Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (283782)	4/22/2024 6:26:37 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 Wharf Rat Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361830

I would not support keeping NATO operational if others aren’t paying their way. Your vision for the US is different from mine. I favor the shining city version, not the scrum in the mud version.

To: i-node who wrote (283782)	4/23/2024 5:35:26 PM
From: combjelly	4 Recommendations Recommended By bentway rdkflorida2 roto Wharf Rat Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361830

You clearly don't understand how NATO operates. Or that the US military spending is not driven by NATO, we have our own priorities. But that is just reality. The 2% goal was set in 2014. But even at that time, the US was not the only one who met or exceeded that target. Even then, many were fairly close and the estimate for 2023 had the median at 1.81%. Given that the 2% goal is for 2025, there has been a lot of progress. You know what didn't change the spending? Trump's posturing. While spending has been increasing since 2014, it really took off when Russia invaded in 2022. Besides, it is rich that a career scofflaw like Trump complaining about others not meeting their financial obligations... You can't make that up.