|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11395 Posts
On January 23 2026 13:05 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:03 Falling wrote:He throws out what he wants and he get partial of what he wants. Don't we have to take him literally then? He literally wanted X, but instead he got X/1000 of what he wanted? That's not at all contrary to my conclusion on how Trump operates. When did I say you need to take him literally?.
Until the latest quote, you haven't.
But your latest quote which I am reacting to definitionally requires us to take him literally.
"If he throws out what he wants", then we have to take the thing that he said as being the thing that he said and meant. Aka literally.
Then he gets a fraction of what he wants... he still literally wants that original thing that was expressed in the original statement. But he has only fractionally succeeded. Or in many cases out right failed as some things like winning elections are binary.
On January 23 2026 13:08 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:03 Falling wrote:He throws out what he wants and he get partial of what he wants. Don't we have to take him literally then? He literally wanted X, but instead he got X/1000 of what he wanted? That's not at all contrary to my conclusion on how Trump operates. Furthermore, just because an idea is moronic- that doesn't prove your claim: I think it's absurdly stupid if you think he had a chance to stop ukraine russia war, on a timer, like a switch Of course it is moronic to think he could stop the war in a day. But what evidence do you have that he meant anything else beyond your personal incredulity that he possible couldn't? You can derive secret meanings from a man who has the subtlety of a charging bull and the patience of a toddler, but 'high on his own supply' is the simpler explanation with his prowess in peace negotiations. You obviously didn't think it's absurdly stupid if you hold him accountable to ending the war like a flip switch. Also I don't think there's any secret meaning. What's the secret you think I derives from him having tariff or golden visa card? What did I say about it
You seem to have trouble with understanding language.
No, I obviously think ending the war in Ukraine day one of his presidency (itself a concession considering his previous claims to end it before) is absurd. Which is why I would never support nor carry water for anyone claiming they can do so. But, again, your personal incredulity doesn't prove your claim when Trump has only ever expressed a belief that simply by being the president he can end wars. You say it's stupid. I say it's stupid. But it being stupid has nothing to do with whether Trump believes it or not. Especially if we have a pattern of Trump consistently trumpeting his own capabilities. Is Trump immune to arrogance? Especially, the arrogance often seen by the super successful in one domain, that they believe they are successful in all domains?
re: secret meanings
If Trump says X and repeats X and turns X into a slogan. But you say, we can't take 'X' literally, then we must derive another meaning for X that Trump never expresses aka a secret meaning, a gnosis.
|
On January 23 2026 13:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:05 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 13:03 Falling wrote:He throws out what he wants and he get partial of what he wants. Don't we have to take him literally then? He literally wanted X, but instead he got X/1000 of what he wanted? That's not at all contrary to my conclusion on how Trump operates. When did I say you need to take him literally?. Until the latest quote, you haven't. But your latest quote which I am reacting to definitionally requires us to take him literally. "If he throws out what he wants", then we have to take the thing that he said as being the thing that he said and meant. Aka literally. Then he gets a fraction of what he wants... he still literally wants that original thing that was expressed in the original statement. But he has only fractionally succeeded. Or in many cases out right failed as some things like winning elections are binary.
I am sorry but have you not ever barter for anything before?
It's not that complex.
Go to your local watch AD, says you want a IWC watch.
Asks for 20% discount and see what they say.
They have a few options.
Yes, no but 10%, no but extra warranty, or just a no.
They could give you a few options too, since you got the intention to buy a watch
You said many cases it failed out right. I would say there's been quite a few done well and some failed, but that's to be expected.
|
Canada11395 Posts
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic.
|
United States43505 Posts
Trump has spent the last decade answering the question of whether he specifically believes the specific claims he makes to be literally true. He answers in the affirmative. It's only his supporters who explain that you can't take him literally. Trump is very insistent that he means exactly what he says.
|
On January 23 2026 13:22 Falling wrote:
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic.
And?
Why do you think zelensky made that speech at Davos.
I have mentioned this before, Japan and Taiwan won't have increases trade with China even if the US asked for more.
That's the allies US should and need to have to remain in dominance.
Not Europe unwilling to spend more effort to self reliance.
Or not contributing enough at NATO.
The world was kept in balance via overwhelming strength.
|
The watch example is actually very funny because buying from authorised dealers is actually an incredibly simple affair. They make money off the whales, people who are repeat customers who don’t really make a big fuss over things like prices.
You go into an authorised dealer selling watches under the Richemont or LVMH umbrella and they’ll probably give you 15-20% right on the spot if you’re not an asshole. If you’re a repeat customer with a history of purchases, they’d likely give you 30% on the spot. The more you are a pain, the less willing they are to help you out so to speak.
There’s really not that much, if any, bartering once there’s a degree of trust established because all parties agree to the relationship established. Now compare that to how this US administration does just about anything where this administration puts forwards a billion trial balloons to try and see what they can get away with rather than approach things from a position of respect and trust.
|
Canada11395 Posts
On January 23 2026 13:41 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:22 Falling wrote:
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic. And? Why do you think zelensky made that speech at Davos. I have mentioned this before, Japan and Taiwan won't have increases trade with China even if the US asked for more. That's the allies US should and need to have to remain in dominance. Not Europe unwilling to spend more effort to self reliance. Or not contributing enough at NATO. The world was kept in balance via overwhelming strength.
Because he's not demanding 20% in order to get 10%.
He's demanding to seize all the watches or he burns down the store... and when that doesn't work, he then buys the watch at sticker price. (Or get bribed a billion dollars to not do so.)
It's not negotiations for the difference of 10%; it's a shakedown or a series of failed shakedowns. Especially when the question is whether or not he's willing to seize election against the will of the people.
This is not normal, and people like you trying to normalize it will help erode the gains of classic liberalism. It's deeply anti-liberal and very authoritarian—disturbingly so.
|
On January 23 2026 13:44 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
The watch example is actually very funny because buying from authorised dealers is actually an incredibly simple affair. They make money off the whales, people who are repeat customers who don’t really make a big fuss over things like prices.
You go into an authorised dealer selling watches under the Richemont or LVMH umbrella and they’ll probably give you 15-20% right on the spot if you’re not an asshole. If you’re a repeat customer with a history of purchases, they’d likely give you 30% on the spot. The more you are a pain, the less willing they are to help you out so to speak.
There’s really not that much, if any, bartering once there’s a degree of trust established because all parties agree to the relationship established. Now compare that to how this US administration does just about anything where this administration puts forwards a billion trial balloons to try and see what they can get away with rather than approach things from a position of respect and trust.
If they offer you a 15-20% discount, because you are "nice". That's the discount they can typically run at all discount session, even online.
If you want a discount on popular models, you'd expect to get 0% - 10% max, which you can only get if you askes for it. They very rarely will give you anything additional without asking, especially for waitlist models.
You really should get a watch collector to come with you next time.
"From a position of respect and trust"
When Zelensky speak out about Europe, that's pretty much telling the whole world this is about the best Europe can do for an existential crisis moment, and it's not good enough.
|
On January 23 2026 14:07 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:41 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 13:22 Falling wrote:
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic. And? Why do you think zelensky made that speech at Davos. I have mentioned this before, Japan and Taiwan won't have increases trade with China even if the US asked for more. That's the allies US should and need to have to remain in dominance. Not Europe unwilling to spend more effort to self reliance. Or not contributing enough at NATO. The world was kept in balance via overwhelming strength. Because he's not demanding 20% in order to get 10%. He's demanding to seize all the watches or he burns down the store... and when that doesn't work, he then buys the watch at sticker price. (Or get bribed a billion dollars to not do so.) It's not negotiations for the difference of 10%; it's a shakedown or a series of failed shakedowns. Especially when the question is whether or not he's willing to seize election against the will of the people. This is not normal, and people like you trying to normalize it will help erode the gains of classic liberalism. It's deeply anti-liberal and very authoritarian—disturbingly so.
He wants 20%, he pushed to get 20%, he settled for 10%.
10% is more than 0%.
Done.
What do you think all these ban on chips, Chinese EV, DJI, tiktok for then? Is this normal? That's not very liberal as well.
I am more than happy to see US pushing Europe to spend more in NATO and dropping Chinese influence, if it means the relationship will need to take the toll.
And I am not surprised if Europe to follow Canada to kowtow to china, don't think any Taiwanese expected otherwise.
Might as well start buying russia and Chinese arms just in case of US invasion, that's the way to go, amirite?
it's people like you who allowed this entire scenario where China is right behind the US, because there's literally no sense of urgency.
Now you crying about golden dome, when China is literally pushing space tech as the next major field to focus on.
|
On January 23 2026 13:41 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:22 Falling wrote:
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic. And? Why do you think zelensky made that speech at Davos. I have mentioned this before, Japan and Taiwan won't have increases trade with China even if the US asked for more. That's the allies US should and need to have to remain in dominance. Not Europe unwilling to spend more effort to self reliance. Or not contributing enough at NATO. The world was kept in balance via overwhelming strength.
You really need to stop getting your opinions from Russian state TV.
|
On January 23 2026 14:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 13:41 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 13:22 Falling wrote:
Except my examples were not about bartering for a watch or anything comparable.
Were they.
They were things like seizing power against the will of the people or threatening to destroy American hegemony over a bit of land in the Arctic. And? Why do you think zelensky made that speech at Davos. I have mentioned this before, Japan and Taiwan won't have increases trade with China even if the US asked for more. That's the allies US should and need to have to remain in dominance. Not Europe unwilling to spend more effort to self reliance. Or not contributing enough at NATO. The world was kept in balance via overwhelming strength. You really need to stop getting your opinions from Russian state TV.
You really should stop making assumptions on where I get my sources.
Ah you are from Spain.
Why Spain is not meeting NATO spending targets - Atlantic Council https://share.google/CGyrJUtDz0l9K1zZB
Spain’s defense spending has long fallen short of NATO’s benchmarks. Under the previous NATO benchmark of reaching 2 percent of GDP in military spending by 2024, Spain consistently underperformed, spending only about 1.2 percent in recent years. In 2024, its military budget stood at approximately €17.2 billion, or 1.24 percent of the country’s GDP, the lowest among NATO members as a percentage of economic output.
Did you know about this from your non Russian state tv?
|
United States43505 Posts
The example of Spain really shows what is possible if you work on having good relationships with your neighbours rather than approaching every single situation in the stupidest possible way. I mean sure, Spain could spend all their money on military adventurism and engaging in an escalatory standoff with Britain over Gibraltar but it turns out you can also just not do that. You can have multilateral profitable relationships.
The US will happily burn a trillion dollars in Iraq and then turn around to other NATO members and demand thanks for all the money spent on making them safer. Nobody asked them to do it. Nobody told them to do it. Nobody benefited from it. And yet apparently there's some sort of debt owed because the US spent so much of its own treasure on the adventure. If Spain had started a ruinously expensive war with Morocco that had left the Spanish military depleted then that'd somehow be much better.
In a few years we'll have another trillion spent on the concept of a golden dome which wouldn't cover any of the NATO allies (it won't cover the US either but that's not relevant to the point) and Americans will demand to know why they're spending so much money on the military compared to others.
|
On January 23 2026 14:47 KwarK wrote:
The example of Spain really shows what is possible if you work on having good relationships with your neighbours rather than approaching every single situation in the stupidest possible way. I mean sure, Spain could spend all their money on military adventurism and engaging in an escalatory standoff with Britain over Gibraltar but it turns out you can also just not do that. You can have multilateral profitable relationships.
The US will happily burn a trillion dollars in Iraq and then turn around to other NATO members and demand thanks for all the money spent on making them safer. Nobody asked them to do it. Nobody told them to do it. Nobody benefited from it. And yet apparently there's some sort of debt owed because the US spent so much of its own treasure on the adventure.
In a few years we'll have another trillion spent on the concept of a golden dome which wouldn't cover any of the NATO allies (it won't cover the US either but that's not relevant to the point) and Americans will demand to know why they're spending so much money on the military compared to others.
Again this issue is known all the way publicly since 2011. I thought US has good relationship with Europe before?
and as for:
On January 23 2026 14:47 KwarK wrote: In a few years we'll have another trillion spent on the concept of a golden dome which wouldn't cover any of the NATO allies (it won't cover the US either but that's not relevant to the point) and Americans will demand to know why they're spending so much money on the military compared to others
I thought you didn't know what golden dome is.
either way you are more than happy to write to Russia and China to test it out. OR you can even go to China and ask how they got their version to work.
|
On January 23 2026 10:23 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 10:14 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 09:59 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 09:46 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 09:26 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2026 08:44 ETisME wrote:Looks like Zelensky is also fed up with the inaction and PR talk from Europe. Zelensky tells Davos Europe stuck in 'Groundhog Day' of inaction https://share.google/He also used Maduro as an example of action. Not surprised, he even used Greenland as an example just how bad the "14, 40 soldiers" look, even as a symbolic deployment If the entire thing with Greenland works out, US golden dome defense would be in a great position. I would be interested to see if Canada would be or should be included at this point. Board of peace should settle middle east, given the members signed up so far, and potentially russia/ukraine, then US can keep a closer eye and attention to China and Taiwan. Largest arms deal package and additional allocate funding to Taiwan already. Japan is poised to increase tie with Taiwan significantly under Takaichi as well. Next couple of years gonna be interesting. If board of peace prove to be more effective/actionable, then I can see it making UN obsolete tbh. I also find it funny when Canada trying to ramp up European allies against the US about Greenland in Davos, the entire Greenland deal is already closed to getting resolved lol In what way? What do you think will come out of the deal? Trump's interest in Greenland isn't territorial, which makes it even more funny Europeans sensing troops over there. the golden dome is a key to defend the US from more advanced missiles including hyper sonic missiles and potential missiles from space. Greenland plays a big role there. It can stop missiles from China and russia before they reach early boost, making it much more effective and easy to block. I am plenty sure Europeans allies know what US wants, they just don't want to get outed about how under prepared they are about Greenland strategic position importance. Trump specified that his interest was explicitly territorial and that he wouldn’t accept anything less than a direct transfer of ownership. That was what he needed, anything else would be unacceptable, a failure. Also the golden dome isn’t real and the tech it will be built on doesn’t exist. He just heard Israel had an iron dome and wanted a shinier dome for himself. You do this thing where whenever Trump is involved you just make up what he wants so that you can declare failure as victory. You say it is close to being resolved, only because Trump has fully surrendered. The initial positions were irreconcilable, Trump wanted ownership, Denmark was unable to give that. They remained irreconcilable throughout the dispute while Trump steadily escalated his threatening rhetoric and his threats of economic warfare. The only reason the positions are no longer irreconcilable is because Trump surrendered. I honestly don't understand how some of you are interpreting Trump so literally. This isn't even his first term, come on. FYI How Greenland could become China's Arctic base - BBC News https://share.google/2Y9fPOoCOQyvN4YGFThis was in 2018. This is also why Denmark influence over Greenland has fallen off significantly over the years. Because he clarified over and over that he meant it literally whenever his advisors attempted to "translate" on his behalf and say that he didn't mean it literally. Unpredictable is his play. He throws it out and the rest work around it. Did he get tariff through? Yes. Same amount he shouted at? Nope.
What do you mean by "get through"? He declared them unilaterally without the congress's approval. That's illegal. He also doesn't understand who pays them.
Did he get NATO members to spend more? Yes. The amount he wants? Maybe, maybe not.
He didn't. Russia did.
Did he get russia and ukraine on negotiation table? Yes. Same conditions he threw at ukraine at the start? Nope.
Also false. He did not invite Ukraine to the same negotiating table as Russia. No concessions have been made. It's just a waste of time. He's being played by Russia and Witkoff is helping Putin do that.
|
Our US friends ask for help, and POLAND WILL ANSWER. Due to our obligations, and regarding our future military operations against aggressors, we request the construction of our own base in the US territory with full access to logistics, NATO infrastructure, extraterritoriality, and the prosecution of our soldiers under Polish law. Also we need full rights to operate drones in consultation with the local USAF commander. And, since we are at war with "invaders from South", full access to CIA intelligence data on “allied forces” operating on “NATO's southern flank.”
|
On January 23 2026 16:59 hitthat wrote:Our US friends ask for help, and POLAND WILL ANSWER. Due to our obligations, and regarding our future military operations against aggressors, we request the construction of our own base in the US territory with full access to logistics, NATO infrastructure, extraterritoriality, and the prosecution of our soldiers under Polish law. Also we need full rights to operate drones in consultation with the local USAF commander. And, since we are at war with "invaders from South", full access to CIA intelligence data on “allied forces” operating on “NATO's southern flank.”
Haha that would be awesome.
Someone should tell him "careful what you wish for" xD
|
United States43505 Posts
I'm not sure he knows where the North Atlantic is.
|
Oh, wow, so I learned so much over these pages.
I learned that a BBC article saying, in 2018 that China would like to have some bases on Greenland, which never happened means that Trump should be able to take it, cool.
I also learned that Trump basically invaded Ukraine, because that's when these graphs started to go up:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=EU
Also, it seems like he got China to saber rattle over Taiwan, which got them to open a fab in Arizona, genius!
And if that wasn't enough, he also invented ways to shoot down ICBM's, wow, I might join the cult, ETisME, are you guys accepting new members?
|
I feel like the entire idea premise of looking at politics like some sort of market hustle buy is completely absurd. Diplomacy isn't common bartering. You don't need to go to a ridiculous take initially because people are usually reasonable and if you ask 20% initially to end up at 10%, you could've fought for the 10% in the first place. It's all just bully tactics that are simply disrespectful and wasting every one's time. The one thing it does do is show to morons what a big strong bad ass he is, whkle he's showing to everyone else what a moronic bully he is.
|
And it makes absolutely 0 sense in the context of Greenland because there is already a treaty between Greenland and America that says America can build bases and station troops freely, just so long as they inform the Greenland government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/9cd928845d7061d3f6c055e8a9d52a9ce7653fa0f2b7e848f3215ea48150b381.jpg?author=stjimmy&auth=c62add6522b8327f1014481b7354daf5)
