He'll be nullifying any agreement within two or three tantrums anyway, eventually we will learn and retaliate.
It is a particularly interesting position when the US is trying to counter China. The only hope the US had was an alliances with other Western-style nations, but instead it has been nothing but attacks and diminishing.
Maybe Trump bets on his great relations with Putin and Kim instead.
The US put countering China way behind on its priority list, below "owning the libs" and settling old scores. I am convinced that if the Iran decapitation had worked like Venezuela, which seems to have been what they expected, then Cuba would have been next.
The point is to prop up Putin.
Attacking one of Russia's few allies and weapon suppliers is counterproductive to such a goal, even if higher oil prices also help the Russian state finances.
Yes, the Iran operation 100% served Russia and China. It could not have gone better for them.
And of course it helped Russia make hundreds of billions more on oil. Win win win.
China yes, Russia no.
> And of course it helped Russia make hundreds of billions more on oil. Win win win.
For this to be intentional, the USA would have needed to intend Hormuz to be closed, rather than surprised and upset by it.
(Not that it matters much, but estimates I see say about $50bn, which is closer to the destruction of Wildberries than it is to $100bn).
Cuba is completely insignificant beyond some ideological value.
To get an easy win compared to Iran just before the midterms? Of course, it could end up in a mess, but it's a mess already anyway.
How are those two things squared? Capitalism to these people isn't about free markets, it's about privatized gains and socialized losses.
- when the executive branch owns 11% of Intel. Can I get in line for them to buy 11% of my company, cash?
- when “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls” can come from both Trump and Sanders, about the government manipulating consumer choices.
Capitalism and free markets, in fact, cannot coexist.
Its the people that are the problem. These policies and politics will outcast Trump because middle Anerica and The South are filled with morons.
Leadership matters.
A different leader could take the country in a different direction - with the same voting base.
Eg an actual policy of isolationism instead of instigating multiple foreign conflicts.
That's not even close to an accurate number now. There are many sources e.g. (1)
It's a shame that people mostly learn the hard way, and forget easily. But that's not the support now.
1)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-approval-falls-33-low...
that wasn't even accurate on the day he got elected, considering a third of the country did not vote at all.
What a sad and tired take. Trump won both the electoral and popular vote. Discounting the opinions of over half the country as morons is exactly the type of behavior that got him elected.
This is the exactly the same sad, tired take one hears from republicans whenever you disagree with them on any issue. Pick a random issue, you'll find a republican claiming "this is why donald won" etc.
How have elections been going for donald and the GOP since then? How about approval ratings? Seems like it's way less than half the country now. Less than a third, even. We The People are speaking, let's listen. After all, ignoring Americans is exactly the behavior that caused the GOP to lose elections and the people's approval.
It’s with referring to half of the country as morons. If that’s the starting point for a debate it’s not likely to be a sincere one.
I agree that it is not a good or sincere starting point for debate.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-politi...
Speaking as an independent non-voter.
see independent voters polling don’t matter in the electiona since you don’t vote. /s
Some days I feel I could start a whole revolution against taxation without representation...
You’re telling me that this country is capable of learning?
A lot of extrapolations are made out of the 10 people who responded.
Or maybe I want something a little more significant than "we asked around the newsroom, and 35% of fox news reporters approve of the current administration". Cool, thanks, but that's not helpful or even a useful datapoint.
The state of the art (which confirms this ~35% approval number) is far more rigorous than that.
Start with a meta-review of historical accuracy and transparency, eg: https://www.natesilver.net/p/pollster-ratings-silver-bulleti...
Details on methodology and sample size can be Googled, eg: https://poll.qu.edu/methodology/ , https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/24/ev... , https://www.google.com/search?q=Marquette+University+Law+Sch..., etc.
Sample size is less important than you might think, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_proportion_confidence...
I doubt that is going to happen. Trump is going keep the strings behind the party, fucking everybody hard, until finally he dies or otherwise implodes. What is left of American democracy when that happens is a whole another thing.
He didn't say that it would be $1.99/liter.
The EU should abolish their tariffs and let the clowns in the US do whatever they feel like.
> while reaping the benefits of access to your market.
Huh, what? Trade is a win-win situation: you and your people benefit from imports, too.
And that also answers your second objection - if governments never gave preference to business interests over people, the world would look very different.
And the rest of your domestic businesses and consumers suffer.
You can also tax all right-handed people and give the proceeds to all the left-handed people in your country.