A catch-all thread for Trump's bull-in-a-china-shop stroll through Europe.
We'll see if it can match the Chevy Chase classic for laughs and general mayhem.
DAY ONE: Insult and embarrass NATO partners. Threaten to leave NATO.
DAY TWO: NATO is tops and BTW everyone loves me!
Donald's pimp hand is strong.
Donald's daily routine with his haters:
![[Image: 1306235375_cat_vs_laser_pointer.gif]](http://www.gifbin.com/bin/052011/1306235375_cat_vs_laser_pointer.gif)
The haters are missing out on the vast comedic aspects of Trump's presidency.
DAY TWO: Theresa May betrayed the voters on Brexit. No special deal with the USA because UK is still EU's little b.
Actually she hasn't betrayed the voters. The voters voted on whether to leave the EU which should still be happening. Unfortunately there was no alternative relationship to vote on.
(07-12-2018, 02:15 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Donald's daily routine with his haters:
It's insane to me that you think he's doing this on purpose rather than just being inept.
(07-13-2018, 12:40 AM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (07-12-2018, 02:15 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Donald's daily routine with his haters:
It's insane to me that you think he's doing this on purpose rather than just being inept.
It's funny that you can't see how he's a bully negotiator and a troll. I'm thrilled at how this is going!
When hate is all you have, you miss quite a lot.
Nearly everything, in fact.
Trump revealed his negotiating style in a best-selling book many years ago. Yet many are surprised and even shocked every time he does it.
(07-13-2018, 12:11 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Trump revealed his negotiating style in a best-selling book many years ago. Yet many are surprised and even shocked every time he does it.
NATO allies each supposedly committed to increasing their defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024. The US spends 3.6%, but the US operates in Southeast Asia and the Middle East - while most NATO allies just face Russia.
A valid negotiating tactic would be something like, "I want 2% by 2020 now. Four years sooner." or "No, it's got to be 2.4% now. 2% isn't going to cut it now."
Saying, "I want 4%" is beyond a negotiating tactic. It's hypocritical because we spend less than that.
Saying, "You owe us money" is not a negotiating tactic at all. It's incorrect. They are supposed to spend the money on themselves.
Saying, "You owe us money for all the past years" is not just incorrect but hysterical.
He got what he was after. Mission accomplished.
Trump uses the tactic of stepping on people's toes until they apologize.
Ironically, it's not unlike the tactics the radical left use.
They go ridiculously far left and call it "normal," which can affect optics in a negative way. It can destroy optics, in fact. If they get a centrist to cave to their radical left idea, they are labeled "moderates" who compromised. When, in fact, it's a radical leftist stance and is no where near the center even if the politician is otherwise deemed conservative or moderate. They attempt to normalize radical and ridiculous policy and stances this way.
One of the best places you can see this in practice is watching Fast 'n' Loud. Rawlings is an incredible price negotiator. His first price is ALWAYS out of bounds in his favor. The magic is: the out of bounds starting point is the secret to tipping the scales in his favor. In the end, he gets the deal at or most of the time well below what he was actually willing to concede.
Same here with Trump.
(07-13-2018, 02:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]He got what he was after. Mission accomplished.
What did he get?
(07-13-2018, 02:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2018, 12:11 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Trump revealed his negotiating style in a best-selling book many years ago. Yet many are surprised and even shocked every time he does it.
NATO allies each supposedly committed to increasing their defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024. The US spends 3.6%, but the US operates in Southeast Asia and the Middle East - while most NATO allies just face Russia.
A valid negotiating tactic would be something like, "I want 2% by 2020 now. Four years sooner." or "No, it's got to be 2.4% now. 2% isn't going to cut it now."
Saying, "I want 4%" is beyond a negotiating tactic. It's hypocritical because we spend less than that.
Saying, "You owe us money" is not a negotiating tactic at all. It's incorrect. They are supposed to spend the money on themselves.
Saying, "You owe us money for all the past years" is not just incorrect but hysterical.
While unorthodox, it does not mean that tactic is incorrect. It is meant to be hypocritical and call them out. They’ve been riding the US coat tails since we established NATO in 1948/49.
That spending you speak of is on themselves but on behalf of the defense of all member states. Germany couldn’t defend themselves against a wet paper sack at this point. Their military is falling apart and unreliable. How are they to help defend the region or NATO members? The US has been the financial backbone of NATO for quite some time. So, no, stating, “you owe us” would not be an entirely incorrect statement. I think that statement would have been a homerun if Trump plopped down a financial report in the middle of the table at the same time.
(07-13-2018, 02:55 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically, it's not unlike the tactics the radical left use.
They go ridiculously far left and call it "normal," which can affect optics in a negative way. It can destroy optics, in fact. If they get a centrist to cave to their radical left idea, they are labeled "moderates" who compromised. When, in fact, it's a radical leftist stance and is no where near the center even if the politician is otherwise deemed conservative or moderate. They attempt to normalize radical and ridiculous policy and stances this way.
One of the best places you can see this in practice is watching Fast 'n' Loud. Rawlings is an incredible price negotiator. His first price is ALWAYS out of bounds in his favor. The magic is: the out of bounds starting point is the secret to tipping the scales in his favor. In the end, he gets the deal at or most of the time well below what he was actually willing to concede.
Same here with Trump.
Propaganda tactics have been bilateral since the 1950s if not earlier.
Also, neither the US left nor the US right are monolithic. If some crazy protestor somewhere says something, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the whole
(07-14-2018, 09:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2018, 02:55 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically, it's not unlike the tactics the radical left use.
They go ridiculously far left and call it "normal," which can affect optics in a negative way. It can destroy optics, in fact. If they get a centrist to cave to their radical left idea, they are labeled "moderates" who compromised. When, in fact, it's a radical leftist stance and is no where near the center even if the politician is otherwise deemed conservative or moderate. They attempt to normalize radical and ridiculous policy and stances this way.
One of the best places you can see this in practice is watching Fast 'n' Loud. Rawlings is an incredible price negotiator. His first price is ALWAYS out of bounds in his favor. The magic is: the out of bounds starting point is the secret to tipping the scales in his favor. In the end, he gets the deal at or most of the time well below what he was actually willing to concede.
Same here with Trump.
Propaganda tactics have been bilateral since the 1950s if not earlier.
Also, neither the US left nor the US right are monolithic. If some crazy protestor somewhere says something, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the whole
I think the extremes have found their way to the center though. For example the left believes anyone that voted for Trump is a racist, and that is not just the extremist that believe this.