The totally inexplicable thing is why he chooses to make these threats by public tweet. Diplomacy â even when the talk is tough â is best done in private dialogue.
Edit: I read some details and see that there were exchanges between Trump and Pedro on social media.
Have to remember who is real audience is, see Kurtster.
I find this methodology maddening. Running a country by sending out social media posts while taking a dump. Hit send and everyone runs around with their hair on fire till the next stupid post.
He might think that the swagger and ludicrous demand as a start to negotiations makes him seem like a tough guy, but all the world (except â of âMerica) see him as a capricious doofus.
The totally inexplicable thing is why he chooses to make these threats by public tweet. Diplomacy â even when the talk is tough â is best done in private dialogue.
Edit: I read some details and see that there were exchanges between Trump and Pedro on social media.
I find this methodology maddening. Running a country by sending out social media posts while taking a dump. Hit send and everyone runs around with their hair on fire till the next stupid post.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 26, 2025 - 2:30pm
haresfur wrote:
The all allies and supporters part is a nice broad brush for him to attack anyone he wants
The totally inexplicable thing is why he chooses to make these threats by public tweet. Diplomacy â even when the talk is tough â is best done in private dialogue.
Edit: I read some details and see that there were exchanges between Trump and Pedro on social media.
The all allies and supporters part is a nice broad brush for him to attack anyone he wants
You know, the best approach will be for EVERYONE to be the enemy. One person can be ignored, but if three people - I said three people... then it's a movement....
The Donroe Doctrine — hilarious. Best thing that has happened to Canadian nationalism in a long time. Good wakeup call for Europe.
The Panama Canal nonsense will ultimately hurt US business interests throughout Latin America as did the recent unconditional support for ethnic cleansing terrorism and baby killing in the Gaza concentration camp. Perhaps it does not matter as long as the bipartisan view is that money falls from the skies.
The American Enterprise Institute has officially entered the competition for which establishment DC think tank can come up with the most tortured argument for increasing Americaâs already enormous Pentagon budget.
Its angle â presented in a new report written by Elaine McCusker and Fred "Iraq Surge" Kagan â is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require over $800 billion in additional dollars for the Defense Department, whose budget is already poised to push past $1 trillion per year.
Before addressing the Ukraine conflict directly, itâs worth looking at the security outcomes of high Pentagon spending during this century. As the Costs of War Project at Brown University has found, the full costs of Americaâs post-9/11 wars exceed $8 trillion. In addition, hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions have been driven from their homes, thousands of U.S. personnel have died in combat, and hundreds of thousands of vets have suffered physical or psychological injuries. And this huge cost in blood and treasure came in conflicts that not only failed to achieve their original objectives but actually left the target nations less stable and helped create conditions that made it easier for terrorist groups like ISIS to form.
Any call for ratcheting up Pentagon spending needs to reckon with this record of abject failure for a military first, âpeace through strengthâ foreign policy. The new AEI report fails to do so.
As for its central thesis â that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require a sharp upsurge in Pentagon spending â neither part of the argument holds up to scrutiny. (...)
trump wants to take a place with a population greater than California and a land area greater than the entire US and give them the senate clout of N. Dakota
he wants tariffs to keep manufacturing jobs out of Canada but also wants Canada to be part of the US so tariffs won't apply and the jobs could stay there
As the incoming Trump administration prepares to take office on January 20, 2025, a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy priorities and broader national strategy goals is already underway. Advocates of realism and restraint welcome Trumpâs emphasis on a foreign policy that prioritizes pragmatism and âpeace through strengthâ over ideological moralism, even while liberal internationalists fear the effects of âAmerica Firstâ policy on multilateral alliances.
Both sides recognize, however, a need for a prudent shift from crippling foreign policy misadventures and ideational stagnation to a bold U.S. foreign policy vision in all theaters of potential competition.
Among the constellation of apparent global security hotspots, three seemingly disparate locations â Taiwan, Greenland, and the Panama Canal â have emerged as serious contenders in the geopolitical realignment of interstate competition over resources, trade and shipping routes, and political-military dominance, becoming the recent focus of President-elect Trumpâs typically boisterous social media posts over the holidays.
All three, whilst geographically distant, do share a common denominator â China â a so-called âpacing challengeâ deemed most intent on dislodging Americaâs hegemony, supplanting its economic clout, and challenging its military primacy in an increasingly multipolar world. All represent tests for the kind of foreign policy Trump says he wants to pursue, while denying Chinese encroachments in key strategic areas. (...)
Part of the so-called Washington swamp is the opacity of the funding going to powerful think tanks that provide policymaking expertise to Capitol Hill, to White House staff, and to agencies, including the Pentagon and State Department. It is no secret that the think tanks that have an outsized influence on foreign policy and national security affairs receive grants from the government to conduct studies and research to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Meanwhile, these organizations get tons of funding from the military contractors who stand to benefit from those reports and research in support of American war policy.
Foreign governments, too, are plowing millions into think tanks in hopes to influence the direction of policy their way.
Not only do think tanks generate a lot of paper but their experts write op-eds, they testify before Congress, they are called upon by reporters and producers to give their take on policy and world events â like the wars Washington is currently funding with American money and weapons â all over the information landscape. In short, they help shape perception and manufacture consent. (...)
