That seems logical and smart. Why you criticize Putin for this?
There is no way except to become smart and logical yourself instead of criticizing Putin for being smart.

If USA will leave NATO, they will not stop to sell weapons to European Union countries. You have nothing to worry about.
F-35 price dropped heavily, btw (Good job, Donald!). Good time to replace old F-16 in European hangars.

Not criticizing, just giving an opinion. Personally, I see NATO as unnecessary. So wouldn't be opposed to leaving.

You're clearly living in some alternate diimension.

Internet speeds increased for a select few, while stagnating for most Americans. Cost went up.

Net Neutrality prevents ISPs from refusing to carry data based on content. It's also completely separate from what you're complaining about, which is certain websites (NOT ISPs) deciding what they want their platforms to be used for.

Also, your road analogy makes no sense. Most roads in the US are funded by taxes, not tolls. If you want to talk about US tax reform, great because we need it, but that's a completely different subject.

Are you aware that the government invented the internet, and then passed it off to universities (which received significant governmental funding) to further develop? The government's sponsorship of the internet was what allowed it to become a neutral system like the road network, instead of a balkanized mess of toll roads and restricted access. Net neutrality would preserve that status quo from agencies and corporations that are trying to limit their customer's access to services and turn the Internet into the new cable TV system.

You really, really need to learn more about how the internet is built and what net neutrality means, because your ignorance is obvious and makes you look foolish.

NATO seems unnecessary right now because we haven't fought a major war in a full generation (Afghanistan and Iraq impacted a very small percentage of the American population, unlike WWII, Korea or Vietnam). It'll be pretty necessary as soon as that situation changes, which Putin and Trump are making more likely every day.

We need our trade and research partners, and the EU is a big one. We export a lot of stuff and make a lot of money from our trade deals. Isolationism is going to be really bad for a lot of Americans that support products which are popular overseas.

Also, right now we enjoy a lot of advantages from being a very stable economy and having a lot of international ties. The dollar is the standard international currency, we make a lot of money on being a clearinghouse for goods and a research center for the world. The side effect of that is we get really good deals in trade treaties, because everyone wants access to a major world market. Trump's actions have already threatened that.

The less stable we look, the more companies are going to base their operations elsewhere and fewer people will use the dollar. The fewer major corporations we have, the worse off we'll be in negotiating trade deals and tariffs.

That means costs for regular Americans will rise significantly. Compare the cost of a Tshirt made overseas to one made in America, for example. Imagine having to pay that price increase for many more goods, because other countries have raised their tariffs on American goods after we withdrew from free trade treaties or raised tariffs on their goods.

I

Cost did come down. You used to pay by the minute for 14.4k dial-up speed. It is a fact speed increased, price decreased, and price per KB has not been lower. Access is way up. Almost everybody has a smart phone, businesses offer wi-fi everywhere. It is why Brick and Mortar businesses are getting killed. It is why Steam, GoG, Amazon, iTunes now dominate. Your idea that access decreased is - simply put - completely stupid and factually false. Netflix is down to 4 million DVD users, but is at all-time high membership. This is true across the board for internet usage.

The internet began in work from private citizens in labs in the US, UK and France. The US DOD then gave contracts out to develop the idea. Universities used it sparingly for decades. Then the private sector brought out its potential.

NN does not allow ISPs to charge based on usage. That is fair? How about Electricity neutrality. From now on The Wynn in Vegas, Bellagio, etc. will have their bills cut to $1,000 a month and all homes will have their cost go up to $1,000 month because electricity neutrality, it is ridiculous to think that usage can't be charged. You call it content, but it is usage. Streaming a movie takes far more data and uses far more network resources than sending an e-mail. That is what ISPs are charging for, not content. ISPs don't give a damn about the content. They don't care at all it is a video game, movie, e-book, e-mail, social networking. They only care about resource usage,

There were NO NN Laws prior to FCC regulations passed in 2015 for 2016. Yet the internet flourished. The internet already is a paid service. You pay for internet access, you pay for subscriptions to content from Netflix, WSJ, etc. All content has a different price. ISPs have that right. Use more, pay more. Walmart, Amazon, B&N, Target, etc. charge different prices for books at times, and music. Different newspapers have a different prices. Content is not equal. Saying content is equal is nonsense. Games on GoG have a different price. Publishers set up different deals with developers. Console holders sign exclusivity deals too. A math textbook has a very different cost than a paperback romance novel. Content is not equal.

You are the one who needs to understand a little bit more.

But isn't the current system pay as much as you use as well? Taking the earlier examples of toll roads, isn't amazon paying more overall for their 20,000 trucks than a family paying for their one vehicle?

Yes, Amazon is (indirectly because whomever is doing the delivery is paying the direct cost, but it is built into their business price and contract with Amazon). This is why ISPs went against NN. Netflix uses 25 percent of all the data traffic in the USA. NN said that ISPs can't charge Netflix a different price, even though they use far more resources. Comcast did throttle Netflix, this is true, they wanted more money from Netflix to allow non throttled delivery. But an electricity grid can only handle so much power consumption, and broadband wires can only handle so much data at one time. True also when people crash websites or game servers. So if one company uses 25 percent of all the available data it means everybody else also gets slower speed because you get a backlog of data. And since NN says you can't hold back any data or give any data priority and it all has to go at the same time and be treated the same you get congestion.

That really isn't fair. Why should 1 million people just browsing the web and reading the news have to wait 2 minutes for a web page to load because one single company is using more resources than 1 million people combined?

The whole blow-up about ISPs going to stop companies from being able to offer content or stop people from accessing content is ridiculous. Why would anybody pay the ISP at all if they couldn't access their favorite website or access content? Nobody would. ISPs didn't go after users, they didn't go after e-mails, news sites, tweets or the like. They only went after Netflix because one company using 25 percent of all the data is enormous and puts massive strain on the resources available.

Really? I think your reading into it what you want to read. The word "and" is a coordinating conjunction which generally means "add one thing to another"... I think the context was pretty clear. He was referring to both collectively in my view.

However, whatever was meant he clearly said on Monday this it was not the largest crowd size and what he was clearly referring too. He also said they were given wrong information. Even so, at the time they may have truly believed it was based on the information that they were given... this doesn't mean the intention was to lie. To call something a lie you have to also prove the intention was to deceive. As you said he could have also simply misspoke - we are only human. But did the media follow up and print what he said? Nope... some did sure, but most did not. The entire thing was silly as shit and the media spun it because Spicer called them out on their shit. Nobody gives a damn about crowd sizes, this wasn't even the point of that press conference, something the media still fails to understand.

The real issue that was downplayed that day was what happen with the MLK bust which was bullshit because that was something that had clear consequence and it was clear what was intended - to further the divide and paint Trump as a racist. The media doesn't give a shit about crowd sizes, it only cares about keeping Trump in a negative light and presenting click bait articles. This is the issue... this was the point. The liberal media is not willing to give any positive information even when Trump says or does positive things (which he has). It's nearly always negative, all the time.

Now as far as who lied and who presented "an alternative fact"... the left really doesn't want to go there. Obama presented "alternative facts" to outright lies as much as any President... all politicians lie. The only difference is liberal media never called him out on it... they don't feel the same moral obligations about Trump. I think we all know this.

I mean if we want to keep a list... Obama still has Trump beat by a large margin in this regard. There is a reason trust in the media has reached an all time low.

Trump cares about crowd sizes. Yeah, the size comparison IS kinda silly, but when you spend your entire campaign bragging about the crowds your rallies attract, OF COURSE people are gonna post comparison pictures. It's a universal response to boasting.

Look, Trump ran a very divisive campaign right from the start and made his talent of being a dick and pissing people off one of his main selling points. He won, but with 37% approval rating, which is extremely low for a newly elected president, suggesting that even a significant part of the people who voted for him held their noses while pulling the lever. The fact that fewer came to attend his inauguration isn't a media conspiracy, but plain dumb common sense.

When the story about the MLK bust turned out to be...heh...a bust (sorry), the guy who wrote it published a retraction and an apology. That really could have been the end of it. Yes, the media's quick to pounce on anything bad Trump does, but at the same time, they gave him more free coverage than any presidential candidate in history and he kind of owes them at this point for saving him millions of dollars. He's not in the best position to complain, seeing that his democratic rival had an equally tense relationship with the media. (and has had that for years)

Honestly, between the whole uproar over the crowd size and him griping about millions of illegal voters that cost him the popular vote, Trump really reminds me of one of those indy developers who announce a game and spend every minute between the announcement and the release participating in flame wars in forums across the net and then throws a tantrum when the game is released and a whole bunch of people downvote it soon afterwards. At this point, said developer probably would be told by fellow forumites in no uncertain terms that haters are gonna hate, he should be the bigger man and let his work speak for itself. If it's really good, people will eventually acknowledge that and the haters will eventually look petty. I don't see why the president of the US shouldn't be held to a similar standard of professionalism. Especially when a tense relationship with the media is an expected part of the job.

Tell that to Trump. His ego is like an overinflated balloon - huge and fragile. He's the one who keeps insisting that the in person attendance was higher and insisting that the NPS must have photos that prove it.
Yes, all politicians lie, but only Trump would continue to lie about something so petty.

And only leftists would be continuing to drone on and on about something this petty and trying to make it into more than it is.

If you want facts, lets start with the fact that the set of pictures published clearly seem intended to show a sparse crowd. Who takes a picture from the back of a crowd? Who made that decision and why? And frankly, why is it important at all? That was the first volley. Trump didn't start that. The image plastered in the media was created by his opposition.

As someone who has voted mostly Democrat all my life, I'm disgusted by the whining and pettiness of the far left. I'm hearing every crackpot and idiotic story coming out of their mouths.

For example:
1) The U.S. is going to leave the U.N. (As if)
2) Trump is going to start WW3. Isn't he the one trying to get along with Putin as opposed to Hillary? Common sense says Hillary and her push for a new Cold War was more likely to destabilize relations. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
3) Trump is going to leave 20 million without heath care. This despite Trump saying it will be replaced as the ACA is removed. It's so silly to say this before you see the result. But this doesn't stop the far left druggies from spewing their nonsense. If Trump doesn't replace it, then you can complain. But doing so now, makes you look silly. IF Trump doesn't replace it, then you rally, Not before. Complaining about something that hasn't happened, makes you look foolish.

And this isn't mentioning every stupid article about everything else petty.

What you aren't hearing from the far left crazies is any discussion of the merits of actual border security which both parties have ignored for over 40 years. I mean, we are probably the only country in the world where 4% of our population isn't documented and is hardly doing anything about it. What would happen in any other country if you didn't have ID? What would happen in Mexico? Think maybe you'd be put in jail?

Or why it might not be a bad idea to do extra background checks. Oh but it's discrimination...I hope there are a lot of far left idiots around the next time some terrorist blows something up just to show them exactly how discriminatory it is...

Democrats are supposed to be the ones looking at the bigger picture and viewing all sides. Today's Democrats are just the reverse image of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, spouting off one-sided inanities.

Wow, if you consider all vocal opponents of Trump to be "far left" I can't imagine where you are.

And there you go with a "strawman". Where have I claimed all opponents are far left? No, only the idiots like you crying over nothing, trying to take a stupid issue about crowd size and use that to portray him as completely incompetent.

Those who disagree with him would be best served talking about the real issues. Give him credit where he deserves it while putting him to the fire for his real actions, not the imagined ones.

As of the moment, what has he really had time to do? He hasn't removed Romneycare yet. He hasn't started a bunch of wars. You are the one being crazy. And all this stupid noise about nothing is just creating a "Boy Who Cried Wolf " scenario, where when Trump actually does something people should complain about, no one is going to listen because you crazies have been crying over stupid shit for months.

As to left vs right, once again, some crazy extremist trying to paint all who disagree as extremely on the other side.

hmmmmm.... yeeeeeessssss......