No name calling, no insults or childish retorts. Just a polite explanation of your viewpoints please.

1. You support tariffs on U.S. exports to Europe because you think that will stop Europe from taking advantage of the U.S. economically. But have you thought about how tariffs usually work? They're typically used to make imports more expensive, so they protect local industries from foreign competition. If you're putting tariffs on what you export then aren't you just making it harder for American businesses to sell overseas? That could actually help European industries by reducing competition from the U.S., and not actually hurt them. So I'm curious how you see that helping American companies. Can you walk me through your thinking on that?

2. You believe the U.S. should leave NATO because European countries have been relying too much on American military power and haven’t been doing enough to build up their own defenses. But if the goal was to push Europe to become more self-reliant, why didn’t the U.S. give a formal announcement two to five years in advance? That kind of notice would have given European nations time to prepare and invest in their own militaries instead of being caught off guard and if this move wasn’t intended to be aggressive or hostile toward Europe, how do you explain the U.S. turning around and forming closer ties with Russia? Russia has a long and consistent track record of military aggression in Europe. So I’m wondering how that fits with the idea of encouraging European independence while supposedly still supporting peace and security?

3. You argue that Europe can't build up its military because it spends too much on social safety nets. But I'm trying to understand why you think those two things can't exist side by side. There are plenty of examples of countries with strong militaries that also have robust social programs. So why, in your view, does Europe have to choose between defense and supporting its own citizens? The fact that there are countries where both can co-exist seems to suggest that it's possible to do both. And when you criticize Europe for this supposed trade-off, do you also apply the same logic to the U.S.? Because the U.S. has massive military spending, yet it struggles with things like healthcare access, infrastructure, and affordability of basic needs. So is the issue really about Europe's priorities, or is it more about how any government chooses to allocate its resources? It sounds like blaming social programs is a convenient way to write off Europe's approach, but it doesn’t hold up when you look at what countries are actually doing. I’m genuinely interested in how you reconcile all of that.

4. You’ve said that European countries were foolish or weak for still relying on Russian gas after the invasion of Ukraine. But I’m wondering if you’ve thought about how complicated it actually is to cut off energy supply chains on short notice. These aren’t just switches you flip. Entire industries, national grids, and millions of households depend on those pipelines. Shutting them off overnight isn’t just difficult, it could cause economic collapse or even put lives at risk. It’s easy to criticize in hindsight, but can you honestly say that your own country would have done things differently if it had been just as dependent? And even if leaders wanted to cut ties with Russian gas immediately, they still needed time to find alternatives, build infrastructure, and secure new contracts. That’s not about weakness, that’s about managing a crisis responsibly. So I’m curious, when you say Europe should’ve just stopped using Russian gas right away, what exactly do you think the realistic alternative was? Do you believe energy independence happens in weeks or are you just looking for an excuse to sound tough after the fact?

5. You seem to have a real issue with the fact that European countries have social safety nets. But I don’t get why it bothers you so much. If you believe that not having those kinds of systems works better for your country, then fair enough. No one’s stopping you from living that way. So why are you so quick to mock or insult countries that choose to do things differently? What difference does it actually make to you if another country decides to provide healthcare, education, or housing support to its people? It’s not your money, not your system, and not your government. If Europeans are happy with the way their countries function, why does that get under your skin? You say it makes them weak, but weak compared to what? And even if you think their model is flawed, do you really gain anything by constantly ridiculing it instead of just focusing on what works for you?

I was just thinking that the Dear Leader has just given the world to China.

China has money and can for example invest in us Europoors, buying for example what the USians will not buy, even totally replacing them.

Moreover, China is not openly our enemy.

Opinions?

Good on ya dad!