When it comes to NATO, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump offer similar assessments

[TomCADem]

We have seen what Trump has done to the U.S. relationships with Europe as he tries to cozy up to Russia. For better or worse, Trump followed through on his efforts to undermine NATO as he demands protection money as though the U.S. is running a protection racket:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-summit-world-leaders-appear-to-mock-president-trump-during-tense-meeting/

World leaders appear to mock Trump during tense NATO summit

As the impeachment inquiry heats up in Washington, with the House Judiciary Committee set to hold its first public hearing Wednesday, President Trump has found himself in tense moments with fellow world leaders at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in London.

The leaders, who are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the transatlantic alliance, are meeting Wednesday at a golf resort outside of London to discuss threats including terrorism, arms control and China.

But tension among the leaders of NATO member countries over the alliance's role also appears to pose a threat to the partnership.

While the leaders of the 29-member NATO alliance were all smiles as they posed for the ceremonial family photo Wednesday, Mr. Trump and the United States' closest allies had some awkward moments Tuesday, reports CBS News' Paula Reid.

Yet, while Trump is attacked for his position, Bernie has for decades dismissed NATO as a waste of money:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/la-na-live-updates-democr-1460688145-htmlstory.html

Sanders dismissed NATO decades ago as a "waste" of money for the U.S., which funds a disproportionate share of the alliance among its 28 member nations.

"The countries of Europe should pick up more of the burden for their defense," Sanders said when asked during Thursday's debate about his past statements.

Indeed, PolitFact noted recently that the alliance is heavily dependent on U.S. funding, which accounted in 2013 for nearly three-fourths of all NATO member defense expenditures.

Sanders' views on NATO are somewhat similar to those recently voiced by Trump, who says NATO is unfair economically to the U.S. "NATO is obsolete," Trump said last month on ABC's "This Week." "And there's nothing wrong with saying it's obsolete. But it is obsolete."

[getagrip_already]

1. one more similarity....

The list is growing and growing.

[Demsrule86]

2. I didn't know that.

Thanks.

[TomCADem]

5. Trump Said U.S. Is 'Getting Raped' By Nato, Has Pushed To Exit Alliance

Trump is not alone. On this board, we have had Bernie supporters who have defended Bernie's antagonism against NATO blaming NATO for the U.S.'s tension with Russia, which is a really Russian centric viewpoint given that NATO was formed as a bulkwark against Russian aggression as Eastern Bloc countries were effectively taken over by Russia following WWII.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-said-u-s-getting-raped-nato-exit-alliance-white-house-insider-1473434

A portion of the book is dedicated to Trump's belligerent stance on NATO. Since coming into office, the president has repeatedly maligned the alliance and its members, accusing members of not spending enough on joint defense and suggesting the transatlantic bloc is no longer fit for purpose.

Trump even publicly questioned Article 5, the cornerstone of the alliance which requires NATO nations to come to the defense of a member if it is attacked. The article has only been involved once in NATO's 70-year history, by the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks.

According to Anonymous, Trump "has repeatedly astounded advisors" by suggesting he wishes to withdraw from NATO, which is underpinned by American money and military might.

"This would be a huge gift to the Russians, who have long opposed the twenty-nine nation group," Anonymous wrote.

[Demsrule86]

10. I was unaware that Sanders didn't like NATO. Interesting.

[TomCADem]

3. WHAT TRUMP WANTS FROM NATO ALLIES--AND WHY THEY CAN'T JUST GIVE IT TO HIM (2019)

It is as though Trump is continuing to read Bernie's longstanding talking points on NATO. Just last month, you have Trump continue to talk about NATO and the U.S. role as if it is simply running a protection racket. Yet, how are Trump's most recent statements different from what Bernie has long said about NATO?

Trump and Bernie's own statements speak for themselves.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nato-summit-defense-spending-us-military-1475356

To President Donald Trump, NATO is an unfair financial burden on the U.S. Ahead of the U.K. summit, his administration reportedly secured a cut in its monetary contribution to the defense alliance, with other allies making up the shortfall.

According to the book A Warning, purportedly by an anonymous senior administration official, Trump allegedly said the U.S. was "getting raped" by its NATO allies and pushed to come out of the alliance, formed to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union as the Cold War dawned.


In London on Tuesday, Trump's language was softer, but his sentiments similar. "We benefit the least," Trump told reporters before the NATO summit, and called the alliance "unfair" to America.

Trump has in the past described NATO as "obsolete." But after French President Emmanuel Macron called the alliance brain dead, Trump hit back: "NATO serves a great purpose."

[betsuni]

4. K&R

[Hoyt]

6. They are similar on global trade too, as is Warren. Although, Warren and Sanders

aren’t as ugly about it.

[sheshe2]

7. K&R

[Perseus]

8. No doubt, there is a concerted effort to go against Bernie Sanders at DU

Lets see...trump is supposed to be in panic at the thought that Biden may win the nomination, but Biden supporters seem to be in panic that Bernie Sanders will...Hmm, who will win, whose panic may be unbiased.

If anyone says anything about Biden that doesn't agree with his followers, ones posts get "hidden", or "taken out", but there seems to be a concerted effort against Sanders and it seems to be flourishing without repercussions, and I am not advocating there should be repercussions, I believe we all have a voice and those voices must be respected, if they happen to come from trolls then we need to respond to them and combat them with solid arguments, but it is interesting that all I have seen today since Sanders numbers started to go up a very high level of campaign against Sanders. I expect some negative comments about how he clips his nails once they are done with the documented negativity, and lets hope Sanders does not have the audacity to wear a tan suit.

I really hope that all these anti-Sanders at DU will vote for him if he gets the nomination, as some Biden supporters pointed out on another post, those who do not vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination will be voting for trump by simply not showing up to vote.

[getagrip_already]

11. easy now.....

I think anyone who participates in these threads has been juried. I have as well.

Don't sweat it. Just understand what the difference between a discussion and an attack is.

DU isn't perfect, but it is a microcosm of the primary process. No candidate is perfect, and they will do things other camps will jump on.

It's all a part of the vetting process. Don't take it personally. Just find better arguments, and be mindful of the rules.

Just saying.

[Thekaspervote]

14. Sanders numbers going up?? He and warren exchange 1-2 pts and he's surging??

Oh get real

RCP avg as of today
Biden 29.3
Sanders 20.3

538 poll avg as of today
Biden 27.6
Sanders 18.3

No dem candidate wins without the AA vote...primary or GE. Sanders has a definite electability problem

Link to tweet

?s=21

[still_one]

21. The Biden campaign did NOT hire Briana Joy Gray, David Sirota, or Nina

Turner, or having Jill Stein supporters Susan Sarandon and Cornel West as part of his campaign

If the past is any reflection, it won't be Biden supporters who won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it isn't Biden. However, i am not sure if that holds with the campaign who hired the above mentioned people among their suporters if he isn't the nominee

[Cha]

22. Oh, you mean like it is with Biden.. that kind

of "concentrated effort"?

[Perseus]

9. One more thing, and I believe many people would agree with that

USA covers about 72% of the money that goes to NATO, and the rest of the member countries together finance the rest. What Sanders has advocated for is more contributions from the other member countries, he would like to reduce the USA contribution to allow him to pay for free Healthcare and free education, that is not even near to what the con wants. The con wants to follow on Putin's wishes and pull out 100% from NATO, that would basically eliminate or weaken NATO to an extent that would allow Russia to roam freely around the World invading whatever country they wish.

In that respect Sanders is right, why can't the rest of the World not contribute with at least 20% more which would bring the USA contribution to 50%? That would give the USA about $150,000,000.00/year to put into education and healthcare, plus whatever changes go into tax reform.

The comparison has no merit.

[getagrip_already]

12. that is trumps position, which is really putins position

Putin wants too destroy nato. He is pushing trump to pull out, and this is the current rationale.

It would be devastating to our security. While it has some innocuous reasoning, the results would be terrible, Nato is holding back russian aggression, and we benefit from that.

Of all the foreign policy positions to stake out, weakening nato is not a smart or well advised one. Like a lot of his positions.

[sheshe2]

13. No.

They don't.

Perseus
9. One more thing, and I believe many people would agree with that

USA covers about 72% of the money that goes to NATO, and the rest of the member countries together finance the rest.

The U.S. share is calculated on the basis of gross national income — the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country — and adjusted regularly. Currently that would be about 22 percent, compared to about 15 percent for Germany, 11 percent for France, 10 percent for the United Kingdom, 8 percent for Italy, 7 percent for Canada, and so forth.

“Common funding includes both annual funding for NATO civilian and military expenses (the latter includes spending on very few NATO owned assets and is a few billion a year) and any operational military expenses, which get voted on whenever the operation is authorized,” said Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO who is president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “This includes fuel for NATO AWACS aircraft, some headquarter costs, etc.”

Here’s the full breakdown for the 2016-2017 budget period. (NSIP, one of three elements listed, refers to the NATO Security Investment Program). In 2012, the Congressional Research Service produced a report that looked at direct funding in detail. Despite Trump’s claim that the United States is spending “billions and billions” on NATO, Defense Department budget documents show the annual direct contribution is under $500 million a year.

Source: NATO
By this metric, Trump’s claims of the U.S. paying a disproportionate share, or “a lion’s share,” are wildly exaggerated. The U.S. pays the most, but not significantly more than the next country — and the formula for calculating the different shares is reasonable.

[ehrnst]

23. No, money doesn't "go to NATO."

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has been a keystone of global security since its formation in 1949, does not involve a membership that collects dues. There is no annual subscription.

“President Trump does not appear to understand that the 2% of GDP spending by the allies is a guideline, not a mandate,” said James Stavridis, retired U.S. Navy admiral who commanded all NATO forces and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “He tends to liken the situation to a need to hound golfers for not paying their dues at the local country club. While it makes sense to pressure the Europeans to hit the 2% goal, we must avoid splitting the alliance over the issue.”

https://time.com/5335111/donald-trump-nato-spending-facts/

Members spend 2% of their GDP on THEIR OWN DEFENSE spending.

You seem to mistake Trump's claim with fact.

[James48]

15. "National polls" at this point don't mean much.

Biden leads nationally simply because of name recognition.

The primaries are a series of individual state contests- and “momentum” plays a huge factor once the voting begins.

Sanders is poised to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Both are real possibilities. And if that happens, what follows is totally up in the air.

I’m with Bernie.

[Thekaspervote]

16. be with bernie ...here's some state polls that you seem to feel are a better forecast

[Skya Rhen]

17. Biden put in the time, commitment and energy, over five decades, to EARN that name recognition.

[oasis]

25. +1,000,000

[ritapria]

18. We spend more on "defense"

than the other 9 top defense spending countries COMBINED ………..Meanwhile our people are being eaten alive with healthcare costs , our neglected infrastructure is collapsing , 500,000 people are living homeless , and many of our teachers need to work a night shift at Wal Mart to stay out of the poor house … We are spending grotesque amounts of taxpayer money to defend Western European Countries that have Universal Healthcare that we supposedly now can't afford …. If you think this is sensible state of affairs , by all means support the Establishment Candidate of your choice ..What good is it for a Nation to gain the Whole World , yet forfeit the soles off their shoes ?

[mwooldri]

19. From what I recall...

...past presidents have stated in public that the USA would like the other members of NATO to help out a bit more when it comes to the finances. Quick Google of "Obama NATO" turfed up a CNBC article about the matter.

Article in the OP is about four years old. Also article states what Bernard Sanders said about NATO "decades ago".

What's different is that Don the Con - who doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his carcass - has framed the issue in a fact free and controversial way (the allies owe the US money - which of course they don't). And we know Bernie is a war dove, so any way to reduce US military expenditure would be part of his MO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html

[Buzz cook]

20. Sanders position on Nato.

https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-nato/

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed after World War II as a way to get the militaries of various countries to agree on mutual defense strategies. Bernie believes the United States should remain in NATO. He thinks that other members of the alliance should meet their funding commitments. He is opposed to expanding NATO membership because it antagonizes Russia and increases the risk of conflict. Although Bernie is generally anti-war, he supported NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999 and did not vigorously oppose NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya, although he did voice concerns.

Membership in NATO: Bernie supports the ongoing membership of the United States in NATO.

Funding NATO: Bernie believes that all members states in the alliance have a responsibility to meet the funding obligations that they have pledged to NATO.

Anti-Expansion: Bernie is against the expansion of NATO to include new member states because it risks provoking military conflict with Russia.

NATO Military Engagements: NATO has been involved in military action in Kosovo and Libya.

Sanders' position seems pretty main stream.

[oasis]

24. Would Bernie dare knock NATO on the debate stage?

[SidDithers]

26. Kick...nt

Sid

[BlueMTexpat]

27. IMO, foreign policy is

truly one of Bernie's weakest areas.

Just sayin'

[Gothmog]

28. Who is surprised by this?