The WH still does not know how tariffs work… embarrassing and hurting our country

[LRA Dawg]

I think a main motivation of the tariffs is Trump wanting to hang on to the blue collar working man vote. That demographic was a difference maker in his elections and took a voting bloc away from the Democrats.

He has appointed union friendly people in the department of Labor and has not made them an attack target like most other agencies. The tariffs will support job security for that group and retain their loyalty.

 

[willdup]

1. That is actual fentanyl seized at the Canadian border. Did you see the 119 lbs from a lab busted in British Columbia? That's what had just been produced. There was also precursor for more.

2. If there is not a robust and technology-driven surveillance of the border, how can anybody possible know that there is not more coming across? You can't.

3. Part of the reason most of it came from the south is because it was largely easier to get it to Mexico and the border was a literal sieve.

3. Here's the logical kicker: If we largely secure the southern border and don't make serious adjustments to enforcement of the northern border then cartels, China, and others could easily escalate northern methods.

Canada has a growing domestic production, in addition to the growing potential from other sources with a rural border areas providing ample opportunity for smuggling. Why wait until this becomes a much bigger problem? It's proactive.



Something can be about more than one thing.



You may disagree, but it's hardly "nonsense".

It’s nonsense.

1) We seized 19,600lbs of fentanyl in the US last year. Are you really suggesting that a multi-billion dollar trade war that risks driving our economy into recession and causes long term damage to our relationship with our largest trading partner is justified over 42lbs or 119lbs? That’s insanity.

2) So now we are arguing hypotheticals? Anything is possible, but decisions should be based on facts and data, and there is no data suggesting that this is a huge problem. Expecting zero illicit drugs to cross that border is totally unrealistic. So what’s a reasonable target?

3) Sure. But Canada committed to enhanced border enforcement in December. If we want even more, we should say “do this and we will end the trade war” but that’s not the rhetoric we are getting from Trump now. It’s all about the US “getting ripped off”.

Remember that the horrible existing trade deal that Trump keeps criticizing was literally negotiated and signed by him in his first term and you guys can’t even offer up a modicum of criticism for that absurdity.

Color me shocked that AI spits out an anti-Trump policy explanation about taxes. I’m assuming it will support the “rich need to pay their fair share” argument too.

That’s an odd comment and I have no idea what you are basing it off of. I asked ChatGPT “all other factors being equal, are income taxes more inflationary than tariffs?”.

I didn’t mention Trump and neither did the answer. Good AI is not inherently biased, but if you engage with it in a biased way in a single thread it can pick up on that and start mirroring your bias, left or right. As you can see, that’s not the case here.

 

[Lava-Man]

It’s nonsense.

1) We seized 19,600lbs of fentanyl in the US last year. Are you really suggesting that a multi-billion dollar trade war that risks driving our economy into recession and causes long term damage to our relationship with our largest trading partner is justified over 42lbs or 119lbs? That’s insanity.

2) So now we are arguing hypotheticals? Anything is possible, but decisions should be based on facts and data, and there is no data suggesting that this is a huge problem. Expecting zero illicit drugs to cross that border is totally unrealistic. So what’s a reasonable target?

3) Sure. But Canada committed to enhanced border enforcement in December. If we want even more, we should say “do this and we will end the trade war” but that’s not the rhetoric we are getting from Trump now. It’s all about the US “getting ripped off”.

Remember that the horrible existing trade deal that Trump keeps criticizing was literally negotiated and signed by him in his first term and you guys can’t even offer up a modicum of criticism for that absurdity.

I'm arguing that fentanyl is a huge problem. What could be next? China trying to push it into the US isn't a coincidence. I'm arguing that getting ahead of a problem that's more than a hypothetical is a big deal. Surveillance technology has had exponential advances. A secure northern border is a smart thing. I also think it's clear that most of what Trump is pushing is economic in nature. But, doing more to seal a northern sieve is inherently a good thing. Why is proactive leadership frowned upon? Oh, that's right. Trump. Come on, man.

 

[willdup]

I'm arguing that fentanyl is a huge problem. What could be next? China trying to push it into the US isn't a coincidence. I'm arguing that getting ahead of a problem that's more than a hypothetical is a big deal. Surveillance technology has had exponential advances. A secure northern border is a smart thing. I also think it's clear that most of what Trump is pushing is economic in nature. But, doing more to seal a northern sieve is inherently a good thing. Why is proactive leadership frowned upon? Oh, that's right. Trump. Come on, man.

Fentanyl is bad. Border security is good. Ok. You are really bringing the provocative positions tonight.

Home theft is bad. So by your logic, I should build a wall around my house, put metal bars on the windows, have trained attack dogs and maybe hire a private security firm to constantly patrol the grounds. That should reduce the potential for robbery to near zero.

It’d make a similar argument regarding gun violence and how to reduce that, but that would probably cloud the issue.

All of these things are about a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. 500lbs of fentanyl entering the country is horrible and we should make every reasonable effort to prevent it from happening. Demanding that Canada implement a mechanism to prevent even a few hundred pounds of anything from crossing the border isn’t reasonable and it has nothing to do with Trump.

Just like this entire issue has nothing to do with the latest tariffs. Trump wants Canada to be the 51st state and he’s trying to bully them. I know this because he and his administration are open about it.

Please ignore the tweet commentary and focus on the videos. Thank you.

 

[willdup]

Color me shocked that AI spits out an anti-Trump policy explanation about taxes. I’m assuming it will support the “rich need to pay their fair share” argument too.

Here is Elon’s own AI, Grok, proving that it is unbiased.

 

[Lava-Man]

Fentanyl is bad. Border security is good. Ok. You are really bringing the provocative positions tonight.

Home theft is bad. So by your logic, I should build a wall around my house, put metal bars on the windows, have trained attack dogs and maybe hire a private security firm to constantly patrol the grounds. That should reduce the potential for robbery to near zero.

It’d make a similar argument regarding gun violence and how to reduce that, but that would probably cloud the issue.

All of these things are about a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. 500lbs of fentanyl entering the country is horrible and we should make every reasonable effort to prevent it from happening. Demanding that Canada implement a mechanism to prevent even a few hundred pounds of anything from crossing the border isn’t reasonable and it has nothing to do with Trump.

Just like this entire issue has nothing to do with the latest tariffs. Trump wants Canada to be the 51st state and he’s trying to bully them. I know this because he and his administration are open about it.

Please ignore the tweet commentary and focus on the videos. Thank you.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Your entire response us ridiculous, including any argument that Canadian statehood is a serious goal. Enjoy your evening.

 

[Utley1992]

We might add about that life changing event - A USAID clandestine genome change from altering Virus genes produced from Obama regime gain of function off the books perfidious research in China.

If I thought it was beneficial to do so, I would actually envy yalls ability to just make up facts and believe them as gospel. It's honestly impressive.

 

[Cayle16]

Canada will fold like a lawn chair soon and show how weak they are. They either fold or bring their economy into a depression.

 

[Cayle16]

Your entire response is ridiculous, including any argument that Canadian statehood is a serious goal. Enjoy your evening.

No it’s more like home theft is bad but we should just allow to the most dangerous terrorists groups in the world to move into our subdivisions and walk through our property daily while dropping drugs on our property for our kids to take. GTFOOH. Enjoy the next 12 years.

 

[willdup]

Your entire response us ridiculous, including any argument that Canadian statehood is a serious goal. Enjoy your evening.

Trump, his Treasury Secretary, his Secretary of Defense, his Press Secretary and others have repeatedly stated that making Canada the 51st state is a serious policy goal, although Rubio looked deeply embarrassed to have to acknowledge that.

It seems you are suggesting that publicly and repeatedly insulting, mocking and belittling our close allies to bend them to our will is core to the Trump doctrine of diplomacy. I can’t think of a single example of where that approach has been used, much less successfully used, by the US or any other country in history. This isn’t a NJ casino deal and national pride is about a lot more than economics.

Either Trump is a deeply unserious leader or, as he says, he has expansionist plans that haven’t been a part of our vision of America for at least a hundred and twenty five years and that go directly against what we have stood for as a global leader during that same time.

Of course, both of the above can be true as well…

Again, please focus on the video only.

 

[willdup]

No it’s more like home theft is bad but we should just allow to the most dangerous terrorists groups in the world to move into our subdivisions and walk through our property daily while dropping drugs on our property for our kids to take. GTFOOH. Enjoy the next 12 years.

Do you even do the simplest research on a topic before forming strongly held opinions? I’m guessing not.

Given Canada announced a comprehensive border security and drug interdiction program back in December, your analogy is as nonsensical as the rest of this argument. In fact, the one item that Trump requested that wasn’t already in process was the appointment of a Fentanyl Czar, something Canada did shortly after Trump requested it.

You can say we need even more, but suggesting that the issue is entirely unaddressed is political propaganda.

Government of Canada announces its plan to strengthen border security and our immigration system - Canada.ca

Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs, along with the Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Honourable Ya'ara Saks, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, released...

www.canada.ca

 

[MillDawg]

You guys love some China, your friend doesn't have to buy the product from China. No one is forcing him to buy it or pay a tariff.

that's the key, make it more competitive for OUR manufacturing and OUR jobs here in the good ole USofA

 

[Utley1992]

No it’s more like home theft is bad but we should just allow to the most dangerous terrorists groups in the world to move into our subdivisions and walk through our property daily while dropping drugs on our property for our kids to take.

One of the way fascist propaganda works is it prays of the fears of a majority population by creating a narrative of an "other" group, almost always a minority, that is coming into their community to destroy their values and even kill their kids. They do this so they can scare a population enough into first giving up their rights, but also removing the rights and even killing the rights of the minority group. Everything in your comment is a textbook example of this.

It's fear mongering. No one is coming to give drugs to your shitty kids expect for his friends. Drug cartels aren't dumb. They know not to **** with the suburbs l bc that would mean all holy hell waged against them. They don't **** with American citizens on our soil in general. And they're certainly not dropping weight randomly in your back yard.


And I'm not accusing you of intentionally spreading propaganda, I think you're a victim of it. You're a victim of propaganda mate. Don't let it destroy you.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Fentanyl is bad. Border security is good. Ok. You are really bringing the provocative positions tonight.

Home theft is bad. So by your logic, I should build a wall around my house, put metal bars on the windows, have trained attack dogs and maybe hire a private security firm to constantly patrol the grounds. That should reduce the potential for robbery to near zero.

It’d make a similar argument regarding gun violence and how to reduce that, but that would probably cloud the issue.

All of these things are about a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. 500lbs of fentanyl entering the country is horrible and we should make every reasonable effort to prevent it from happening. Demanding that Canada implement a mechanism to prevent even a few hundred pounds of anything from crossing the border isn’t reasonable and it has nothing to do with Trump.

Just like this entire issue has nothing to do with the latest tariffs. Trump wants Canada to be the 51st state and he’s trying to bully them. I know this because he and his administration are open about it.

Please ignore the tweet commentary and focus on the videos. Thank you.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Liesman is probably the most outwardly biased guys on CNBC....along with Andrew Ross Sorkin. Especially during Covid. He can jam out on some Dead though.

Trump is gonna say what he's gonna say. He knows 100% that Canada will never be a State. I do think his rhetoric has emboldened his opposition there, which risks more escalation in a trade War, because the Canadian people will be willing to endure more pain out of national Pride. And that was a mistake, but not one that will really cost us. I think the whole tariff negotiation will work out in our favor. That said, if there is one place where I will lay some criticism....it is Canada. Ultimately, where it lands is that we will use tariffs to truly change the steel, aluminum, and auto markets. Those will stick. Everything else will be negotiated to a place where the tariff gap will land slightly in our favor relative to pre-election. Ultimately, trade wars end with the country who has a trade deficit (the US) winning.

 

[willdup]

Liesman is probably the most outwardly biased guys on CNBC....along with Andrew Ross Sorkin. Especially during Covid. He can jam out on some Dead though.

Trump is gonna say what he's gonna say. He knows 100% that Canada will never be a State. I do think his rhetoric has emboldened his opposition there, which risks more escalation in a trade War, because the Canadian people will be willing to endure more pain out of national Pride. And that was a mistake, but not one that will really cost us. I think the whole tariff negotiation will work out in our favor. That said, if there is one place where I will lay some criticism....it is Canada. Ultimately, where it lands is that we will use tariffs to truly change the steel, aluminum, and auto markets. Those will stick. Everything else will be negotiated to a place where the tariff gap will land slightly in our favor relative to pre-election. Ultimately, trade wars end with the country who has a trade deficit (the US) winning.

The WSJ seems to agree with Liesman, but whatever.

The rhetoric out of the administration has been very consistent regarding annexation. If it's all posturing, it's the most inexplicably stupid diplomatic posturing perhaps in the history of the country. It serves no purpose and makes reaching the trade agreements you suggest this is actually all about much more difficult.

If you look at the history of trade wars, very often all of the participants lose.

At some point, you may be required to acknowledge that Trump actually means what he says, and his words should be taken as such. I would argue that, given his personality and the multiple direct daily communications allowed via social media, Trump may be the most transparent President we've ever had. If so, that means he wants to annex Canada and Greenland, and it means he really believes that tariffs are a magic money machine with no downside, both of which are highly concerning for a multitude of reasons.

 

[willdup]

Liesman is probably the most outwardly biased guys on CNBC....along with Andrew Ross Sorkin. Especially during Covid. He can jam out on some Dead though.

Trump is gonna say what he's gonna say. He knows 100% that Canada will never be a State. I do think his rhetoric has emboldened his opposition there, which risks more escalation in a trade War, because the Canadian people will be willing to endure more pain out of national Pride. And that was a mistake, but not one that will really cost us. I think the whole tariff negotiation will work out in our favor. That said, if there is one place where I will lay some criticism....it is Canada. Ultimately, where it lands is that we will use tariffs to truly change the steel, aluminum, and auto markets. Those will stick. Everything else will be negotiated to a place where the tariff gap will land slightly in our favor relative to pre-election. Ultimately, trade wars end with the country who has a trade deficit (the US) winning.

If this is posturing, to what end?

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

If this is posturing, to what end?

View embedded media

View embedded media

1) Some kind of interest or more US access to Greenland. Geographically really important for national security, and apparently a very high ROI if we were to acquire it or acquire rights to mine it.

2) A better trade deal for the US. I don't really understand the 51st State chatter, other than it makes the point that Canada's economy is super reliant on the US. Not helpful......but again, the outcome will be a better overall balance in tariffs between the countries, and policy that favors American auto manufacturers and American Steel Companies.

 

[Moosefish]

It’s nonsense.

Not intentionally being a jackass: have you considered that there might be intelligence indicating this is a potential threat worth spending political capital on? Especially if you ran on "fixing" the fentanyl crisis?

Probably worth considering, from a theoretical standpoint.

 

[DawglegrightinSC]

Your entire response us ridiculous, including any argument that Canadian statehood is a serious goal. Enjoy your evening.

You are arguing with people who not only voted for Biden but defended him for 4 years.

 

[atlanta cock#]

If this is posturing, to what end?

View embedded media

View embedded media

Quoting Rupar? Seriously?

 

[Cayle16]

Do you even do the simplest research on a topic before forming strongly held opinions? I’m guessing not.

Given Canada announced a comprehensive border security and drug interdiction program back in December, your analogy is as nonsensical as the rest of this argument. In fact, the one item that Trump requested that wasn’t already in process was the appointment of a Fentanyl Czar, something Canada did shortly after Trump requested it.

You can say we need even more, but suggesting that the issue is entirely unaddressed is political propaganda.

Government of Canada announces its plan to strengthen border security and our immigration system - Canada.ca

Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs, along with the Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Honourable Ya'ara Saks, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, released...

www.canada.ca

Have they fixed the number reason being letting people in on higher education VISA’s and then those people never enrolling and disappearing? Have they followed through with anything in that plan yet?

 

[DawglegrightinSC]

One of the way fascist propaganda works is it prays of the fears of a majority population by creating a narrative of an "other" group, almost always a minority, that is coming into their community to destroy their values and even kill their kids. They do this so they can scare a population enough into first giving up their rights, but also removing the rights and even killing the rights of the minority group. Everything in your comment is a textbook example of this.

It's fear mongering. No one is coming to give drugs to your shitty kids expect for his friends. Drug cartels aren't dumb. They know not to **** with the suburbs l bc that would mean all holy hell waged against them. They don't **** with American citizens on our soil in general. And they're certainly not dropping weight randomly in your back yard.


And I'm not accusing you of intentionally spreading propaganda, I think you're a victim of it. You're a victim of propaganda mate. Don't let it destroy you.

 

[washdog]

I think a main motivation of the tariffs is Trump wanting to hang on to the blue collar working man vote. That demographic was a difference maker in his elections and took a voting bloc away from the Democrats.

He has appointed union friendly people in the department of Labor and has not made them an attack target like most other agencies. The tariffs will support job security for that group and retain their loyalty.

Buy america keep people working is a good idea. we should never let it happen to start with. maybe if other countries pais their workers enought live on they could buy their on shit. Why do you think all these people want sell their stuff here. We have a lot can buy problem people who lose their job can't buy much. I am for America and really give give a damn who doesn;t like it

 

[Utley1992]

Not intentionally being a jackass: have you considered that there might be intelligence indicating this is a potential threat worth spending political capital on? Especially if you ran on "fixing" the fentanyl crisis?

Probably worth considering, from a theoretical standpoint.

I mean, hypotheticals are hypotheticals. You can't base an argument off of hypotheticals bc you could say anything and everything could hypothetically be true. What's more important is what can be demonstrated, and that's that Trump has been very clear about his desire to annex both Canada and Greenland. While also designating the cartels as a terrorist organization and a national security threat.

Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists

DESIGNATING CARTELS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS By the authority vested in me as

www.whitehouse.gov

Now, he's building a narrative that we have a drug problem coming in from the same border that he wants to annex. All of the pieces are there to set up an invasion. Will he ultimately invade? God I hope not, but the pretext is getting established. And there is way more to support this than just guessing it could be something different.

 

[Moosefish]

I mean, hypotheticals are hypotheticals. You can't base an argument off of hypotheticals bc you could say anything and everything could hypothetically be true. What's more important is what can be demonstrated, and that's that Trump has been very clear about his desire to annex both Canada and Greenland. While also designating the cartels as a terrorist organization and a national security threat.

Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists

DESIGNATING CARTELS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS By the authority vested in me as

www.whitehouse.gov

Now, he's building a narrative that we have a drug problem coming in from the same border that he wants to annex. All of the pieces are there to set up an invasion. Will he ultimately invade? God I hope not, but the pretext is getting established. And there is way more to support this than just guessing it could be something different.

To be more direct: it is highly likely that he has more than a hypothetical reason.

Your invasion scenario is silly and I'm not going to engage with that.

 

[Utley1992]

To be more direct: it is highly likely that he has more than a hypothetical reason.

Your invasion scenario is silly and I'm not going to engage with that.

Is a threat to annex a country a potential act of war? Yes or no?

 

[willdup]

Is a threat to annex a country a potential act of war to threaten to annex a country? Yes or no?

The degree of excuse-making for what is, by any reasonable or historical measure, deranged and un-American rhetoric coming from a modern POTUS is going to reach epic proportions.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

The degree of excuse-making for what is, by any reasonable or historical measure, deranged and un-American rhetoric coming from a modern POTUS is going to reach epic proportions.

Yep - I would prefer a President who stumbles through poll-tested speeches read on teleprompters......talking "tough" on Putin and Netanyahu.........so "Presidential"...the results:

-Hamas / Hezbollah / Taliban / Houtis attacking Israelis and Americans.
-The bloodiest War in Europe since WWII
-Zero peace deals on either

Much better than being offended by off the cuff words from the Prez, and open dialogue / engagement.....including engagement with our enemies. The results:

-Peace in the Middle East and the return of hostages
-Peace in Europe maybe as early as this weekend

 

[Utley1992]

The degree of excuse-making for what is, by any reasonable or historical measure, deranged and un-American rhetoric coming from a modern POTUS is going to reach epic proportions.

I honestly don't know what their breaking point is either. The markets are crashing, we've pissed off every single ally, and we're making threats of war against our bordering countries. And it's all just speculation that what's happening isn't what's happening

 

[Moosefish]

Is a threat to annex a country a potential act of war? Yes or no?

No, it's diplomatic posturing. Was it an act of war when Biden said re: Putin that “this man cannot remain in power”? That certainly be argued as one, using your same standard. Even during the cold war, everyone avoided direct calls for a leader’s removal. That statement risked escalation and undermined Russia’s sovereignty.

It’s rhetorical bluster that lacked military intent or feasibility vs. a statement directly targeting a clear opponent (who we were supplying offensive arms against!) that implied regime change. That's a historically war-linked action. However, my personal opinion is that it was for similar reasons to Trump's statements: verbal bluster by both men.

I think it's silly to hyperventilate over rhetoric that's clearly posturing. The multiple scenarios you have expressed concern over are never going to happen. The reaction to everything Trump says or does by many is like a perpetual version of the Vent on gameday when the other team gets a long first down on their first drive. Sober thought goes out the window, which is why (as I said above, but am somewhat violating in this post), I will not engage further on. It's not worth the time I would I would spend on it, to me. I'd much rather spend it on subjects that are not completely and totally implausible.

 

[Utley1992]

No, it's diplomatic posturing. Was it an act of war when Biden said re: Putin that “this man cannot remain in power”? That certainly be argued as one, using your same standard. Even during the cold war, everyone avoided direct calls for a leader’s removal. That statement risked escalation and undermined Russia’s sovereignty.

It’s rhetorical bluster that lacked military intent or feasibility vs. a statement directly targeting a clear opponent (who we were supplying offensive arms against!) that implied regime change. That's a historically war-linked action. However, my personal opinion is that it wasn't for similar reasons to Trump's statements: verbal bluster by both men.

I think it's silly to hyperventilate over rhetoric that's clearly posturing. The multiple scenarios you have expressed concern over are never going to happen. The reaction to everything Trump says or does by many is like a perpetual version of the Vent on gameday when the other team gets a long first down on their first drive. Sober thought goes out the window, which is why (as I said above, but am somewhat violating in this post), I will not engage further on. It's not worth the time I would I would spend on it, to me. I'd much rather spend it on subjects that are not completely and totally implausible.

You may think it's silly to literally take Trump at his word, but he has stated over and over again that he wants to annex Canada and Greenland. He even said in front of Congess that he will take Greenland one way or the other. At some point it's important to take the most powerful person in the world's threats seriously. Even if he doesn't invade Canada. He's completely burned our relationship with our closest ally, and virtually all of the EU. If it's just "diplomatic posturing" it's the worst diplomacy in American history.

 

[55dawg]

Not intentionally being a jackass: have you considered that there might be intelligence indicating this is a potential threat worth spending political capital on? Especially if you ran on "fixing" the fentanyl crisis?

Probably worth considering, from a theoretical standpoint.

Had the same thought. But the truth is I don’t have enough knowledge on the issue to argue either side. Nonevof us do (which is basically the point you’re making). The left uses the small amount of fentanyl seized as an indication there’s not a problem. The opposite argument could also be made.

 

[willdup]

No, it's diplomatic posturing. Was it an act of war when Biden said re: Putin that “this man cannot remain in power”? That certainly be argued as one, using your same standard. Even during the cold war, everyone avoided direct calls for a leader’s removal. That statement risked escalation and undermined Russia’s sovereignty.

It’s rhetorical bluster that lacked military intent or feasibility vs. a statement directly targeting a clear opponent (who we were supplying offensive arms against!) that implied regime change. That's a historically war-linked action. However, my personal opinion is that it wasn't for similar reasons to Trump's statements: verbal bluster by both men.

I think it's silly to hyperventilate over rhetoric that's clearly posturing. The multiple scenarios you have expressed concern over are never going to happen. The reaction to everything Trump says or does by many is like a perpetual version of the Vent on gameday when the other team gets a long first down on their first drive. Sober thought goes out the window, which is why (as I said above, but am somewhat violating in this post), I will not engage further on. It's not worth the time I would I would spend on it, to me. I'd much rather spend it on subjects that are not completely and totally implausible.

On what are you baseing your opinion that it's all diplomatic posturing? It seems based on the fact that actually wanting to do what he keeps saying over and over again that he wants to do would be outrageous, inappropriate and unamerican, so he couldn't possibly mean what he says. If so, my comment would be that it is outrageous, inappropriate and unamerican for the entire administration to be echoing that messaging every opportunity they have, reinforcing the clarity of our intent.

There is no diplomatic justification for threatening and belittling a long-time ally and trading partner for no discernable reason. None. It gets you nothing but intransigence and ire, which will not move us toward a mutually beneficial agreement.

Before the election, many Trump voters dismissed the rhetoric about the J6 convicted felons being heroes and victims, as well as Trump's promises to pardon even the worst of them. It was just rhetoric and posturing. Did Trump mean exactly what he was saying, and did he follow through on his promises? What we hear from Trump supporters now on the topic is some combination of silence and excuse making for what is an inexcusable act to praise, justify and reward political violence.

Stop suggesting we can't take the POTUS at his word. It's quite the opposite. We should believe what he says and judge his leadership accordingly.

 

[Moosefish]

You may think it's silly to literally take Trump at his word, but he has stated over and over again that he wants to annex Canada and Greenland. He even said in front of Congess that he will take Greenland one way or the other. At some point it's important to take the most powerful person in the world's threats seriously. Even if he doesn't invade Canada. He's completely burned our relationship with our closest ally, and virtually all of the EU. If it's just "diplomatic posturing" it's the worst diplomacy in American history.

1. Trump’s talk is classic bluster, not a serious plan. It’s unfeasible and his history shows rhetoric that outstrips action. Relations with Canada and the EU are strained, not shattered and diplomacy has dozens of examples that adapt to far worse. There are even concrete examples of both words and actions I can provide during Biden's admin with France, Germany, Poland, Saudi Arabia, AND Canada and Mexico.

Treating this as a real threat buys into hype with zero critical thinking.

2. It’s hypocrisy to take Trump’s every word at face value while giving other politicians a pass. It's an illogical selective standard.

A. If Trump saying “I’ll take Greenland one way or another” is treated as a serious threat, then consistency demands interpreting:

- Biden’s “end fossil fuel” as a literal plan to obliterate the oil industry overnight
- AOC’s “world ends in 12 years” as a call to brace for imminent apocalypse.

Hyperbolic rhetoric is used to provoke, inspire, or signal intent. But cherry-picking Trump’s words for dire predictions while dismissing similar overreach from others is bias, not reason.

B. The double standard hinges on intent and context, which are conveniently ignored for Trump but assumed for others. Trump’s is often theatrical, aimed at headlines or base-rallying, yet critics frame it as policy gospel. However, Bernie’s “billionaires shouldn’t exist” gets a shrug as populist flair, not a purge mandate, because his supporters and others infer nuance.

C. Why does Trump’s history temper the freak-outs, but when Obama’s 2014 warning to Russia that ‘there will be costs’ over Ukraine gets seen as tough talk, not a literal promise to start a war ? Obama's admin had a long history of starting or massively expanding conflicts that Trump's didn't: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, & Pakistan.

D. There is a long history of Trump not receiving the same latitude given to others. Either all rhetoric gets taken literally or none does. Picking and choosing based on who’s speaking is politics masquerading as analysis.

 

[Moosefish]

On what are you baseing your opinion that it's all diplomatic posturing? It seems based on the fact that actually wanting to do what he keeps saying over and over again that he wants to do would be outrageous, inappropriate and unamerican, so he couldn't possibly mean what he says. If so, my comment would be that it is outrageous, inappropriate and unamerican for the entire administration to be echoing that messaging every opportunity they have, reinforcing the clarity of our intent.

There is no diplomatic justification for threatening and belittling a long-time ally and trading partner for no discernable reason. None. It gets you nothing but intransigence and ire, which will not move us toward a mutually beneficial agreement.

Before the election, many Trump voters dismissed the rhetoric about the J6 convicted felons being heroes and victims, as well as Trump's promises to pardon even the worst of them. It was just rhetoric and posturing. Did Trump mean exactly what he was saying, and did he follow through on his promises? What we hear from Trump supporters now on the topic is some combination of silence and excuse making for what is an inexcusable act to praise, justify and reward political violence.

Stop suggesting we can't take the POTUS at his word. It's quite the opposite. We should believe what he says and judge his leadership accordingly.

So, then address my Biden example that you ignored. Unhinged threat that could start a nuclear war or not? What excuse will you make, using Utley's logic and yours? I'll address the rest of what you said. Might take me a while

 

[Utley1992]

1. Trump’s talk is classic bluster, not a serious plan. It’s unfeasible and his history shows rhetoric that outstrips action. Relations with Canada and the EU are strained, not shattered and diplomacy has dozens of examples that adapt to far worse. There are even concrete examples of both words and actions I can provide during Biden's admin with France, Germany, Poland, Saudi Arabia, AND Canada and Mexico.

Treating this as a real threat buys into hype with zero critical thinking.

2. It’s hypocrisy to take Trump’s every word at face value while giving other politicians a pass. It's an illogical selective standard.

A. If Trump saying “I’ll take Greenland one way or another” is treated as a serious threat, then consistency demands interpreting:

- Biden’s “end fossil fuel” as a literal plan to obliterate the oil industry overnight
- AOC’s “world ends in 12 years” as a call to brace for imminent apocalypse.

Hyperbolic rhetoric is used to provoke, inspire, or signal intent. But cherry-picking Trump’s words for dire predictions while dismissing similar overreach from others is bias, not reason.

B. The double standard hinges on intent and context, which are conveniently ignored for Trump but assumed for others. Trump’s is often theatrical, aimed at headlines or base-rallying, yet critics frame it as policy gospel. However, Bernie’s “billionaires shouldn’t exist” gets a shrug as populist flair, not a purge mandate, because his supporters and others infer nuance.

C. Why does Trump’s history temper the freak-outs, but when Obama’s 2014 warning to Russia that ‘there will be costs’ over Ukraine gets seen as tough talk, not a literal promise to start a war ? Obama's admin had a long history of starting or massively expanding conflicts that Trump's didn't: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, & Pakistan.

D. There is a long history of Trump not receiving the same latitude given to others. Either all rhetoric gets taken literally or none does. Picking and choosing based on who’s speaking is politics masquerading as analysis.

So, then address my Biden example that you ignored. Unhinged threat that could start a nuclear war or not? What excuse will you make, using Utley's logic and yours? I'll address the rest of what you said. Might take me a while

1. To answer the Biden question, it's a nonsensical comparison. One is, regardless of how hyperbolic you allege it is, is inherently an act of war. Claiming you want to take a countries resources and revoke their political sovereignty, is by definition an act of war. And that is by definition what annexation is. Constantly saying that you're 100% serious does nothing but add to the severity of the matter. You have a responsibility as an executive to not communicate in a way that doesn't project hostility to allies. Biden is discussing energy policies


2. Do you know who Steve Bannon is, and are you familiar with his concept of flooding the zone

 

[willdup]

So, then address my Biden example that you ignored. Unhinged threat that could start a nuclear war or not? What excuse will you make, using Utley's logic and yours? I'll address the rest of what you said. Might take me a while

Biden suggested regime change in the government of a belligerent state. It was inappropriate and, if memory serves, his administration walked it back immediately.

Trump has used a combination of enticements and threats to suggest that our ally and trading partner needs to become the 51st state multiple times, including referring to the Premier as “governor”. Perhaps even more importantly, his administration is formally echoing the same language, thus validating the intent.

That’s two wildly different situations.

 

[Moosefish]

On what are you baseing your opinion that it's all diplomatic posturing? It seems based on the fact that actually wanting to do what he keeps saying over and over again that he wants to do would be outrageous, inappropriate and unamerican, so he couldn't possibly mean what he says. If so, my comment would be that it is outrageous, inappropriate and unamerican for the entire administration to be echoing that messaging every opportunity they have, reinforcing the clarity of our intent.

There is no diplomatic justification for threatening and belittling a long-time ally and trading partner for no discernable reason. None. It gets you nothing but intransigence and ire, which will not move us toward a mutually beneficial agreement.

Before the election, many Trump voters dismissed the rhetoric about the J6 convicted felons being heroes and victims, as well as Trump's promises to pardon even the worst of them. It was just rhetoric and posturing. Did Trump mean exactly what he was saying, and did he follow through on his promises? What we hear from Trump supporters now on the topic is some combination of silence and excuse making for what is an inexcusable act to praise, justify and reward political violence.

Stop suggesting we can't take the POTUS at his word. It's quite the opposite. We should believe what he says and judge his leadership accordingly.

Look at Trump's 2018 tariffs on Canada: loud threats of economic ruin preceded the USMCA deal, a win for all.

His 2019 Greenland purchase pitch: dismissed as absurd, yet it sparked talks on US Arctic influence and continuation of that talk has had actual positive effects like Denmark's strengthening of their security presence around Greenland and other deals in the works.

Logic says annexation isn't realistic. It’s a negotiation starter, not an actual war plan, consistent with his pattern of flexing on allies for results. Trump's words can be justified as a strategic move to address imbalances.

It’s a calculated move to force realignment and protect national interests, risking short-term strain for long-term gain. Diplomacy isn’t about perpetual harmony, it’s about results. Diplomatic relationships exist to serve the interests of the nations involved.

The US has used blunt rhetoric or threats of trade penalties against allies in the past for specific outcomes...I can provide plenty of examples from multiple POTUS's. Diplomacy isn’t about perpetual harmony but about securing a nation’s interests and sometimes, a jolt to the relationship is the most effective way to achieve that.

Biden’s Putin remark that I referenced wasn’t branded a war declaration, yet Trump’s 2017 “fire and fury” to North Korea was treated as "dangerous". But, neither led to war. It was posturing.

You demand we take Trump literally, but what about Biden’s “MAGA Republicans threaten the very foundation of our republic” speech? Was that inciting violence against conservatives? Did Schumer’s “you will pay the price” to justices a literal threat (one dude took it as such, fwiw). Yet Trump’s words get “unamerican” labels.

The “believe his every word” standard ignore the actual results of his approach to getting things done...right or wrong, even if others' words aren't treated the same. My original point holds: it’s absurd to panic over one player’s bluster when the other’s gets a pass.

You can deny it does, but there is a history of others also hurting allied relationships for no clear diplomatic gain:

- Biden’s sub deal with Australia and the UK canceled a $66 billion French submarine contract with no prior warning. France recalled its ambassador. No gains at all with France (be careful citing economic gain is ok by pissing off a "friend")

- Biden’s remarks on Nord Stream 2, without talking to Germany first only pissed them off and gave no strategic win beyond public posturing

- Biden's dig in Ireland regarding Brexit upset the UK. Diplomatic benefit? None.

- What did Biden's "indiscriminate bombing" jab at Israel about Gaza do? It gave no diplomatic leverage and only inflamed them on an obviously emotional subject.

- Biden told the Saudis “there will be consequences” threat after they OPEC cut oil production. Nothing happened and again only upset them. Again, harsh words with no resulting diplomatic gain.

Should I go on? I have more Biden, but I have 8 years worth of the Obama administration I could dig into...and I haven't even started on words by admins...not just a POTUS.

Again, the double standard: Trump’s rhetoric gets dissected as uniquely dangerous, while others can jab allies for "reasons", yet they get a pass with less scrutiny, lack of tangible gain.

I'll make my own opinion perfectly clear: Diplomacy sometimes means hurting feelings. I don't actually disagree with some of the non-Trump examples I listed or still have in my back pocket. That's the game and not taking the long view is a poor approach.

Biden suggested regime change in the government of a belligerent state. It was inappropriate and, if memory serves, his administration walked it back immediately.

Trump has used a combination of enticements and threats to suggest that our ally and trading partner needs to become the 51st state multiple times, including referring to the Premier as “governor”. Perhaps even more importantly, his administration is formally echoing the same language, thus validating the intent.

That’s two wildly different situations.

Thank you for unintentionally making my point for me. Biden's words could have legitimately risked war, even if I think they were bluster, because Putin could have misread them during an obviously stressful moment during a war.

That's why admin walked them back. Trump's intent is to make a deal. You may not like the approach, which is fine. But, it's certainly not a serious intent to actually annex another country. I cannot describe to you how ludicrous that is.

It's diplomacy, right or wrong. But, both you and Utley are arguing that it signals actual intent. As I addressed above, that's a double standard.

1. To answer the Biden question, it's a nonsensical comparison. One is, regardless of how hyperbolic you allege it is, is inherently an act of war. Claiming you want to take a countries resources and revoke their political sovereignty, is by definition an act of war. And that is by definition what annexation is. Constantly saying that you're 100% serious does nothing but add to the severity of the matter. You have a responsibility as an executive to not communicate in a way that doesn't project hostility to allies. Biden is discussing energy policies


2. Do you know who Steve Bannon is, and are you familiar with his concept of flooding the zone

1. You're wrong. It's not an "inherent act of war". Really trying to avoid sounding arrogant (not my intent), but I have a literal Master's Degree in this. Context is everything. There are numerous other factors that would have to be present to make those words inherently an act of war. They aren't there.

You could argue they are escalatory...but, without additional escalatory actions, it's simply bluster. It's bargaining...right or wrong and whether you agree with using that approach or not.

2. Of course I know who he is. But, he has no role in Trump’s second term. Trump’s style predates Bannon’s idea. Did Saul Alinsky’s radical tactics influence Obama’s presidency? Bill Ayers? Michael Moore? Van Jones? Anita Dunn?

Biden and Linda Sarsour? Neera Tanden? RFK Jr?

Just because someone has ties to (or was even once a part of an administration) does not automatically mean they hold influence or a POTUS will adopt any idea or policy they put forth.


EDIT: Why am I spending this much time on my day off after working 12's all week for an exercise? 🤣

 

[Utley1992]

Look at Trump's 2018 tariffs on Canada: loud threats of economic ruin preceded the USMCA deal, a win for all.

His 2019 Greenland purchase pitch: dismissed as absurd, yet it sparked talks on US Arctic influence and continuation of that talk has had actual positive effects like Denmark's strengthening of their security presence around Greenland and other deals in the works.

Logic says annexation isn't realistic. It’s a negotiation starter, not an actual war plan, consistent with his pattern of flexing on allies for results. Trump's words can be justified as a strategic move to address imbalances.

It’s a calculated move to force realignment and protect national interests, risking short-term strain for long-term gain. Diplomacy isn’t about perpetual harmony, it’s about results. Diplomatic relationships exist to serve the interests of the nations involved.

The US has used blunt rhetoric or threats of trade penalties against allies in the past for specific outcomes...I can provide plenty of examples from multiple POTUS's. Diplomacy isn’t about perpetual harmony but about securing a nation’s interests and sometimes, a jolt to the relationship is the most effective way to achieve that.

Biden’s Putin remark that I referenced wasn’t branded a war declaration, yet Trump’s 2017 “fire and fury” to North Korea was treated as "dangerous". But, neither led to war. It was posturing.

You demand we take Trump literally, but what about Biden’s “MAGA Republicans threaten the very foundation of our republic” speech? Was that inciting violence against conservatives? Did Schumer’s “you will pay the price” to justices a literal threat (one dude took it as such, fwiw). Yet Trump’s words get “unamerican” labels.

The “believe his every word” standard ignore the actual results of his approach to getting things done...right or wrong, even if others' words aren't treated the same. My original point holds: it’s absurd to panic over one player’s bluster when the other’s gets a pass.

You can deny it does, but there is a history of others also hurting allied relationships for no clear diplomatic gain:

- Biden’s sub deal with Australia and the UK canceled a $66 billion French submarine contract with no prior warning. France recalled its ambassador. No gains at all with France (be careful citing economic gain is ok by pissing off a "friend")

- Biden’s remarks on Nord Stream 2, without talking to Germany first only pissed them off and gave no strategic win beyond public posturing

- Biden's dig in Ireland regarding Brexit upset the UK. Diplomatic benefit? None.

- What did Biden's "indiscriminate bombing" jab at Israel about Gaza do? It gave no diplomatic leverage and only inflamed them on an obviously emotional subject.

- Biden told the Saudis “there will be consequences” threat after they OPEC cut oil production. Nothing happened and again only upset them. Again, harsh words with no resulting diplomatic gain.

Should I go on? I have more Biden, but I have 8 years worth of the Obama administration I could dig into...and I haven't even started on words by admins...not just a POTUS.

Again, the double standard: Trump’s rhetoric gets dissected as uniquely dangerous, while others can jab allies for "reasons", yet they get a pass with less scrutiny, lack of tangible gain.

I'll make my own opinion perfectly clear: Diplomacy sometimes means hurting feelings. I don't actually disagree with some of the non-Trump examples I listed or still have in my back pocket. That's the game and not taking the long view is a poor approach.



Thank you for unintentionally making my point for me. Biden's words could have legitimately risked war, even if I think they were bluster, because Putin could have misread them during an obviously stressful moment during a war.

That's why admin walked them back. Trump's intent is to make a deal. You may not like the approach, which is fine. But, it's certainly not a serious intent to actually annex another country. I cannot describe to you how ludicrous that is.

It's diplomacy, right or wrong. But, both you and Utley are arguing that it signals actual intent. As I addressed above, that's a double standard.



1. You're wrong. It's not an "inherent act of war". Really trying to avoid sounding arrogant (not my intent), but I have a literal Master's Degree in this. Context is everything. There are numerous other factors that would have to be present to make those words inherently an act of war. They aren't there.

You could argue they are escalatory...but, without additional escalatory actions, it's simply bluster. It's bargaining...right or wrong and whether you agree with using that approach or not.

2. Of course I know who he is. But, he has no role in Trump’s second term. Trump’s style predates Bannon’s idea. Did Saul Alinsky’s radical tactics influence Obama’s presidency? Bill Ayers? Michael Moore? Van Jones? Anita Dunn?

Biden and Linda Sarsour? Neera Tanden? RFK Jr?

Just because someone has ties to (or was even once a part of an administration) does not automatically mean they hold influence or a POTUS will adopt any idea or policy they put forth.


EDIT: Why am I spending this much time on my day off after working 12's all week for an exercise? 🤣

So are you able to explain how flooding the zone works and how Trump has used it in the past? Bc whether or not Bannon has influence, the tactic is still in full effect. Also, I have a bachelor's in this literal thing.

 

[Moosefish]

So are you able to explain how flooding the zone works and how Trump has used it in the past? Bc whether or not Bannon has influence, the tactic is still in full effect. Also, I have a bachelor's in this literal thing.

In "flooding the zone"?

I misread you and assumed you were indicating that Bannon was running some sort of Shadow Op. But, it's a strategy to overwhelm (media, public, your opponents) with sensational or controversial info or actions. I think Bannon described it as "flood the zone with shit". You counter any negative narratives because people don't pay attention long enough. People get distracted by everything and you get what you want done. For a bomber or fighter flying in combat, it's like barrage jamming. You pump out so much signal, the enemy can't see your jet on the radar scope and you sneak through.

1. I'd argue that much of Trump's "flooding" in both his admins have not been by some plan beyond it's how he's been for a long time. I think his opponents (unwittingly?) did it themselves by making seemingly everything "the worst thing ever!" (until next week).

2. Are you arguing this is inherently "bad" as a tactic? Or that Trump is using it (including the Canada, etc. comments above) right now? Devil's advocate: Let's assume you are 100% correct, does that make any of his actions inherently bad? Or would he simply be using an unfriendly media and the predictable Democrat's reaction to anything he says/does against them?

What's your point in bringing it up, outside of clearly insinuating you believe he's doing it? I would argue that what you would call a plan to flood the zone is simply how media and Democrats react to everything he does. Which I agree that the result of either the plan to do it or it happening by accident is not inherently a positive for society. I'm definitely a fan of calm and logical discussion, which I hope is evident

3. I think as of 2025, his admin actions are a clear acknowledgement that he has a short time to get what he wants to get done...not some plan to "flood the zone".