- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Be interesting to see how Trump’s support falls…
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
This is a nothing burger. And Putin knows it. Trump is pro Russian / anti-Ukraine. Trump will forget about it in 5 minutes. Putin knows that he is the dominant figure in the relationship. He was asserting his dominance and reminding Trump that he has dirt on him — just as he did when he released naked pictures of Melania after a phone call with Trump didn’t go as well as he liked.
Give it a couple days and Trump will be back to gargling Putin’s balls. He’ll probably lift the sanctions on Russia soon and make up some BS excuse to blame it on Ukraine.
Just take a wider view of the relationship. And when you view things through the lens of Trump being pro Russian / anti-Europe, you will realize this is just a bit of temporary theater.
I really hope I turn out to be wrong about this. You’re welcome to bookmark this and remind me that I was wrong about this. I will gladly admit I was wrong if that turns out to be the case. But it’s highly unlikely Trump will do anything but support Russia in the long run (or even the near term).
This is like if Mussolini got irritated by Hitler. At the end of the day they are on the same side, so it will blow over. I’d even go so far as to say that in Trump will eventually try to sanction the EU or European countries rather than Russia. Bookmark that too. Again, I hope I turn out to be wrong. But I can see that happening with this adminstration.
NO MALARKEY
-
No Malarkey, my ass. Schiff had proof on Trump too. So did Hillary. How’d that turn out? All BS. . . .That’s what this Trump Russia stuff is. . ..
-
No Malarkey, my ass. Schiff had proof on Trump too. So did Hillary. How’d that turn out? All BS. . . .That’s what this Trump Russia stuff is.
Let’s add Jim Baker to that mess. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. He was DGC at Twitter when they held back on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Very effective Democratic operative, I’m sure Malarkey-is-welcome-at-all-times is pleased with his efforts.
Schiff was censured by Congress for claiming he had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. If he wasn’t in Congress, he’d likely be liable for libel, but of course, Congress exempts itself from these laws.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
-
Obviously I’m speculating. But what else would explain Trump’s obsequious behavior and pro Russian politics. I suppose he’s just a willing Russian stooge, which is worse. At least he would have an excuse if Putin had some dirt on him.
Trump said he’s “pissed off”. I guess that’s not obsequious. But it’s about the least threatening choice of words I can imagine. Let’s see if Trump actually stands up to Putin or if he continues bending over backwards for him.
NO MALARKEY
-
-
-
Obviously I’m speculating. But what else would explain Trump’s obsequious behavior and pro Russian politics. I suppose he’s just a willing Russian stooge, which is worse. At least he would have an excuse if Putin had some dirt on him. Trump said he’s “pissed off”. I guess that’s not obsequious. But it’s about the least threatening choice of words I can imagine. Let’s see if Trump actually stands up to Putin or if he continues bending over backwards for him.
I’m trying to square your last comment with the fact that the Americans and the West have over 16,500 separate sanctions on Russia, which Trump has not lifted a finger to remove or reduce. Russia’s economy is declining and Putin is desperate for relief.
You have a curious definition of “not standing up to” and “continues bending over backwards for…”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
You have a curious definition of “not standing up to” and “continues bending over backwards for…”
Where do I begin? I will have to post more another time, but just look at the latest economic “plan”. He put tariffs on most of the world, but (surprise) he left off Russia and it’s pet — Belarus. But sure enough, he put tariffs on Ukraine. Because of course he did.
Of course, you could say he didn’t need to put tariffs on Russia or Belarus because we hardly trade with them. But that explanation flies out the window when you see that he put tariffs on Nauru — that tiny island of a few thousand poor people that have almost zero GDP and no trade. He even imposed tariffs on an island inhabited mostly by American soldiers.
NO MALARKEY
-
You have a curious definition of “not standing up to” and “continues bending over backwards for…”
Where do I begin? I will have to post more another time, but just look at the latest economic “plan”. He put tariffs on most of the world, but (surprise) he left off Russia and it’s pet — Belarus. But sure enough, he put tariffs on Ukraine. Because of course he did. Of course, you could say he didn’t need to put tariffs on Russia or Belarus because we hardly trade with them. But that explanation flies out the window when you see that he put tariffs on Nauru — that tiny island of a few thousand poor people that have almost zero GDP and no trade. He even imposed tariffs on an island inhabited mostly by American soldiers.
But…you didn’t know this when I posted. Wondered why it took you so long to respond…
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
You have a curious definition of “not standing up to” and “continues bending over backwards for…”
Where do I begin? I will have to post more another time, but just look at the latest economic “plan”. He put tariffs on most of the world, but (surprise) he left off Russia and it’s pet — Belarus. But sure enough, he put tariffs on Ukraine. Because of course he did. Of course, you could say he didn’t need to put tariffs on Russia or Belarus because we hardly trade with them. But that explanation flies out the window when you see that he put tariffs on Nauru — that tiny island of a few thousand poor people that have almost zero GDP and no trade. He even imposed tariffs on an island inhabited mostly by American soldiers.
I’ve been watching Democrats complain about the tariffs for a few weeks now. Tell me, who said this:
“It’s proper for advanced economies like the United States to introduce reciprocity with countries that are no longer poor countries, like China to make sure they’re providing access to their markets” and “the average tariff on Chinese goods is 2% whereas the average tariff on American goods coming into China is 35%. Chinese trade is a job loser (for Americans).”
If you guessed Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, you’d be correct.
Democrats condemn Trump on many things, but internally, they agree on his trade policy. Trump has always been more aligned with Democrats than Republicans on trade. Lefty Dems criticized NAFTA for years for the same arguments that Trump made.
Fundamentally…and this is something that lawyers and Democrats don’t understand…it’s a negotiating tactic. That’s it. You have to put meaning and substance behind it, which Trump is doing. Some countries (Switzerland and Vietnam) are already caving. We’ve always treated the huge American market as a gift for the rest of the world, while the rest of the world screws us. Finally, a businessman who knows how to negotiate.
Democrats align with Trump on trade policy
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.