You people are actually lying to the people. There have been ranchers robbed and killed by these people in Texas.
The WH still does not know how tariffs work… embarrassing and hurting our country
- Thread starter PharmDawg08
- Start date
I gLook 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 U.S. 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? 🤣
Why did you edit and of my posts? And what did you even edit?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".
I added something at the end including a gif, after I posted. That's why I said "EDIT". Not sure what else you would mean? It was to make clear, in case someone 'quotes' it and didn't see it before they did. I didn't edit your post.
Okay, I think I understand you now. My "EDIT:..." seemed like I was saying I edited something of yours I was replying to?
No, as I said in the previous post, I was adding something at the very end of my post. I use that technique if I add more content, like an extra sentence or a gif more than a few seconds after I post. I do that in case someone sees it and hits "post reply" to write something before they see my addition.
I would never touch someone's content outside of removing or adding **** over a curse word or other inappropriate content, to avoid nuking a whole post.
Either way, the point of my flooding the zone comment, is that one of Trumps strategies has been to create as much controversy as possible. Create as much drama as possible that people tune out. And the media has absolutely played into his hand on this. What it's done give him the freedom to keep pushing the Overton window the right to the point where annexing Canada is seen as a negotiation tactics to the people trying to defend him. The only thing that was even remotely close to what Trump is doing was Biden calling for regime change in Russia and he took a ton of flack for it at the time, including from me. Everything else wasn't even remotely similar. I never said it was a guarantee Trump would invade Canada, I have said that threatening annexation is effectively an act of war bc it is. That's the problem. Trump has shifted the debate so far to the right that in your mind threatening to take over someone's country is am acceptable form of negotiations on trade deficits. That's what flooding the zone accomplished. Steven Bannon likely thinks 6 million wasn't enough and is a demonic ghoul who needs to be hung upside down from a bridge, but he changed the narrative landscape with this tactic.
Fat thumbs on my phone? I hit the edit button accidentally constantly and have to close that window while I'm scrolling that way. I haven't touched your content. Maybe while closing it my fat thumb also sent an alert? No idea. I think you'd notice if I or someone else quoted something you didn't actually say 🤣I got a notification that someone edited my post.
If that was me, apologies for the confusion.
You are more versed on both referenced subjects than me (I'm assuming it aligns more with your referenced degree than mine). However, I think you are overstating the mechanism and its effects. Flooding the zone, as a tactic, is less about fundamentally reshaping what’s politically conceivable and more about short-circuiting attention spans and drowning out coherent opposition. It’s chaos as a distraction, not chaos as a philosophical reorientation (e.g. my barrage jamming analogy).
1. The Overton window doesn’t shift that fast or that far based on noise alone. It’s a model shaped by sustained cultural, economic, and political forces and not just one guy tweeting provocations or stirring the pot. Trump’s controversies, while seemingly non-stop, tend to be short-lived (outside of a few notable examples): they dominate a news cycle, then fade as the next outrage takes over.
Annexing Canada isn’t “normalized” as a negotiation tactic. It’s still seen as absurd or hyperbolic by most, even his defenders. The people excusing it aren’t doing so because the window’s moved, they’re doing so because they see it as Trump being Trump: brash, exaggerated, and not literal. You’re conflating rhetorical tolerance with policy acceptance.
2. Trump’s approach is a firehose of statements. But the effect isn’t a rightward lurch in what’s thinkable, it’s fatigue. People tune out, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re suddenly cool with invading Canada. It means they’re less likely to take any single statement seriously, which cuts both ways. His wildest ideas don’t gain traction precisely because they’re lost in the noise. They're more likely to become a meme (aka "Red White & Blue Land" as Greenland's new name).
One thing it does do is force others to respond to or consider the point: reference Greenland's renewed push for independence and Denmark strengthening the resources they use to provide security there. That seems like a positive development to me.
3. Threatening annexation as “an act of war” isn’t some new benchmark of acceptable discourse thanks to Bannon’s playbook. It’s a provocative hypothetical that’s still far outside the realm of serious policy. Trade deficits and tariffs are where Trump’s actual focus lies. Both his base and his critics know that. Annexation is clearly (to me at least) more like a troll than a true negotiation tactic....again, the memes are hilarious and I think driven by ego and dislike of Trudeau.
I think you’re giving the flooding strategy too much credit for reshaping ideology when it’s really just amplifying polarization and apathy. It's who Trump is and always has been. Reference his answer about calling Zelensky a dictator: "Umm...did I say that? I can’t believe I said that." (note that Z had just agreed to the mineral deal and was coming to sign it, before it fell apart).
4. Pinning this on Bannon as some mastermind ignores how much of Trump’s style predates him. Trump was a tabloid chaos agent long before Bannon codified “flood the zone.” Bannon might love the tactic, but it’s not evidence of some evil genius shifting the world rightward. it’s a megaphone for a pre-existing personality. The Overton window’s edges might flex under Trump, but annexation as a trade ploy? I don't think that’s a sign of some new normal. It’s a sign people stopped parsing hyperbole. The media’s complicity amplifies the volume, not the plausibility.
A Canadian Premier is analogous to a US Governor.
The bit about becoming the 51st state, according to Marco Rubio, comes from the first meeting between Trump and former PM Trudeau. Trump was suggesting ways for Canada to pull their weight in return for all the support they receive from the US. Trudeau said that Canada could not survive as a sovereign nation if they paid for US assistance, to which Trump suggested that perhaps Canada should join the United States.
Canada is no stranger to trade tariffs. They currently have a tariff skirmish with China over some Canadian exports. Canada uses tariffs to limit the import of US dairy products, by capping US imports with huge tariffs beyond the caps.
My mistake. Trudeau was the Prime Minister, which is absolutely not the same as a governor. I also think you are being intentionally pedantic, given Trump clearly meant it as an insult.
You omitted several important details regarding the interactions between Trump and Trudeau. After that first dinner, Trudeau chose to take the comments about being the 51st state as a troll and did not take it seriously.
It was not until the next communication between Trump and Trudeau in January that Trump expressed dissatisfaction with the 1908 treaty that defines the border between Canada and the US. In fact, Trump told Trudeau that the treaty wasn’t valid, and given he was reading from a memo, it was impossible to dismiss this as another troll.
Every comment from Trump and his administration since then has reinforced Trump’s intent. Not only have they not walked it back, they have confirmed the seriousness of the comments multiple times.
Trump has created a degree of enmity that could well outlast his administration. There is no scenario where this helps us get an improved trade agreement in place with Canada.
It's a serious negotiation. President Trump trolls Canada's leadership to remind them that this is not going away. Canada has work to do. It is now Canada's responsibility to secure the border from their side, police their imports effectively and provide for their defense. Don't want to be the 51st state? Fine, put a better solution on the table.
I was driving yesterday, apologies for the delayed response.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? 🤣
As with most efforts to defend Trump, nearly your entire post is made up of false equivalences and abject speculation. But before I respond, a disclaimer. I’m going to make assertions regarding Trump and his rhetoric that I believe we can both acknowdge to be true. To save time, I’m not going to pull the video to prove each assertion. Any claim of mine you think is false or unfair, let me know and I will pull the evidence.
Economic threats are not in any way the same as threats of annexation. I shouldn’t be required to make such an obviously true statement, but ok.
Speculating that the USMCA negotiations were enhanced by Trump’s threats is an unprovable theory. The aggressive rhetoric started from the beginning and led to tariffs and retaliatory tariffs that definitely disrupted commerce but may have had no effect or a negative effect on the outcome. We can’t know because Trump started at DEFCON 3.
Same with Greenland in 2019. You claim it “sparked discussion”, I claim it created entirely unnecessary friction with a NATO ally. Greenland was already under the protection of NATO and, as I’m sure you know, we’ve had Potuffick Air Base there since WW2. Do you think the current rhetoric is going to improve or damage our alignment with Denmark and access to Greenland?
You claim several times that diplomacy isn’t about perpetual harmony, and of course that’s accurate. Diplomacy is simply another form of human relationship, executed at a national scale. There are ebbs and flows, pushing and pulling, difficult times and better times. But just like a relationship with a spouse, friend or business partner, diplomacy with an ally requires trust and consistency. Can the other party be counted on to operate within a consistent range of behaviors and can they be trusted. Can you count on them when the chips are down?Without that, there can be transactions but not a real relationship, and relationships are different and more valuable.
Of course, that describes Trump perfectly. In his personal life, in his business history and as a diplomat.
You reference Biden calling MAGA a threat to the republic, as if that’s a proof point for your argument. I’ve been waiting for you to open that door.
Trump claimed the only way he could lose the 2020 election was fraud, then claimed it was stolen, then fomented an attack to stop certification, then praised the attackers and called them heroes and the only victims of J6, and then pardoned every last one of them. His DOJ is even trying to make the argument for a particularly loathsome MAGA rioter that the pardon covers events having nothing to do with J6.
Every last comment from Trump on the topic of J6 for the last four years has been a lie. He lost the election. J6 wasn’t justified. The violent rioters aren’t heroes and they sure as hell aren’t victims. Those lies are an assault on our republic, full stop.
Also, Trump claims the press is the enemy of the people and this week said that MSNBC and CNN should “be illegal”. Any source of opposition is not just wrong but un-American. Any FBI agent who touched a Trump investigation must be identified and all of the high-level people are being purged.
The primary requirement to serve at the DOJ, FBI and DOD is fealty to Trump. I’d love to see you take a pass at an argument that any of those leaders (possible exception is Bondi, but of course she has a proven history with Trump) are by any measure well qualified for their very important positions. But we know beyond any doubt that they will do whatever Trump requests, regardless of the legal implications.
So, is MAGA a threat to the republic? I’m sure you disagree, but there is some very real justification for making such a claim. And to call that out while ignoring the fact that Trump makes statements far worse than that on a nearly daily basis is just a false equivalence. But that’s how every discussion defending Trump starts and end.
Can you point me to a cogent and detailed list of our demands on those topics that Canada must meet for the trade war to end? I haven’t seen it, and it seems Canada is trying to respond to moving targets, which is impossible.
The targets aren't moving. The talking points to avoid the specific requirements are moving.
Here is the official one page summary (Link).
No apologies necessary...I get it. I may not post again for a week. Life happens.
I believe the argument you presented above hinges on mischaracterizations and leaps in logic while dismissing reasonable counterpoints.
1. Economic threats and annexation threats differ, sure, but both are leverage in negotiations, a point you sidestep by asserting a false binary.
2. Claiming Trump’s USMCA tactics are “unprovable” ignores that deals got done. Tariffs disrupted commerce, yes, but also shifted terms favorably for the US. The correlation isn’t nothing.
3. You call Greenland friction “unnecessary” but dodge that it forced a strategic conversation (as I noted and is demonstrably true regarding Denmark's recent actions). NATO status quo doesn’t negate the value of pushing boundaries.
4. You admit that diplomacy isn’t perpetual harmony. However, you paint Trump’s unpredictability as uniquely destabilizing.
a. Allies adapt to leaders’ styles, trust isn’t shattered by bluster. It's broken by failing to live up to commitments (which Trump has held steadfast in, despite his rhetoric literally begging for more support...he's asked NATO to simply live up to previous agreements)
b. Where’s the evidence Trump’s rhetoric alone tanked alliances?
c. You lean on his personal and business traits as proof of diplomatic failure, but that’s a non-sequitur: statecraft isn’t marriage.
5. On J6, you stack assertions:
a. Trump “fomented” an attack
b. His lies are an “assault on the republic”
But you overreach on causality. He claimed fraud, yes, He praised rioters, sure....But “fomented” implies intent and coordination, which none of the DOJ’s cases even attempted to charge. You have repetitively repeated this as some sort of proof of...something. But, Biden's DOJ didn't see it that way. Why do you continue? You are "speculating" far more than what you accused me of. You're absolutely being logically inconsistent.
Biden’s “threat to the republic” line isn’t equivalent to Trump’s bombast, it’s a systemic accusation, not a personal jab. Trump’s press attacks and loyalty demands are illiberal, no question, but you exaggerate their novelty and political purges aren’t Trump-invented....in fact, they're the standard and if you argue otherwise I'll drown you in examples from decades of past administrations
6. Your evidence is heavy on narrative, light on specifics. Trump’s rhetoric is reckless, often indefensible, but equating it to existential harm requires more than indignation.
7. Your critique misfires by conflating Trump’s brash style with substantive damage to the republic, leaning on emotional assertions like “assault” and “threat” without proving systemic collapse.
8. The false logic lies in equating rhetorical excess with unprecedented danger. But, it ignores that diplomacy and governance have weathered worse without crumbling and ignores 4 years of multiple Trump diplomatic wins using the same rhetoric.
You don't like him. I get it. I don't like a ton of stuff that happens & I'd rather that they don't happen the way they do. However, I defend his actions & policies when the counter-argument appears to me to defy logic and consistency. I have defended things in this thread that I don't like...simply because the counter-argument is stupid, imo.
What I have garnered from reading this thread. Which was quite educational. Appreciate it from all involved. Both sides of the isle. Context is a real problem for anyone who hates Trump or is on the far left.
I think in the future we will look back see what happened here as good for our country eventually. One of will’s posts stated why is Trump only going after our direct and closest allies. It is a really, really good point. And an even better question to answer. Why?
He isn’t the first politician from the right or left to realize we are giving way more than we are getting out of these things.
What the guys here will never admit. I have said this for a while. Trump is the guy to fix these issues with our allies. He can be the villian. He is the perfect villian for the job. The man is a wild card. He isn’t a politician. Not afraid to negotiate with words. Inflammatory words. What lifetime politician would ever handle it like him? He doesn’t care about stepping on toes. He has four years left. When he is gone, the next politician will fix the relationships. Claim Trump was a wild card, but I will bet all I have in my wallet that the very same politician won’t change whatever the new trade deal is that comes out of this.
I think in the future we will look back see what happened here as good for our country eventually. One of will’s posts stated why is Trump only going after our direct and closest allies. It is a really, really good point. And an even better question to answer. Why?
He isn’t the first politician from the right or left to realize we are giving way more than we are getting out of these things.
What the guys here will never admit. I have said this for a while. Trump is the guy to fix these issues with our allies. He can be the villian. He is the perfect villian for the job. The man is a wild card. He isn’t a politician. Not afraid to negotiate with words. Inflammatory words. What lifetime politician would ever handle it like him? He doesn’t care about stepping on toes. He has four years left. When he is gone, the next politician will fix the relationships. Claim Trump was a wild card, but I will bet all I have in my wallet that the very same politician won’t change whatever the new trade deal is that comes out of this.
What is missed here by many is that there is no real need to "fix" any of these diplomatic relationships. Nobody cares. Those involved (with a few exceptions) are not emotionally invested. Professionally? Yes. But, it's a dance. A game. Use Trump's words in the next admin as a starting point to gain some sort of upper hand? Absolutely. They'd be stupid not to. It's part of every equation.
That is how the game is played. Is it, on some level, wrong that the lives of so many are effectively reduced to silly point scoring and what I would effectively describe as a sort of "International XBox Achievement"? Yes.
But, it is what it is.
Here is a list of books that help highlight my points (if anybody is interested):
- "Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger
- "The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics" by Miles Copeland Jr.
- "Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations" by Daryl Copeland
- "A History of Diplomacy" by Jeremy Black
- "The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy" edited by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur
- "New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st Century"
- "Public Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution: A Cautionary Case from Cold War South America"
- "The Rise of Hybrid Diplomacy: From Digital Adaptation to Digital Adoption"
- "The New Public Diplomacy—Fact or Fiction"
- "Rethinking Strategy and Statecraft for the Twenty-First Century of Complexity: A Case for Strategic Diplomacy"
I guess by fix, I was meaning begin to kiss their ass in public again. I will at least read one.
Trump placed massive tariffs on China in 2018 and little to no inflation. Assuming China is able to make a product for 2/3rds the cost Americans can produce. Does anyone think we are getting that product for 2/3rds the price? No, the manufacturer in China marks it up to where he can make the most money. Therefore, if the import agent cant sell the product the mfg can and often does cut it's price. If not, they will lose the business and we are still the best market in the world.
Exactly, Trump has already secured over 1.5 trillion in new investments that will bring much needed jobs.
1. By your logic, anything can be characterized as leverage in negotiations. That's true. We could threaten to bomb Canada. We could threaten to assassinate their leadership. We could hold Canadian citizens hostage for leverage. What's possible and what's useful, productive or within the well-established bounds of how you treat a longtime ally are two different things.No apologies necessary...I get it. I may not post again for a week. Life happens.
I believe the argument you presented above hinges on mischaracterizations and leaps in logic while dismissing reasonable counterpoints.
1. Economic threats and annexation threats differ, sure, but both are leverage in negotiations, a point you sidestep by asserting a false binary.
2. Claiming Trump’s USMCA tactics are “unprovable” ignores that deals got done. Tariffs disrupted commerce, yes, but also shifted terms favorably for the US. The correlation isn’t nothing.
3. You call Greenland friction “unnecessary” but dodge that it forced a strategic conversation (as I noted and is demonstrably true regarding Denmark's recent actions). NATO status quo doesn’t negate the value of pushing boundaries.
4. You admit that diplomacy isn’t perpetual harmony. However, you paint Trump’s unpredictability as uniquely destabilizing.
a. Allies adapt to leaders’ styles, trust isn’t shattered by bluster. It's broken by failing to live up to commitments (which Trump has held steadfast in, despite his rhetoric literally begging for more support...he's asked NATO to simply live up to previous agreements)
b. Where’s the evidence Trump’s rhetoric alone tanked alliances?
c. You lean on his personal and business traits as proof of diplomatic failure, but that’s a non-sequitur: statecraft isn’t marriage.
5. On J6, you stack assertions:
a. Trump “fomented” an attack
b. His lies are an “assault on the republic”
But you overreach on causality. He claimed fraud, yes, He praised rioters, sure....But “fomented” implies intent and coordination, which none of the DOJ’s cases even attempted to charge. You have repetitively repeated this as some sort of proof of...something. But, Biden's DOJ didn't see it that way. Why do you continue? You are "speculating" far more than what you accused me of. You're absolutely being logically inconsistent.
Biden’s “threat to the republic” line isn’t equivalent to Trump’s bombast, it’s a systemic accusation, not a personal jab. Trump’s press attacks and loyalty demands are illiberal, no question, but you exaggerate their novelty and political purges aren’t Trump-invented....in fact, they're the standard and if you argue otherwise I'll drown you in examples from decades of past administrations
6. Your evidence is heavy on narrative, light on specifics. Trump’s rhetoric is reckless, often indefensible, but equating it to existential harm requires more than indignation.
7. Your critique misfires by conflating Trump’s brash style with substantive damage to the republic, leaning on emotional assertions like “assault” and “threat” without proving systemic collapse.
8. The false logic lies in equating rhetorical excess with unprecedented danger. But, it ignores that diplomacy and governance have weathered worse without crumbling and ignores 4 years of multiple Trump diplomatic wins using the same rhetoric.
You don't like him. I get it. I don't like a ton of stuff that happens & I'd rather that they don't happen the way they do. However, I defend his actions & policies when the counter-argument appears to me to defy logic and consistency. I have defended things in this thread that I don't like...simply because the counter-argument is stupid, imo.
2) You can't prove that at all. A deal got done because it was in the best interests of both countries and the economies are significantly intertwined. That's a fact. The impact of Trump's approach in not measurable.
BTW, apparently the deal Trump signed in 2019 was so awful that Trump is now trashing the idiot who signed it and has started a trade war to get us a better deal. True story.
3) So, the most effective way to engage in diplomatic talks with an ally is by attempting to buy or threatening to annex their sovereign territory. How did we or anyone else ever accomplish anything without such threats, which are entirely new and unique in our modern diplomatic history?
4) Yes, Trump's lack of consistency or predictability is a unique threat to our alliances. There is a reason that no other modern US president has ever used a similar approach. I stand by my assertion that diplomacy is simply another form of human relations, writ large, and that without trust there can be transactions but not a productive relationship that transcends near-term best interests.
5) You are wrong. Trump was charged with the following related to J6:
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States
- Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
- Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
- Conspiracy against rights
- The election was stolen.
- J6 was entirely justified.
- The convicted rioters are heroes.
- The only victims that day were the rioters.
- He pardoned every single participant.
Regarding the unique threat to the republic and rule of law that trump represents, I'll save a proper accounting of his first two months for a time when I can devote the proper focus.
Will, your side has AOC and Crocket at the top of your ticket. Your side is criticizing the guy exposing almost unimaginable corruption and graft solely because of politics and TDS. Your side demands Title IX include men. Your side sees nothing wrong with pedophilia and open borders. Now, suddenly, your side is abandoning its green agenda because of MDS.
Explain to me why I should take anything you post seriously.
You must be responding to a different thread because this has nothing to do with what was just posted. Besides for not being correct.
Look. We are in a trade deficit. Bad. You asked how did we ever accomplish anything without using these tactics. You may not agree with them. I don’t always agree with him or his tactics. But unless you just want to keep your head in the sand, being so super sweet hasn’t worked worth a shit. I don’t see an issue with trying something different.
Always goes back to 1-6 with you brother. It is amazing. You lost that high road when Biden said no one is above the law. Then pardoned everyone on the left investigating 1-6 and his whole family as well. Looks like there is a question of whether that will hold up. Either way. All of these people accepted the pardon. Which according to the Supreme Court is an admission of guilt. And comes with accepting any pardon like this.
Atl cock is right. Every stone that gets looked under keeps yielding more corruption by the left. I don’t want to imagine that the conspiracy theories are correct about 1-6. But I don’t put anything past democrats anymore. It won’t surprise me at all if some wild accusations about that day turn out to be true. Never thought i would see a lot of what has happened from both sides of the aisle. You would think you may have learned not to be so definitive about what you read and hear in the media as being true. Or what any politician is telling you.
Trump was the unmitigated liar. According to everyone. All he did was lie. Till he didn’t. And until the left forgot how to tell the truth ever. Biden lied so much Trump looked like sister Theresa to the voters. This is why the Dem popularity is at an all time low. Those are just the painful facts.
Last edited:
Trump’s own trade agreement from 2019 was shit? Interesting position.
Over the last eighty years, the globe has enjoyed by far the most widespread prosperity in history, and no country has prospered during that time more than the US. That’s a fact.
You can follow Trump’s lead and somehow now believe that we’ve gotten a raw deal from the rest of the world, but it just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Regarding J6, we’ve already established that you don’t care, at all, about what happened in general of about the 120 LEOs who were injured, some badly, that day. They were trying to protect the Capitol and allow the certification of a legitimate election, but it was an election Trump lost, so f-em. Understood.
Trump has us set up for more of the same. I’ll put my marker on the table. At some point, you are going to have to choose between Trump and the Constitution. Given current trajectory, I’m guessing sooner rather than later. Don’t be surprised when it comes to that.
He is following the Constitution a lot more than Biden did they don’t know that it exists.
Good lord man. You supported the guy who said no one is above the law. While trying to prosecute his political opponent. Then changed course and made everyone above the law. And you want to continue to try to stand on the moral high ground. That is done. And why if your side doesn’t learn this, its popularity will keep dropping. Biden pissed all over the constitution about a thousand times.
If I don’t care about the law enforcement hurt on Jan 6th, I will assume you don’t give a shit about the more than 1000 Leo’s all over the country hurt and killed during the summer of love. Or the defunding you stood behind which put so many people’s lives in danger. Or the robberies we decided not to prosecute all over the country. For the record I didn’t want him to pardon any violent participants. It is time to move on however. Good lord.
Imagine how much more we could have prospered if we weren’t in trade deficits all over the place. We aren’t doing well
Right now. Only if you are at the top of the food chain. That is the issue. You point to one trade agreement. It may be considered shit now. And was good in 2019. Times change. I wouldn’t say that is an interesting opinion. I would say it is normal. Or do you not think things can change is six years. 🤦♂️
There really is no "at some point." Trump has been aggressively anti separation of powers and executive accountability since before he took office. It's unfortunate it wasn't evident to everyone at the time, but as you mentioned, there is absolutely no excuse after J6. None.
Do people not understand this is all a negotiation tactic?
Eg prices were
The only thing China and the cartels know that a good portion of our armed forces are rural and poor kids.
Nothing I said had anything to do with China or egg prices.
Last edited:
Correct. Can’t exactly make it known that you are willing to back off your stance….and signal weakness in the face of a falling market. The fact that CNBC pundits are losing their shit is exactly what makes it effective. The “damn he’s really doing this” message hits those countries who stand to lose in this thing more than anyone. You think LVMH owner isn’t shitting his pants over the idea that Americans won’t buy Dom or Veuve anymore? There are American alternatives for every product we are talking about here.
1. You take the “anything can be leverage” idea and stretch it to extremes, scenarios far beyond the intended scope. That move twists the argument into an illogical caricature, missing the point. The discussion was about practical tools, tariffs, Greenland moves, not absurd hypotheticals. Reasonably, it’s about what drives outcomes, not wild leaps.
2. You call Trump’s USMCA tactics “unmeasurable,” like it all just happened by magic. Tariffs shook Canada and Mexico, dairy opened up, auto rules hit 70% regional. That’s on paper, favoring the US. You say causation’s unprovable, prove it’d be the same without the push. Results matter.
3. You cite Greenland as “unnecessary friction,” implying diplomacy is something it often isn't, even with allies. Trump’s assertive stance triggered Denmark’s 2021 defense spending increase, sharpened NATO’s Arctic attention. That’s not a flop, it’s a measurable shift. You sidestep the tangible effects, favoring a view where nothing gets stirred up. But if pressure yields action, like Denmark’s budget hike or NATO’s pivot, the outcome validates the approach, not your preference for calm waters. Cause and effect don’t vanish because the method’s bold, results matter, marking it a success by any practical standard.
4. Trump’s wild card vibe, you label a “unique threat,” like he invented shaking things up:
a. Allies didn’t fall apart, they rolled with it, NATO spending rose 1.8% to 2% GDP by 2020. Numbers don’t lie. Where’s the ruin?
b. Trust doesn’t snap easy. Biden’s Afghan pullout, a chaotic action that left allies in the dark, rocked NATO harder than Trump’s talk ever did, leaving allies unsure of the US word. You hype harm as threat, so why’s Trump the villain here and not that mess?
c. You stick to “that’s not how it’s done,” treating tradition like some sacred guide. That’s shaky reasoning, just because it’s unfamiliar doesn’t mean it’s fatal. If deviation breaks things, show the hard evidence of collapse, not just your gut feeling.
5. J6, you say Trump “fomented” an attack. DOJ hit him with fraud and obstruction, not incitement. “Fomented” needs planning, where’s the proof? Trump’s election fraud claims were reckless, his comments praising rioters were ugly, yet you stretch the narrative beyond what the legal charges support. The DOJ didn’t allege he orchestrated violence, so why insist on a conclusion the evidence doesn’t back? Your reasoning falters, jumping from words to intent without a solid link.
6. You drop “threat to the republic” like it’s an obvious win, but you’re empty-handed right now. Trump’s media swipes? Nixon ran enemies lists way back. Loyalty demands? That’s just politics, same as ever. Pardons for violent offenders? How about Clinton letting FALN bombers walk free? You lean hard on “unprecedented” to paint Trump as a singular disaster, but where’s the actual breakdown, where’s the system in pieces? History shows worse without the world ending, so if the yardstick is real damage, your case is thin. Facts should rule here, not feelings, and you’re short on the former.
7. Your argument’s shaky, relying on ad hominem (Trump’s style equals failure) and slippery slope (his talk spells doom), but it lacks grounding. If style alone kills competence, why’d Abraham Accords hold, USMCA get signed, NATO funds rise? I don’t like his bluster, it grates, no denying that, yet outcomes matter more than delivery. History’s full of uglier moves, FDR rounded up citizens, Wilson silenced voices, both with real fallout, not just noise. Trump’s tenure didn’t tank the system, where’s your proof it even bent it? Logic demands evidence of harm, not just discomfort with the guy’s tone.
8. You tag his rhetoric as an “assault,” sidelining successes like they’re irrelevant, suggesting diplomacy folds under pressure. Systems have endured harsher tests, Cold War standoffs, mass internments, Vietnam War escalations, Watergate fallout, McCarthy-era purges, Reconstruction upheavals, the Civil War itself (need more examples?), and still functioned.
If Trump’s tactics were catastrophic, where’s the data, shattered agencies, ruptured partnerships, anything solid? You offer stories, not figures, leaving “threat” as a hunch, not a fact. I argue for what delivered, not the persona, because logic prioritizes evidence, agreements secured, conflicts navigated, over unproven claims of ruin that never hit. Present the clear evidence of structural damage, or your assertion lacks substance and remains an unsupported claim in the absence of measurable impact.
Not even Scott Bessent can offer up a cogent answer regarding the trade war with Canada.
When you've lost Maria Bartiromo...
Are you absolutely positive that Trump isn’t serious about making Canada the 51st state?
Yes. I really mean that. Not a fan of the rhetoric at all. But no effin way that ever happens. And he knows it.
Latest posts
-
VIDEO So, how many of y’all would take Josh Pate up on this offer?- Latest: TaylorDawg03
-
-
-
-
