MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Mocks Deplorables: Trump ‘Dog-Training These People’

MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews lambasted President Donald Trump on Tuesday for his criticism of NATO defense spending — and casually dropped the charge that Trump’s rallies are “dog training” for his heartland voters. Matthews accused Trump of being more critical of NATO’s defense spending budget than Russian aggression towards Europe before insulting attendees of his recent rally in Great Falls, Montana. “He is taking a Republican Party, a grassroots party that’s spent 60, 70 years leading the war in the Cold War, hating the Russians for all their aggressiveness in the world and taking over the countries on the border and being tyrannical the way they are now and he has those people cheering against Western Europe,” he said. “He’s dog-training these people.” Sahil Kapur, a national political reporter for Bloomberg, told Matthews that President Trump’s statements would have been met with scorn from conservatives if former President Barack Obama had uttered them. “I think President Trump is doing this on a level that would make a lot of Republicans nervous,” he speculated. Turning his attention to President Trump’s supporters, Matthews criticized rally attendees for cheering proposals aimed at giving NATO allies more responsibility of their own security concerns. “They’re not getting paid. They’re not running for anything. Those regular people that show up for a Trump rally are cheering the attacks on our European allies and cheering ‘give a chance to little Putin,’” he complained. Over breakfast in Brussels with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday, President Trump lamented how the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline may leave Germany and other European countries perilously dependent on Russia for its energy needs. “It is very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia, where we’re supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes and pays out billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia,” the President said. “We’re protecting Germany, we’re protecting France, we’re protecting all of these countries.” “We’re paying a lot of money to protect, this has been going on for decades… it’s very unfair to our country, it’s very unfair to our taxpayers… these countries need to step it up, not over a ten year period, but immediately,” he added. President Trump told NATO allies on Wednesday they should commit to increasing military spending from 2 percent to 4 percent of their GDP by 2024.

Chris Matthews, who suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” is a nauseating, extreme liberal, sanctimonious, hate-filled, piece of garbage.  He is the old-guard poster child of the meltdown that is happening at MSNBC, and the rest of the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  All he does is make ad hominem attacks on anyone who is a true conservative, Republican, or Trump supporter…and, of course, his pathological fixation on President Trump is beyond silly.  Trump was 100% right to demand that the other NATO member countries pay the 2% of their (infinitely smaller) GDP which they have agreed to contractually for decades.  And, President Trump is not the only President to demand that.  Reagan, Clinton, W, and even Obama demanded the same thing!!  It’s just that Chris doesn’t like Trump.  So, he is attacking him because..well…he’s Trump.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking.  But, Chris the blowhard is not interested in facts; only bloviating.  Tool..

3 comments

  1. I would have thought a more nuanced view of Trump’s abusive attack on NATO countries is needed.
    The 2% figure on NATO defence was actually ….”by 2024″ and in any case 15 of the NATO countries have already reached this and many are moving towards it. Instead of acknowledging this Mr Trump makes the arbitrary decision that he is shifting the goal posts to 4% and clearly sees no reason to listen to any arguments explaining why struggling countries like Greece should be released from his new target. Mr Trump has obviously not been informed that other non US nations have no wish to commit 4% of their budget on defence when some are struggling just to make ends meet. NATO is a combined defence strategy and takes into account dealing with refugees (many of who are escaping American led wars. It seems curious that Mr Trump supports the bombing of civilian areas and totally loses interest when some of them want to flee to his country.

  2. Good morning! And thank you for your comments. Here at The Daily Buzz we welcome all points of view; especially those with which we disagree..such as yours. A couple thoughts.. First of all, a factual correction.. Only 5, not “15,” of the NATO member countries have contributed that 2%. To see that list, please click on this link: http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2 As for the 4% suggestion that Pres. Trump floated.. Neither you nor I have any clue how well that idea went over behind closed doors. So, speculation is pointless Despite the hand-wringing of the dominantly liberal mainstream media, there are plenty of videos showing Trump and other leaders like Angela M. having what clearly appear to be warm, friendly, 1 on 1 chats. We can’t hear what is being discussed. But, the body language is clearly friendly, cordial, and in some of them, they are laughing it up. There are things that are said for media consumption (as well as for the consumption of their respective constituents back home), and then those conversations that world leaders have behind closed doors. None of us has the foggiest clue what happens there, and neither do lunatic, self-serving, agenda-driven, blowhards like Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow who have a pathological fixation on Trump.
    And, frankly, Greece’s economic problems are theirs; NOT ours…or NATO’s. If you’re part of an organization, you have to abide by that organization’s requirements/expectations.
    And, if ya can’t cut it, then maybe you shouldn’t be part of that organization. We have no obligation to cut some slack, or pay for, Greece’s financial commitments because their another bankrupt socialist country that can’t get it’s act together. But, I digress.. Bottom line, America funds the overwhelming majority of NATO expenditures. It’s not even remotely close. Our GDP is FAR greater than any of the other member nations. And, we paid NATO 3.61% of our massive GDP to NATO in 2017 (which was actually down from the previous year!); FAR above what was expected. So, Trump’s overall/greater point is very well taken. I mean, c’mon. In addition to our above and beyond funds we pay into the NATO coffers, we have military bases throughout Europe that exist for the protection, and defense posture, of Europe; NOT us. We get nothing in return for that. Having, myself, spent time on military active duty in the Army in places like Germany, I can tell you it’s a wonderful, cushy, duty assignment. Loved it! But, then we learn Germany isn’t paying it’s fair share of the NATO budget, and to make matters worse, it’s undermining it’s own national security interests by securing deals with Russia to get natural gas/energy. Wow.. That’s spectacularly stupid, and frankly offensive to us as Americans who have spent TRILLIONS since WWII providing military support to Germany and the rest of Europe.. So, kudos to Trump for calling Angela out publicly on it. As an aside, NATO was originally created to be a deterrent to the expansion of the then Soviet Union(USSR). That country no longer exists. Finally..as for that unfounded, ad hominem, assertion that “Trump supports the bombing of civilian areas..” Respectfully, that’s not very.. “nuanced.” And, I’d love to see some evidence to support such an outlandish assertion. I’ve personally served Presidents both Republican and Democrat spanning over a quarter century first as an enlisted soldier, and then later as an officer…ultimately as a “field grade officer”…and have never known ANY President who would ever consciously order such a thing. Further, there isn’t a General officer anywhere that would carry out such a illegal and immoral directive. It’s one thing to target a legitimate military target and in the process there are sometimes, unfortunate, civilian casualties. Those things happen in ANY military engagement/conflict. That’s why war is such an awful thing. But, to consciously target civilian areas? No. That’s an entirely different thing, and not something we as Americans EVER do. And, to suggest otherwise is offensive, and frankly factually inaccurate. I have NEVER seen evidence to suggest such a thing. It’s just something we do not do…and, yes, that goes for Trump as well. If you have actual evidence to back up such an outrageous assertion, we’d love to see it. Otherwise, we’ll respectfully rack that up to “fake news.” Thanks again for your comments! Cheers! 🙂

  3. Sorry, my mistake. You were correct. When I went back to my rather dimly remembered NATO source it said 15 of the NATO countries were on track to reach the 2% and it also pointed out – as you have done – that only 5 of the countries have reached this figure to date. However since the agreement was to reach the 2% figure a few years down the track from now, why on earth would a US president fulminate about NATO countries failing to reach the agreed figure some years before the agreed date. it is the NATO agreement target not the current figures that count. The 4% figure is just plain barmy and only one nation, the US, is calling for that …. and what is more calling for that before it is even agree to by his own government.
    I checked back on the UN figures for civilian casualties in Syria for one month (March last year) and found the US coalition caused civilian casualty figures gave a higher figure than those separately attributed to ISIS, and/or the Syrian government/Russian figures. When an entire city is effectively flattened by the combined efforts of the nations in the US coalition I admit they were probably not targeting the civilians in particular, but when the bomb produced by a US armament supplier lands on your house perhaps you can understand the inhabitants feeling somewhat aggrieved even to the point of heading to the border. I would be puzzled if for example you were appearing to think that the US funding the Saudi bombing in Yemen somehow absolves the US from the obvious consequences. In Syria as you are no doubt aware the US had armed many of the rebel groups which may produce civilian casualties by proxy but nevertheless did flatten towns. It is true that each time US rockets flatten a hospital that they always say it was an accident but for some reason the medical staff and patients don’t seem to understand the finer points of diplomacy. Not something Americans ever do???? You are joking of course. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, North Korea, Iraq (at least 100,000 civilian casualties – and all for what – getting rid of weapons of mass destruction?), Do you read about the raids that go wrong eg the Doctors Without Borders hospital getting flattened in Afghanistan?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s