By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Trump pushes Montenegrin Prime Minister

iron_megalith on 28 May 2017

Needs context because there was a tap on Trump's back so I don't know what to make of this.



Around the Network
AZWification on 28 May 2017

Trump has balls, doing that to someone from the Balkans is always risky.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

JRPGfan on 28 May 2017
iron_megalith said:
Needs context because there was a tap on Trump's back so I don't know what to make of this.

Trump pushes guy out of way to try and get infront.

Guy that was unaware of trump, notice's him when hes pushing him out of the way.

Guy that was pushed, puts hand on trumps back to help him forwards.



Jumpin on 28 May 2017
contestgamer said:
Slownenberg said:

That truly is the real question.

Trump pushing another leader out of the way just to be in front of the group is just another very typical display of Trump's incredible pettiness and self-obsession. His mental and emotional functioning truly does not extend beyond himself, he is 100% self-obsessed, which is why he is such a wretched person and already probably the worst president in US history.

Wrong. He's showing the world whose boss. It's trump and by extension America.

You think making a fool of himself is a good way to represent America? The one thing pushing a guy from behind demonstrates is that he's socially retarded.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

outlawauron on 28 May 2017
etking said:

Without the USA and US-funded Nato, Europe is completely unable to defend itself from the smallest attacks. Crimea-style takeovers could happen again, especially in Northern or eastern Europe.

So the USA should simply end Nato and stop protecting Europe. This would force them to protect themselves. Leftist governments want to reduce military spending instead. In a war situation, this could be the end of their country.

Well, if the other countries did spend what they agreed to, then the US could viably withdraw a lot of their own spending. The US does want to have a influence in the region to prevent as much inter-EU conflict as possible.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Teeqoz on 28 May 2017
outlawauron said:
etking said:

Without the USA and US-funded Nato, Europe is completely unable to defend itself from the smallest attacks. Crimea-style takeovers could happen again, especially in Northern or eastern Europe.

So the USA should simply end Nato and stop protecting Europe. This would force them to protect themselves. Leftist governments want to reduce military spending instead. In a war situation, this could be the end of their country.

Well, if the other countries did spend what they agreed to, then the US could viably withdraw a lot of their own spending. The US does want to have a influence in the region to prevent as much inter-EU conflict as possible.

Viably, the US could already withdraw a lot of their own spending on military, and I hope for the sake of the American people that they do, and rather focus spending on things that benefit the American people.

I also do hope that my own country, Norway, steps up to meet the 2% demand, and given that the largest parties on both the left and the right (no, this isn't a left vs right issue, opinions are very divided on both sides) are in favour of this, it seems likely that this will happen at least in Norway. But I also hope more precautions are taken to avoid creating situations like Libya and Syria, where NATO stepped in, presumably with good intentions, but ended up creating a power vacum that destabilized the entire region.

EDIT: Just to further stress that this isn't a left vs right issue (and no Outlaw, this isn't directed specifically at you, just in general), the current secretary general of NATO was the prime minister of Norway in the last period, and the leader of the labour party before he stepped down to become the secretary general of NATO. Certainly a man from the left, especially by international standards (he is as much a "socialist" as Bernie Sanders).



Teeqoz on 28 May 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Flilix said:

So basically, beta males are nice and civilised men, while alpha males are just rude and egocentric?

That's how a 3rd wave feminist might think of it. 

What is a "3rd wave feminist"?



outlawauron on 28 May 2017
Teeqoz said:
outlawauron said:

Well, if the other countries did spend what they agreed to, then the US could viably withdraw a lot of their own spending. The US does want to have a influence in the region to prevent as much inter-EU conflict as possible.

Viably, the US could already withdraw a lot of their own spending on military, and I hope for the sake of the American people that they do, and rather focus spending on things that benefit the American people.

I also do hope that my own country, Norway, steps up to meet the 2% demand, and given that the largest parties on both the left and the right (no, this isn't a left vs right issue, opinions are very divided on both sides) are in favour of this, it seems likely that this will happen at least in Norway. But I also hope more precautions are taken to avoid creating situations like Libya and Syria, where NATO stepped in, presumably with good intentions, but ended up creating a power vacum that destabilized the entire region.

EDIT: Just to further stress that this isn't a left vs right issue (and no Outlaw, this isn't directed specifically at you, just in general), the current secretary general of NATO was the prime minister of Norway in the last period, and the leader of the labour party before he stepped down to become the secretary general of NATO. Certainly a man from the left, especially by international standards (he is as much a "socialist" as Bernie Sanders).

They could of course, but they would also leave a giant vacuum. We have nearly 100k stationed in Europe, which is more than the standing army for several of the countries we are stationed in. I hope that the US is able to reduce spending strategically. There's no reason to have as many bases open as we do across the world. 



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

outlawauron on 28 May 2017
Teeqoz said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's how a 3rd wave feminist might think of it. 

What is a "3rd wave feminist"?

I mean, you could just google it. The current movement of feminism. Started in 90s.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Teeqoz on 28 May 2017
outlawauron said:
Teeqoz said:

Viably, the US could already withdraw a lot of their own spending on military, and I hope for the sake of the American people that they do, and rather focus spending on things that benefit the American people.

I also do hope that my own country, Norway, steps up to meet the 2% demand, and given that the largest parties on both the left and the right (no, this isn't a left vs right issue, opinions are very divided on both sides) are in favour of this, it seems likely that this will happen at least in Norway. But I also hope more precautions are taken to avoid creating situations like Libya and Syria, where NATO stepped in, presumably with good intentions, but ended up creating a power vacum that destabilized the entire region.

EDIT: Just to further stress that this isn't a left vs right issue (and no Outlaw, this isn't directed specifically at you, just in general), the current secretary general of NATO was the prime minister of Norway in the last period, and the leader of the labour party before he stepped down to become the secretary general of NATO. Certainly a man from the left, especially by international standards (he is as much a "socialist" as Bernie Sanders).

They could of course, but they would also leave a giant vacuum. We have nearly 100k stationed in Europe, which is more than the standing army for several of the countries we are stationed in. I hope that the US is able to reduce spending strategically. There's no reason to have as many bases open as we do across the world. 

Ofcourse any stepping down needs to be done gradually, I just don't think stuff like Trump's proposed 50 billion dollar increase of the defense budget is necessary in the country that already has by far the largest defense budget in the world.

outlawauron said:
Teeqoz said:

What is a "3rd wave feminist"?

I mean, you could just google it. The current movement of feminism. Started in 90s.

"Third-wave feminism encompasses several diverse strains of feminist activity and study."

From Wiki. I was just curious if the user meant everyone, or close to it, who considers themselves to currently be a feminist, or some specific subset as the rest of his comments imply. What is more important to me here is who that user is talking about, not the dictionairy definition, because hey, if I just use the dictionairy definition of feminism, all feminists just want equality for both genders.