Political Posts

[cubsfan]

4 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

Are you having trouble understanding what I said. Oh, I'm sorry is it getting dark there yet? 

 

I know you hate Trump. No problem. Keep putting a lightweight like Trudeau in front of him and you'll continue to get frustrated. Why would anyone take that moron seriously?

[Sweet]

43 minutes ago, flesh said:

I’ll try to translate trumpese for you. He knows that the total fentanyl crossings from Canada are minor. He wants them reduced. The primary reason he says this is so that he has a stronger reason to impose tariffs that will hold up and he believes that something about trade relations are unfair… smokescreens.  It could be subsidies to certain industries, existing tariffs, tariff like instruments that have the same or similar effect, restrictions, or any other form of distorting effect. Of course free trade with friendlies and maximizing comparative advantage is the ideal, the ideal is never what happens. 
 

I posted in another thread with no response but I’ve yet to see a thorough analysis of all distorting effects on trade between usa and Canada. I personally done know if it’s fair or close to it. If it is I’ll agree it is if it’s wholistic.  
 

Regarding whether or not trumps strategies are, if I’m right, lying. I suppose you could say he’s lying partially.. in the sense that he uses one small reason as the main reason for what he’s doing. Otoh if he’s right and trade is unfair and In order to straighten it out he can’t see another path forward…. That’s a more difficult question. I don’t see how anybody can confidently say anything wo considering what I’ve written here. I originally come back to cobf recently thinking the Canadians … or somebody.. being the smart analytical types that invest.. would have a competent analysis of the trade between the two countries and found the opposite. I haven’t had time to do it my self but I’ll try. Also, if the usa is going to produce some things here for strategic reasons, antifragilityreasons, then that means by definition we will be buying less of those things Elsewhere and that means elsewhere wont be happy about selling less stuff to us. If we can’t compete for ammo prices and we need to manufacture our own, we may need tariffs. 
 

Also don’t assume those of us who voted for him are cultists, you won’t learn anything that way. In 2016 my father voted for him, and hated doing so, being a lifelong Mormon, the cleanest sort, only because he knew the Supreme Court appointees were coming up. He has no idea what happening in general. 
 

for myself, doge and cutting the deficit to 3% of gdp was paramount and the rest noise and I saw the opposite inclination since forever on the other side. For me, if this happens and wars don’t get worse, I’m willing to deal with the fallout as I see it as existential. I voted for Obama Romney Hillary then trump trump. Other things matter but I rank order them low compared to a snowballing debt/interest rate/inflation problem. 
 

For me the biggest mistake of the last four years was allowing the economy to be shuttered excessively and raining money in massive excess. Biggest mistake I’m aware of in my lifetime. I said that here March 2020 more or less. Then Biden doubled  down when the coast was clear. Destroyed the lives of tens of Millions of non asset owners for 79 year olds with 2.5 co morbidities who were going to die shortly and whom we could have targeted for relief at 1/100th the cost. 
 

 

 

I think overall that is how trump works.

 

However, ‘Who would ever sign a thing like this?’ - Trump said that a couple of weeks when referring to US trade deals.

 

Trump negotiated and signed this trade deal with Canada and Mexico.  So if the USMCA deal sucks then he’s probably to blame.

 

Edited March 5, 2025 by Sweet

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Trudeau is your idiot not ours. 

 

Why are you allowing him to negotiate on behalf of the Canadian people?

Trudeau is actually doing better in the polls now. Nothing better for popularity of a politician than dealing with an external threat.

[dealraker]

19 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Trudeau is actually doing better in the polls now. Nothing better for popularity of a politician than dealing with an external threat.

And Tesla has morphed to Bud Light?   LOL, I was actively buying the BUD in the lower 50's but you can be triple damn sure I will never discuss it on this site except to mention it here.  

[nwoodman]

 

Try not to follow the political threads too much so hopefully this is the right place.  Another masterpiece by our very own Dave Rowe (@roweafr).

[John Hjorth]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

Putin wasn't getting what he wanted under Biden.  It's now being handed over to him with zero casualties and they won't give up anything.  Putin just took advantage of a weak leader in Trump and Trump is taking advantage of a leader who is trying to save his country.  Two fucking losers that you are proud to trumpet!  Cheers!

 

6 hours ago, cubsfan said:

Don't care about the money, just ending the war and saving lives.

But certainly NO more money to a losing war with no end. 

This was obvious enough 2 years ago - so yeah, Biden's circle advised him poorly against no negotiations to end.

 

Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

It's a bit weird, because I personally understand your position on this,  and at the same time also Sanjeevs [ @Parsads] position.

 

It's now actually some time ago, that I've realized, that this conflict isen't going away anytime soon. Simply because everything related to it is infected by all kinds of spin etc.

 

I personally don't believe your POTUS will even succeed establishing a lasting ceasefire, truce. Nor even a lasting peace. Simply because Ukraines agressor can't be trusted. One got to steamroll the adversary here, to get back to some kind of stability here, by the use of force. Otherwise, it's not going to be over, everybody here in Europe asking : 'Who's next, else?'

 

That this is the reality, is gradually dawning here in Europe. And you see it in the major shift in Western European sentiment going on in these days.

 

 

[LC]

 

Trump just wants the war to end so people stop dying....right? right....?

[Mephistopheles]

If only Zelensky put on a suit and a Trump tie for the Oval Office meeting, none of this would have transpired 

[formthirteen]

4 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

That this is the reality, is gradually dawning here in Europe. And you see it in the major shift in Western European sentiment going on in these days.

European ignorance and weakness invited Putin and Russia to their backdoor. If you have a Russian bear in your backyard, you don't keep the door wide open. Good riddance to all that.

 

Follow the money:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/05/has-europe-spent-more-on-russian-oil-and-gas-than-aid-to-ukraine-as-trump-claims

Edited March 6, 2025 by formthirteen

[Sweet]

20 minutes ago, formthirteen said:

European ignorance and weakness invited Putin and Russia to their backdoor. If you have a Russian bear in your backyard, you don't keep the door wide open. Good riddance to all that.

 

Follow the money:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/05/has-europe-spent-more-on-russian-oil-and-gas-than-aid-to-ukraine-as-trump-claims

All of this is true.  Trump went to Germany years ago and basically said we are spending lots on nato spending, you aren’t, and you are buying all this oil and gas from Russia.

 

of course there the amount bought is not the same as profit for Russia.  Still it shouldn’t be happening, and plans are being made to move away from that.

 

Canada had an open goal to provide this and Trudeau said no I understand.

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, Sweet said:

All of this is true.  Trump went to Germany years ago and basically said we are spending lots on nato spending, you aren’t, and you are buying all this oil and gas from Russia.

 

of course there the amount bought is not the same as profit for Russia.  Still it shouldn’t be happening, and plans are being made to move away from that.

 

Canada had an open goal to provide this and Trudeau said no I understand.

At least Europe moving in the right direction, the direction that the US is taking under Trump is downward scary.

 

I think for equity markets it means that the US valuation premium will diminish. The US markets still has the best business but that only explains part of the valuation difference. There is a clear premium for US stocks right now compared to likewise foreign stocks (as is evident when business relist in the US) and this premium will be smaller going forward, imo.

[cubsfan]

10 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

I personally don't believe your POTUS will even succeed establishing a lasting ceasefire, truce.

 

I certainly understand this thinking. You have a stalemate, so you try for peace, before further escalation into a wider war.

[lnofeisone]

17 hours ago, Gregmal said:

LOL this is a great post with a lot of thought and consideration, and like always, its probably either ignored or met with the TDS drenched 3-4 sentence rager...

While I find @flesh's prose a bit logorrheic, I don't think anyone would disagree with having an efficient government that minimizes or eliminates fraud, waste, and abuse and maintains a healthy budget.

 

The crux of the argument here is the HOW. How are Elon and DT going about fixing the gov't. There are laws and processes and they disregard both. So far the savings amounted to fractions of what they claim and their actions are being reversed (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-civil-service-board-reinstates-thousands-fired-usda-employees-2025-03-05/) which basically amounts to added cost (workers were out 2 weeks doing 0 work, they will get backpay, and now they have to get reprocessed back in, which is extra work). 

 

Add in republicans threatening to impeach judges they don't like and the DOJ, on behalf of OPM, straight up lying to the court (and the DOJ got rightfully called out by the union and scolded by the judge); there is a lot not to like about the approach of the current administration. Given that Musk is running DOGE with the blessing of DT, this is 100% on him. 

[rogermunibond]

 

[nsx5200]

Don't know if it's my right-brain speaking, but watching the Zelensky & Trump exchange in full, and reading about the the news commentaries about the State of Union, the thing that keeps going off in my head is that he's try really hard angling for a Nobel Peace prize with wanting to be known as the "peace president".  Trump really blew up when Zelensky kept bringing up long-lasting security guarantee, which is really hard to achieve.  Again with that language in the SOTU.  Seems a little bit petty, but it's consistent with Trump's character.  All the other stuff about mineral, lives lost and long-lasting security for Ukraine, are, IMHO, just noise or at last side-shows to Trump.

[cubsfan]

^^^ Like Trump said in the SOTU - nothing he says or does will ever be enough for the Trump haters.

Even if he brings peace to Europe or helps a 13 year with cancer enjoy his life.

There will always be a reason for Trump haters to continue. Look at what fools the Democrats made of themselves in the SOTU.

[Sweet]

49 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^^ Like Trump said in the SOTU - nothing he says or does will ever be enough for the Trump haters.

Even if he brings peace to Europe or helps a 13 year with cancer enjoy his life.

There will always be a reason for Trump haters to continue. Look at what fools the Democrats made of themselves in the SOTU.

There are Trump haters and people who aren’t Trump haters though.  
 

Douglas Murray attended Trump’s inauguration, he has a critical piece about Trump’s stance on Ukraine in the Spectator today.

[Paarslaars]

Surprisingly down today, even JD after crushing earnings..

[Sweet]

Today, talking about European countries putting troops the police the peace:

 

“Such things, if you call them a peacekeeping force, they must be discussed and agreed to by [all] sides. This is something which neither Macron or Starmer or other advocates of deploying troops to Ukraine have not even mentioned," Lavrov says. 

He adds: "We will see the presence of such troops on Ukrainian territory the same way as we saw a potential Nato presence in Ukraine... this would mean not supposedly hybrid, but direct, official and unconcealed involvement by Nato countries in a war against the Russian Federation.”

 

Yes… European troops to ensure the peace would be a direct war against Russia.

 

Edited March 6, 2025 by Sweet

[John Hjorth]

2 hours ago, cubsfan said:

I certainly understand this thinking. You have a stalemate, so you try for peace, before further escalation into a wider war.

 

Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

Let's see how things evolve from here. At least the parties that ended in a severe quarrel in public last week seem by now not to have slammed any doors definitely. That's what matters most right now.

 

Every possible option needs to by given its chance for carrying through.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

I have several times written in this topic, that our views on the situation have to be forward looking to be constructive and logic.

 

In that regard, I have yet to give you, that Europe has been at sleep for too long here, while the alarm clock now has rung.

[cubsfan]

26 minutes ago, Sweet said:

There are Trump haters and people who aren’t Trump haters though.  
 

Douglas Murray attended Trump’s inauguration, he has a critical piece about Trump’s stance on Ukraine in the Spectator today.

 

I'm a fan of Douglas Murry, so I'll be interested to see his POV.

 

Murray is a large critic of European leadership and the circular firing squad it has become with the destruction of their culture through immigration policy and blatant anti-semitism.  I know he's been quite critical of Starmer and his do nothing approach.

 

Good to see Murray spreads around his criticism.

[John Hjorth]

15 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Today, talking about European countries putting troops the police the peace:

 

“Such things, if you call them a peacekeeping force, they must be discussed and agreed to by [all] sides. This is something which neither Macron or Starmer or other advocates of deploying troops to Ukraine have not even mentioned," Lavrov says.

 

He adds: "We will see the presence of such troops on Ukrainian territory the same way as we saw a potential Nato presence in Ukraine... this would mean not supposedly hybrid, but direct, official and unconcealed involvement by Nato countries in a war against the Russian Federation.”

 

Yes… Europe troops to ensure the peace would be a direct war against Russia.

 

There you got it, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

How does anyone solve that?

 

I really can't see any other hands-on solution to that than placing a bullet in the forehead of Sergej Lavrov, after doing that asking : 'Who is next in line?', or he can just try, and let him see what he gets. He will get hit by a bus and get steamrolled.

[cubsfan]

4 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

There you got it, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

How does anyone solve that?

 

I really can't see any other hands-on solution to that than placing a bullet in the forehead of Sergej Lavrov, after doing that asking : 'Who is next in line?', or he can just try, and let him see what he gets. He will get hit by a bus and get steamrolled.

 

When the time comes to negotiate with the Russians - there will be a go/no decision obviously.

Like Zelensky, the Russians will not get everything they want. 

 

IF they do not want peace, then it will be war, but without the USA.

 

I really don't think you want to throw in the towel as long as Trump has a dialogue going with Putin.

Or do you?

 

 

[John Hjorth]

23 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

When the time comes to negotiate with the Russians - there will be a go/no decision obviously.

 

Like Zelensky, the Russians will not get everything they want. 

 

IF they do not want peace, then it will be war, but without the USA.

 

I really don't think you want to throw in the towel as long as Trump has a dialogue going with Putin.

 

Or do you?

 

Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

Naturally not.

 

The problem here is the appoach that POTUS has chosen here, combined with no public information available about discussions between USA and Russia in Saudi Arabia.

 

Your POTUS  - by logic - must think, that both Ukraine and Europe will accept this approach as valid for negotiations.

 

Mind you, we aren't some early stage neandertals, or even earlier stages of homo sapiens.

 

Is that difficult to understand, and if so, how difficult is that to understand? 

[cubsfan]

Not sure I understand your question John, but that's ok. (BTW - I think your English is perfect)

 

IF I do understand, then the answer is this: Trump has advised Europe that Putin seeks peace.

He has re-iterated that point many times. Now if you don't trust Trump - and as a group (Europe/Ukraine) - refuse to talk to Putin - then where does that leave you??

 

You either have to trust Trump or take over negotiations.

 

Which do you prefer??

 

I think you are saying that Europe will not stand for Trump conducting negotiations??