebted major country in NATO is also the one that carries the heaviest burden. This was never supposed to be the case and is not sustainable. Other countries have to spend more on their defense (sorry, cut your social program)…and the US needs to find a way to perhaps make some $$ from all the propping up we have done over the years.

---

The US pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($800B+) is for NATO alone. The vast preponderance of US military funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

---

Yes, spending on NATO is different than overall defense spending. NATO countries rest under the capabilities we provide globally. "A Navy, sounds expensive. Uncle Sam will cover us." One could argue we should get more in return do this arrangement, considering or debt is skyrocketing.

Percentage of defense to GDP

1. Poland 4.15 %
2. Estonia 3.37 %
3. United States 3.40 %
4. Latvia 3.26 %
5. Greece 3.13 %
6. Lithuania 3.12 %
7. Denmark 2.42 %
8. Finland 2.30 %
9. Romania 2.30 %
10. United Kingdom 2.28 %
11. Hungary 2.16 %
12. Bulgaria 2.15 %
13. Germany 2.12 %
14. North Macedonia 2.10 %
15. Norway 2.09 %
16. France 2.05 %
17. Albania 2.04 %
18. Slovakia 2.01 %
19. Czech Republic 1.92 %
20. Netherlands 1.92 %
21. Turkey 1.92 %
22. Montenegro 1.83 %
23. Croatia 1.79 %
24. Portugal 1.53 %
25. Spain 1.51 %
26. Sweden 1.43 %
27. Canada 1.37 %
28. Slovenia 1.31 %
29. Belgium 1.28 %
30. Luxembourg 0.96 %
31. Iceland N/A (no military)

---

Out of date. All of NATO is now hitting at least the original 2% target and all, including the US, are now moving towards the very recently agreed further bump up to 3.5%. NATO

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Think about this…the most indebted major country in NATO is also the one that carries the heaviest burden. This was never supposed to be the case and is not sustainable. Other countries have to spend more on their defense (sorry, cut your social program)…and the US needs to find a way to perhaps make some $$ from all the propping up we have done over the years.

---

The US pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($800B+) is for NATO alone. The vast preponderance of US military funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

---

Yes, spending on NATO is different than overall defense spending. NATO countries rest under the capabilities we provide globally. "A Navy, sounds expensive. Uncle Sam will cover us." One could argue we should get more in return do this arrangement, considering or debt is skyrocketing.

Percentage of defense to GDP

1. Poland 4.15 %
2. Estonia 3.37 %
3. United States 3.40 %
4. Latvia 3.26 %
5. Greece 3.13 %
6. Lithuania 3.12 %
7. Denmark 2.42 %
8. Finland 2.30 %
9. Romania 2.30 %
10. United Kingdom 2.28 %
11. Hungary 2.16 %
12. Bulgaria 2.15 %
13. Germany 2.12 %
14. North Macedonia 2.10 %
15. Norway 2.09 %
16. France 2.05 %
17. Albania 2.04 %
18. Slovakia 2.01 %
19. Czech Republic 1.92 %
20. Netherlands 1.92 %
21. Turkey 1.92 %
22. Montenegro 1.83 %
23. Croatia 1.79 %
24. Portugal 1.53 %
25. Spain 1.51 %
26. Sweden 1.43 %
27. Canada 1.37 %
28. Slovenia 1.31 %
29. Belgium 1.28 %
30. Luxembourg 0.96 %
31. Iceland N/A (no military)

---

Out of date. All of NATO is now hitting at least the original 2% target and all, including the US, are now moving towards the very recently agreed further bump up to 3.5%. NATO

---

.

Biden effect!

Squadron7 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Think about this…the most indebted major country in NATO is also the one that carries the heaviest burden. This was never supposed to be the case and is not sustainable. Other countries have to spend more on their defense (sorry, cut your social program)…and the US needs to find a way to perhaps make some $$ from all the propping up we have done over the years.

---

The US pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($800B+) is for NATO alone. The vast preponderance of US military funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

---

Yes, spending on NATO is different than overall defense spending. NATO countries rest under the capabilities we provide globally. "A Navy, sounds expensive. Uncle Sam will cover us." One could argue we should get more in return do this arrangement, considering or debt is skyrocketing.

Percentage of defense to GDP

1. Poland 4.15 %
2. Estonia 3.37 %
3. United States 3.40 %
4. Latvia 3.26 %
5. Greece 3.13 %
6. Lithuania 3.12 %
7. Denmark 2.42 %
8. Finland 2.30 %
9. Romania 2.30 %
10. United Kingdom 2.28 %
11. Hungary 2.16 %
12. Bulgaria 2.15 %
13. Germany 2.12 %
14. North Macedonia 2.10 %
15. Norway 2.09 %
16. France 2.05 %
17. Albania 2.04 %
18. Slovakia 2.01 %
19. Czech Republic 1.92 %
20. Netherlands 1.92 %
21. Turkey 1.92 %
22. Montenegro 1.83 %
23. Croatia 1.79 %
24. Portugal 1.53 %
25. Spain 1.51 %
26. Sweden 1.43 %
27. Canada 1.37 %
28. Slovenia 1.31 %
29. Belgium 1.28 %
30. Luxembourg 0.96 %
31. Iceland N/A (no military)

---

Out of date. All of NATO is now hitting at least the original 2% target and all, including the US, are now moving towards the very recently agreed further bump up to 3.5%. NATO

---

.

Biden effect!

---

Putin effect. It's one of the many unintended consequences of his invasion, including the expansion of NATO with the recent addition of Finland and Sweden. Thanks again, Vlad.......

74OA said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Think about this…the most indebted major country in NATO is also the one that carries the heaviest burden. This was never supposed to be the case and is not sustainable. Other countries have to spend more on their defense (sorry, cut your social program)…and the US needs to find a way to perhaps make some $$ from all the propping up we have done over the years.

---

The US pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($800B+) is for NATO alone. The vast preponderance of US military funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

---

Yes, spending on NATO is different than overall defense spending. NATO countries rest under the capabilities we provide globally. "A Navy, sounds expensive. Uncle Sam will cover us." One could argue we should get more in return do this arrangement, considering or debt is skyrocketing.

Percentage of defense to GDP

1. Poland 4.15 %
2. Estonia 3.37 %
3. United States 3.40 %
4. Latvia 3.26 %
5. Greece 3.13 %
6. Lithuania 3.12 %
7. Denmark 2.42 %
8. Finland 2.30 %
9. Romania 2.30 %
10. United Kingdom 2.28 %
11. Hungary 2.16 %
12. Bulgaria 2.15 %
13. Germany 2.12 %
14. North Macedonia 2.10 %
15. Norway 2.09 %
16. France 2.05 %
17. Albania 2.04 %
18. Slovakia 2.01 %
19. Czech Republic 1.92 %
20. Netherlands 1.92 %
21. Turkey 1.92 %
22. Montenegro 1.83 %
23. Croatia 1.79 %
24. Portugal 1.53 %
25. Spain 1.51 %
26. Sweden 1.43 %
27. Canada 1.37 %
28. Slovenia 1.31 %
29. Belgium 1.28 %
30. Luxembourg 0.96 %
31. Iceland N/A (no military)

---

Out of date. All of NATO is now hitting at least the original 2% target and all, including the US, are now moving towards the very recently agreed further bump up to 3.5%. NATO

---

.

Biden effect!

---

Putin effect. It's one of the many unintended consequences of his invasion, including the expansion of NATO with the recent addition of Finland and Sweden. Thanks again, Vlad.......

---

Trump brought this up in his first term...before Biden f$%&ed up the Ukraine affair

BboroAg said:

---

74OA said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Think about this…the most indebted major country in NATO is also the one that carries the heaviest burden. This was never supposed to be the case and is not sustainable. Other countries have to spend more on their defense (sorry, cut your social program)…and the US needs to find a way to perhaps make some $$ from all the propping up we have done over the years.

---

The US pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($800B+) is for NATO alone. The vast preponderance of US military funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

---

Yes, spending on NATO is different than overall defense spending. NATO countries rest under the capabilities we provide globally. "A Navy, sounds expensive. Uncle Sam will cover us." One could argue we should get more in return do this arrangement, considering or debt is skyrocketing.

Percentage of defense to GDP

1. Poland 4.15 %
2. Estonia 3.37 %
3. United States 3.40 %
4. Latvia 3.26 %
5. Greece 3.13 %
6. Lithuania 3.12 %
7. Denmark 2.42 %
8. Finland 2.30 %
9. Romania 2.30 %
10. United Kingdom 2.28 %
11. Hungary 2.16 %
12. Bulgaria 2.15 %
13. Germany 2.12 %
14. North Macedonia 2.10 %
15. Norway 2.09 %
16. France 2.05 %
17. Albania 2.04 %
18. Slovakia 2.01 %
19. Czech Republic 1.92 %
20. Netherlands 1.92 %
21. Turkey 1.92 %
22. Montenegro 1.83 %
23. Croatia 1.79 %
24. Portugal 1.53 %
25. Spain 1.51 %
26. Sweden 1.43 %
27. Canada 1.37 %
28. Slovenia 1.31 %
29. Belgium 1.28 %
30. Luxembourg 0.96 %
31. Iceland N/A (no military)

---

Out of date. All of NATO is now hitting at least the original 2% target and all, including the US, are now moving towards the very recently agreed further bump up to 3.5%. NATO

---

.

Biden effect!

---

Putin effect. It's one of the many unintended consequences of his invasion, including the expansion of NATO with the recent addition of Finland and Sweden. Thanks again, Vlad.......

---

Trump brought this up in his first term...before Biden f$%&ed up the Ukraine affair

---

Every president since the end of the Cold War tried unsuccessfully to get Europe's attention on this matter. It was Putin's war that finally focused their minds.

74OA said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

74OA said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Think about this…the most indebted major country in NATO is also the one that carries the heaviest burden. This was never supposed to be the case and is not sustainable. Other countries have to spend more on their defense (sorry, cut your social program)…and the US needs to find a way to perhaps make some $$ from all the propping up we have done over the years.

---

The US pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP.

So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($800B+) is for NATO alone. The vast preponderance of US military funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

---

Yes, spending on NATO is different than overall defense spending. NATO countries rest under the capabilities we provide globally. "A Navy, sounds expensive. Uncle Sam will cover us." One could argue we should get more in return do this arrangement, considering or debt is skyrocketing.

Percentage of defense to GDP

1. Poland 4.15 %
2. Estonia 3.37 %
3. United States 3.40 %
4. Latvia 3.26 %
5. Greece 3.13 %
6. Lithuania 3.12 %
7. Denmark 2.42 %
8. Finland 2.30 %
9. Romania 2.30 %
10. United Kingdom 2.28 %
11. Hungary 2.16 %
12. Bulgaria 2.15 %
13. Germany 2.12 %
14. North Macedonia 2.10 %
15. Norway 2.09 %
16. France 2.05 %
17. Albania 2.04 %
18. Slovakia 2.01 %
19. Czech Republic 1.92 %
20. Netherlands 1.92 %
21. Turkey 1.92 %
22. Montenegro 1.83 %
23. Croatia 1.79 %
24. Portugal 1.53 %
25. Spain 1.51 %
26. Sweden 1.43 %
27. Canada 1.37 %
28. Slovenia 1.31 %
29. Belgium 1.28 %
30. Luxembourg 0.96 %
31. Iceland N/A (no military)

---

Out of date. All of NATO is now hitting at least the original 2% target and all, including the US, are now moving towards the very recently agreed further bump up to 3.5%. NATO

---

.

Biden effect!

---

Putin effect. It's one of the many unintended consequences of his invasion, including the expansion of NATO with the recent addition of Finland and Sweden. Thanks again, Vlad.......

---

Stolen election effect, which put Biden in office, which allowed Putin to invade Ukraine

Yes. And we'd have never gotten a deal when we had to go to the danish parliament for permission, and ending our nato contribution would mean 50-80 billion in savings from basing expenses in Europe. Ike had it right in 1951. And, permanent sovereign territory was not ever offered.

So many…upset about a clear win.

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

Here's an entire thread to show you that is not entirely accurate, not that you'll believe it…..
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3592726/next

Nom de Plume said:

---

I do love how non-Trump lovers are "leftists".

Y'all are far right. I guess we're lefter than radical right.

"Taking" Greenland with these antics is so silly. I expect more from a president. Nothing he says means anything.

---

I dont consider myself far right.

Whats your definition?

Nom de Plume said:

---

I do love how non-Trump lovers are "leftists".

Y'all are far right. I guess we're lefter than radical right.

"Taking" Greenland with these antics is so silly. I expect more from a president. Nothing he says means anything.

---

I'd rather have a U.S.A. hegemony under #45 and #47 than a Soros funded puppet government under #46 any day.

AgFrogfan said:

---

Nom de Plume said:

---

I do love how non-Trump lovers are "leftists".

Y'all are far right. I guess we're lefter than radical right.

"Taking" Greenland with these antics is so silly. I expect more from a president. Nothing he says means anything.

---

I'd rather have a U.S.A. hegemony under #45 and #47 than a Soros funded puppet government under #46 any day.

---

The US hegemony built up over the last century was largely built and sustained through our leadership and participation in world organizations and NGOs - i.e. soft power. The World Health Organization, UN, NATO, USAID, World Bank, IMF, etc.
We are actively pulling back and in some cases tearing these down, currently.

We are actively destroying the trust our closest allies have in us.

We are damaging our economic dominance.

Our military might will only take us so far - so far as we are willing the threaten and/or actually use it to force compliance.

US Hegemony is on the decline, massively, as a direct result of 45/47s policies and actions.

some_hooman said:

---

AgFrogfan said:

---

Nom de Plume said:

---

I do love how non-Trump lovers are "leftists".

Y'all are far right. I guess we're lefter than radical right.

"Taking" Greenland with these antics is so silly. I expect more from a president. Nothing he says means anything.

---

I'd rather have a U.S.A. hegemony under #45 and #47 than a Soros funded puppet government under #46 any day.

---

The US hegemony built up over the last century was largely built and sustained through our leadership and participation in world organizations and NGOs - i.e. soft power. The World Health Organization, UN, NATO, USAID, World Bank, IMF, etc.
We are actively pulling back and in some cases tearing these down, currently.

We are actively destroying the trust our closest allies have in us.

We are damaging our economic dominance.

Our military might will only take us so far - so far as we are willing the threaten and/or actually use it to force compliance.

US Hegemony is on the decline, massively, as a direct result of 45/47s policies and actions.

---

our economic dominance is threatened by one country. China. Anything that will help us maintain the status of world economic leader should be considered. They don't play by the rules.

Fdsa said:

---

our economic dominance is threatened by one country. China. Anything that will help us maintain the status of world economic leader should be considered. They don't play by the rules.

---

Absolutely. So what does it say that we've pissed Canada off so much that they are now negotiating trade deals with China. For what?
If we had grievances with the Canada, we could have sat down with them and resolved them. In fact, Trump did scrap NAFTA and renegotiate trade with Canada in his first term - so what happened?

Little Denmark owns $10B in US treasuries, and have already announced plans to dump some of them from their pension funds ($100M is the number I saw).Europe as a whole holds somewhere around $3T.
I would assume other allies are looking at their options too. This does not help our status as the world reserve currency. Sure - there are no immediately better options for them, but the fact that we are incentivizing them to look for alternatives does not seem positive.

And again, why? We could already re-open or expand our shuttered bases in Greenland. If we wanted to cut a deal for mineral access, I'm sure that could have been worked out also - we didn't need to piss off all of Europe to accomplish that. So what did we accomplish that justifies the damage that has been done?

I don't get it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely. So what does it say that we've pissed Canada off so much that they are now negotiating trade deals with China. For what?

---

We didn't piss Canada off as much as Canada went way off of the rails under Trudeau. And then Trudeau went absolutely insane during covid and punished the truckers heavily for protesting his rules shutting down their livelihoods. Not to mention impounding their bank accounts.

---

No, we most definitely pissed off Canada. You, or "we" (collectively as a economic entity) may not care, but we definitely have pissed them off. And the trucking situation you are referencing, as far as I can tell, was not one of the stated reasons when Trump signed an Executive Order instating the initial 25% tariffs.

one safe place said:

---

Greenland is cold, I have no use for it. We could use it as a place to ship all the Somalians I guess.

---

How about we ship them to ... Somalia?

Quote:

---

No, we most definitely pissed off Canada. You, or "we" (collectively as a economic entity) may not care, but we definitely have pissed them off. And the trucking situation you are referencing, as far as I can tell, was not one of the stated reasons when Trump signed an Executive Order instating the initial 25% tariffs.

---

Canada made a choice after Trudeau was gone. The conservative guy who actually mad economic sense and understood how trade between the two countries work (hint lots of trucks involved) and the raving leftist Carney who does not. Elections can clearly have consequences even beyond their borders.

This is an example.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

No, we most definitely pissed off Canada. You, or "we" (collectively as a economic entity) may not care, but we definitely have pissed them off. And the trucking situation you are referencing, as far as I can tell, was not one of the stated reasons when Trump signed an Executive Order instating the initial 25% tariffs.

---

Canada made a choice after Trudeau was gone. The conservative guy who actually mad economic sense and understood how trade between the two countries work (hint lots of trucks involved) and the raving leftist Carney who does not. Elections can clearly have consequences even beyond their borders.

This is an example.

---

So was it the trucking situation or the new, not-understanding-trade guy they elected whom we dislike? Neither of those were stated reasons for the tariffs that have caused Canada to try to find new trading partners in order to decrease their reliance on the US.

Anyway, it's off topic, and I'm likely to hit my daily post limit as a new user soon, so I'll disengage.

Embrace the penguin. pic.twitter.com/kKlzwd3Rx7

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 23, 2026

Good grief 64D trolling...

He's going after Antarctica next?

When someone says "we pissed off Canada", how bad is that really?

Alex Trebec is dead. Martin Short soon will be. I miss the Frank's hot sauce lady, she dead too.

But really, are there really people who worry about what Canada thinks… of anything?

Hell, South Parked trolled the **** out of their whole country in a movie and all they did was keep Tim Hortons to themselves.

****, they can't even play football properly.

EFR said:

---

He's going after Antarctica next?

---

Nazis been there for 80 years under the ice. Don't people read history anymore?

Quote:

---

"we pissed off Canada"

---

This too shall pass.

and I miss Norm MacDonald

Sid Farkas said:

---

Quote:

---

"we pissed off Canada"

---

This too shall pass.

and I miss Norm MacDonald

---

Yeah that rookie must be very young. Canada was French and we were still England during the French Indian War. Guess what triggered that war? Trade issues.

Krazykat said:

---

Mexico is next.

---

Honestly, I hope you're right.

They've been a legitimate clear and present danger for us for the past 50 years. They should have been dealt with a long time ago.

No free people can live with a narco State on their southern border.

we should have kept everything we conquered when we captured Mexico city.

The FIFA peace trophy will be Trumps again if he unites the World Cup host countries into a single union. Viva le Notre America!

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

some_hooman said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely. So what does it say that we've pissed Canada off so much that they are now negotiating trade deals with China. For what?

---

We didn't piss Canada off as much as Canada went way off of the rails under Trudeau. And then Trudeau went absolutely insane during covid and punished the truckers heavily for protesting his rules shutting down their livelihoods. Not to mention impounding their bank accounts.

---

No, we most definitely pissed off Canada. You, or "we" (collectively as a economic entity) may not care, but we definitely have pissed them off. And the trucking situation you are referencing, as far as I can tell, was not one of the stated reasons when Trump signed an Executive Order instating the initial 25% tariffs.

---

Or maybe it was Canada that pissed off us.