Trump was right in 1987, and is still right today.

[Concerned]

No, I'm not disagreeing with Surber but with you. Perhaps you didn't read what he wrote or read into his writing every irrelevant theme of yours.

Do you think these "other nations" should be paying the United States the "billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests" as asserted in Trump's 1987 letter?  If so, what do you think the current President of the United States is doing to recover those funds?  When do you expect those billions to be added to the US Treasury?  Perhaps around the same time the funding from Mexico to pay for the wall?

[endicom]

Do you think these "other nations" should be paying the United States the "billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests" as asserted in Trump's 1987 letter?  If so, what do you think the current President of the United States is doing to recover those funds?

Read the last paragraph of the article.

When do you expect those billions to be added to the US Treasury?  Perhaps around the same time the funding from Mexico to pay for the wall?

This isn't about Mexico.

[driftdiver]

I'm sure the Chinese would bee quite happy to replace our troops any place in the world.

[Concerned]

Read the last paragraph of the article.

This isn't about Mexico.

I did read the last paragraph.  It reads as follows:

He is now working with the Gulf nations to have them police their region.

But that's not what Trump was calling for in his 1987 letter.  He was calling for "other nations" paying the United States the "billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests". 

The point I was making with Mexico is about a Trumpian bait and switch.  In 1987, Trump was calling for "other nations" paying the United States the "billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests".  The Surber headline said "Trump was right in 1987, and is still right today".  If Trump was right in 1987, it follows that these "other nations" should be paying the US those billions yet the President of the United States is seemingly doing nothing to get that money back.  I can understand why you might not want to address those facts.

[driftdiver]

I did read the last paragraph.  It reads as follows:

But that's not what Trump was calling for in his 1987 letter.  He was calling for "other nations" paying the United States the "billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests". 

The point I was making with Mexico is about a Trumpian bait and switch.  In 1987, Trump was calling for "other nations" paying the United States the "billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests".  The Surber headline said "Trump was right in 1987, and is still right today".  If Trump was right in 1987, it follows that these "other nations" should be paying the US those billions yet the President of the United States is seemingly doing nothing to get that money back.  I can understand why you might not want to address those facts.

"Done nothing" is a broad statement.  How do you know hes "done nothing"?   Seems he's put a lot of pressure on South Korea.   He's put pressure on European countries including NATO.  He's cut money to the UN.

Has he got money back, no.   Has he changed the dynamics and killed the bowing and leading from behind?   certainly

[Concerned]

"Done nothing" is a broad statement.  How do you know hes "done nothing"?   Seems he's put a lot of pressure on South Korea.   He's put pressure on European countries including NATO.  He's cut money to the UN.

Has he got money back, no.   Has he changed the dynamics and killed the bowing and leading from behind?   certainly

What I actually said was that "the President of the United States is seemingly doing nothing to get that money back".  I certainly haven't heard anything, and this President isn't shy about promoting things he's trying to do.  As you yourself admit, "Has he got money back, no".  That's what I'm talking about.