I'm a bit confused by Trumps recent spate of "policy proposals". I'm not quite sure how they fit with what he campaigned on, and whether or not they make sense as priorities.
I've addressed the port issue, and believe that Trump is wrong in his blanket support of the union.
I believe that it was a mistake to cede control of the Panama canal, leading to China gaining an inordinate amount of control over a strategic US asset. I agree that we should look at reacquiring control of the canal.
I don't know enough about Greenland to understand what value it would bring to the US, beyond it's obviously strategic position in the North Atlantic. I'm not sure how much of a threat the Russian navy is at this point, but a foothold in that area seems less valuable now than it would have been during the Cold War. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's a bizarre thing to prioritize, with very little explanation of the benefits.
Likewise with Canada. I know we've all joked about annexing Canada, but seriously. I get that they have natural resources that would be more assured if Canada was a state, but is that really enough? Do we really want another 41,000,000 citizens, most of whom are so liberal that they make Dan look conservative? Again, would there have been strategic benefits to having control of part of the Arctic at one point, sure? Now, I don't know. Are the other reasons why having the US extend into the Arctic, possibly. Is that worth annexing Canada, who knows. Again, interesting theoretical conversation, but is this a priority?
Personally, I'd have hoped for focus on the economy, reigning in the federal government, getting his cabinet approved, and dealing with immigration. But that's me.
Finally, why in the hell is Trump selling freaking watches? Especially analogue watches?
19 comments:
Maybe he wants to use his power as president to monopolize the watch industry! He can sell what he likes so long as he's not doing anything criminal or unconstitutional. At least he's not selling influence like the Biden Crime Family.
I've heard a bit about the Greenland thing, and though not enough to truly comment, I can say that I didn't read anything which gives me pause. Having it as an American territory will certainly cost us, but they might be able to pay for themselves. I don't know. Just speculating.
I would also speculate that the Canada as a state thing is more rhetoric than a goal. To have that nation operate as a kindred spirit would be good enough and I would suspect Trump's intentions are more along those lines. It's nice to know that Trudeau is taking a powder. I hope the people there turn to a more conservative president for their sake as well as the world's.
Oh yeah...the canal. I like the idea of regaining control of it.
The notion of strategic benefits doesn't require that we have to be in conflict at the moment. It's always better to have more control or influence than less, so be it Greenland, Canada or the Panama Canal, it serves us to think of the strategic benefits of these and other areas of the world.
But I agree with what you'd like to see as of first importance, while at the same time more than that can and should be addressed.
He can do what he wants, it just plays into the negative image he has. But it's his choice if he wants to do things that make him look good, or things that don't.
I'm with you on Greenland. Back during the Cold War it might have made sense. But at that point NATO was stronger and we benefited from it's strategic position. I haven't heard of there being any undeveloped natural resources there, which might have explained his fascination.
I agree that the better option is a Canadian government that is more aligned with the US and having the two countries work together. At some point, if Canada doesn't change course, it might be more attractive to annex them. But not now.
I agree that I'd prefer that he'd not given up control, and that regaining control would be preferable. Kind of the whole point of strategic assets like this is that they be controlled by the US long enough before a conflict as to affect the calculus of any attacker. If China decided to go to war with the US, the first thing they'd do is shut down the Canal to US shipping. Depending on the number of war/supply ships that needed to transit from the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific Fleet, that would add days/weeks to a naval response.
FWIW, I have no problem with the US rethinking what makes the most sense strategically. Which might mean pulling military bases out of Europe entirely, as well as ending other commitments. I guess it could be argued that basing US forces in Greenland (as a US territory/state) would be preferable to Germany.
None of this is necessarily bad, but I think that he needs to deal with the stuff he campaigned on first, before indulging these types of things.
While I understand the argument for dealing with issues upon which he campaigned, I don't think it's a much a matter of doing that "first" as opposed to simply making sure they're addressed. These other things have importance despite not being a campaign issue. I'm sure he can find people that will work on various issues all at the same time. These can be among them.
To the extent Trump has a negative image, it's of more importance who views him negatively. I'm not one of them even though I acknowledge his imperfections. When a Dan holds a negative image of Trump, there's nothing Trump can do about it, and selling watches won't make a difference to how people like Dan view him, except that they think they have validation with something like the selling of products. My response is: "You bastards have been trying to bankrupt him with all of your bullshit charges, show trials and impeachment hearings. If he wants or needs to sell a few watches, I'm more than good with it."
How does anyone not know what Trump's doing? He says crazy, false stuff all the time. If nearly ALL the news (good or bad or crazy or evil) is nearly always about you, the irrational things you say you're planning, the false claims you are making, the irrational policies you're trying to enact... you overwhelm the news cycle and the ability fir people to keep track of all you're doing.
It's Trump's one area of geniuses (even if it's an evil genius). It's part of most con games... just keep making grandiose, irrational, irresponsible claims and describe them all as the best, the most beautiful (or, on the other side, the worst and most awful) and claim that all the smartest people have always said so... and you overwhelm many people into stuporous obedience or acceptance.
This is what he does. Trumpian Norman Vincent Pealesque "name it and claim it" pyramid schemes and pipe dreams for the masses.
Dan
Seriously, read this.
https://thinkingoregon.org/2024/09/19/donald-trump-meet-lonesome-rhodes/
And note: it's not an indictment of Trump, it's an indictment of human gullability and how too many of us can be seduced by a braggadocious, immoral idiot narcissist, as long as he amuses us with larger than life ridiculous antics.
Watch the movie, if you haven't.
Dan
Same for Elmer Gantry and It Can't Happen Here.
Rational people read these stories and see and heed the warnings. Trump reads them as a How To manual.
https://themillions.com/2017/02/president-donald-j-gantry-on-the-prescience-of-sinclair-lewis.html
(Just kidding. Of course, Trump doesn't read.)
And once again, it's not about Trump.
Dan
I'd argue that if you campaign on certian things, and promise to get them done "day one", that you probably should actually focus on those things and communicate that focus. But that's just me.
"How does anyone not know what Trump's doing?"
It's pretty simple actually. He does or says things, and some of us wonder what he's doing.
"He says crazy, false stuff all the time."
So do you.
"If nearly ALL the news (good or bad or crazy or evil) is nearly always about you, the irrational things you say you're planning, the false claims you are making, the irrational policies you're trying to enact... you overwhelm the news cycle and the ability fir people to keep track of all you're doing."
Well, isn't that the fault of the revered professional journalists to control what they report? Strangely enough, I've seen very little of this on the MSM.
What I think Dan chooses to ignore is that Trump sometimes says things that are designed to provoke a response. Then he can use that response as he moves forward.
Coming from someone who argued that Biden was in excellent mental health and had no cognitive decline, and supported a party and media that actively hid Biden's cognitive decline, this is amusing at best. The difference between Trump and Biden is that when Biden said something that people didn't understand he was mumbling gibberish.
Multiple posts about thousands of young girls raped in the UK by Muslim rape gangs, and this is what gets Dan all hot and bothered.
The difference between Dan and I is that I recognize the potential for Trump to make huge mistakes and waste time on ridiculous things, and I have and will continue to criticize him for that. Dan spent the last four years trying to pretend that Biden was a great president (or at least well above average) and coming up with excuses or ignoring all the stupid crap he did.
One last thought. With the exception of the watch thing, I am more curious about Trump's motivation for things rather than to simply write them off as idiotic.
I do think that the canal thing is worthy of discussion, and I'm open to being persuaded that acquiring Greenland (short of invasion) could be beneficial. I also could see some reasonable arguments for incorporating Canada into the US, as well as some bad ones.
People like Dan would likely have responded the same way to Jefferson when he purchased Louisiana, or Polk when he signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo. It's always easier to paint people as idiotic, foolish, corrupt, or whatever as opposed to considering their ideas.
So, politely asking the question, "Why is Trump talking about Greenland?" is, to you, a critique?
Seriously, read those books, watch those movies.
Dan
No, that's a question. In the past you've been confused about how questions work, is this one of those times?
I'm asking the question, because I genuinely want an answer. Once I have an answer, then I can determine whether or not this is worthy of criticism. Unlike you, I prefer to gather as much information as possible before reaching a conclusion.
Given that fact that you've never acknowledged reading or watching anything I've ever recommended to you, your insistence is puzzling at best.
Craig...
"I'm asking the question, because I genuinely want an answer. "
And I GAVE you the incredibly obvious answer. You're demonstrating you remain under the spell of your own personal Elmer Gantry.
Dan
Strangely enough throughout history people have promised much and delivered little. Muhammed, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Hitler, LBJ, FDR, Joel Osteen, Joseph Smith, Biden, Harris, Clinton, P-BO, und so weiter.
The problem with your fictional story is that it is crafted to make a point, propaganda if you will. It's fine, it's essentially a parable, and it's interesting because it happens regularly. Unfortunately, Trump actually managed to deliver on some of his promises. The economy was what it was, and didn't get massively worse when the employment numbers were revised, immigration was down, etc. Does Trump exaggerate, sure. Does Trump say things that don't make much sense, sure. But so do all of the other politicians out there.
Newsome promised to end homelessness, spent something like 24 million, and achieved nothing. Everyone involved has admitted that the "Inflation Reduction Act" was not intended to reduce inflation, and that P-BO care was based on lies.
The difference is that you like those lies, you supported Biden and Harris, despite them doing exactly what you accuse Trump of doing.
It's the old Dan double standard.
You gave me a made up, bullshit response based on your bias, partisanship, prejudice, and malice towards Trump and anyone who doesn't share your level of hatred for him.
Unlike you, I want a serious answer from Trump. If his reasoning ends up being stupid, I'll call it stupid. I've called plenty of Trump crap stupid over the last year or so. On the other hand, there might actually be a good reason to consider his proposal. Unlike you, I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion, therefore I'll wait to do so.
At the same time, my post and comments have been clear that I think it's strange to be bringing up all this crap now, instead of focusing on his core issues.
Post a Comment