When Trump does something good (like when he imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil, which have now been lifted) or when one thought he would actually put pressure on Putin (but it ended up in TACO), I acknowledge it.
I also do not deny the positive side effects of his decisions, it is a great advantage that Russia’s and China’s influence in the world has decreased in connection with the US efforts in Venezuela and Iran.
At the same time, overall, Trump is completely devoid of morals and should never have become president (although it is not his fault, it is the American people who voted for him and the Democrats who could not present a viable alternative).
He proves his own unsuitability time and time again when he lies and enriches himself and his family and friends who donate money to his campaigns, or when he vindictively pursues those who are just doing their job.
Take something as simple as when he repeatedly claims that he will lower drug costs by 1500%. He is hardly so stupid that he does not understand that it is impossible, yet he continues to lie about it. So, he is consciously trying to deceive people. It would have almost been a mitigating circumstance if he instead were foolish enough to believe that it is possible to lower prices by over 100%.
Just that behavior alone shows that he has no scruples. A Swedish politician who would repeat such reasoning on several occasions would not remain in office. Then that example is just a drop in the ocean. Before the election, he would immediately release all the Epstein files. In the end, he was actually forced against his will to do it anyway. The list just goes on.
Last time he was president, it was probably The Washington Post that listed all his lies, they were over 30,000. If you have followed Trump and still believe that he is an honest person who only wants what’s best for everyone, I think you have completely failed to read him as a person. It also means that you have to interpret what he says and does based on that.
As for his abilities, with his many bankruptcies, he has also proven that he is not particularly skilled in anything other than agitating and getting parts of the population on his side. That is also an ability, and one must almost admit that he is skilled at it. If he had not become president, he would probably be in jail (so one understands of course that he made every effort).
The reason Republicans do not speak out is that those who dare to oppose him see their careers destroyed when Trump turns against them, and they are hopeless in the next election when MAGA votes for someone else.
Then there are, of course, those who despite all this still admire him; he manages to get his way, and many think that is all that matters.
However, with that said, when it comes to Venezuela and Iran, I have mentioned both the advantages and disadvantages and explained that I have mixed opinions about it. If you do not praise it unilaterally, you seem to be immediately labeled as a Trump hater (which, in a way, is quite accurate).
It is very rare, however, that I see any “Trump lovers” who even dare to admit that there may be negative consequences of Trump’s actions. I find it even more peculiar when it comes to Trump and Ukraine.
Seems completely impossible to admit that Trump should support Ukraine; instead, all criticism is immediately redirected towards Europe so that everything is the EU’s fault. How can it be the EU’s fault that the USA no longer provides Ukraine with the military support they could easily deliver before Trump became president?
First, it was that the USA had more important things to deal with; they have to take care of China, and besides, why should they care about a little shit war on another continent? Then they attack Venezuela and then Iran, suddenly it is entirely right for Trump to attack Iran as well, even though it is on another continent. Suddenly, the EU is stupid for not joining the war against Iran? Any negative aspects of the war are therefore not even up for discussion; such things are dismissed as polarized Trump hate.
Personally, I rather think that it is you Trump lovers who are blinded by your love; you need to dare to see beyond the surface and also acknowledge that there are certain flaws in his behavior and negative consequences of what he does.
By the way, credit to Johan No.1, who we all know is secretly in love with Trump. Despite that, he still dares to write that Trump behaves shamefully towards Ukraine (although it is often followed by Trump doing what is good for the USA).
Perhaps you would prefer me to stop writing? So this becomes just like Cornucopia, but the opposite, a site for unilateral praise of the great Trump? Maybe even Johan would like me to stop writing since I often analyze and criticize what he writes when I disagree or sense gaps.
If I stop writing, both Trump and Johan No.1 would be spared criticism.
Maybe it would be best for everyone to be rid of me?
Like Fylking, you would exclaim, “FINALLY!”
I just realized that you can also give feedback on my role here!
Loading ...
Don't forget to donate, Ukraine's cause is ours! Support Ukraine!
haha, I agreed with you up until the last paragraph where I naturally got a slap 🤣🤣
We do have real freedom of speech on the site, I wrote yesterday or something, and we should continue with that, right?
But yes, some writers tend to drop off as soon as they don’t get support, but if you adjust for them, the corridor becomes narrower.
Isn’t discussion and different arguments the core of what makes a site lively, like Lex Andra Bloggen which is now down to 150 comments per day, where Erik14 is responsible for 110 of them because he goes hard at everyone?
Well, that’s what I think too. Best if all sides are heard.
That’s why I usually prefer being here (even though I often struggle against the wind 😄) rather than over at Cornu.
Of course, there are some skilled/interesting writers there as well, and ERIK 14 definitely outpaces me in posting volume when he gets going.
Initially, I just wanted to explain a bit why I think the way I do about Trump, but then I felt maybe I should sharpen it a bit. Of course, always with a twinkle in the eye.
I never intend to be truly mean, but my irony can be difficult, especially when it also contains some criticism. Or vice versa, when my criticism contains some irony.
A problem that I think leads to misunderstandings is probably that one does not always have time to read everything.
I guess that LW is affected by that. I don’t think he really keeps track of the writers because he doesn’t read enough himself. He has probably also had a lot of trolls on his side before.
When he then sees something and misinterprets it and at the same time doesn’t know who the person is and what they have written before, it all goes wrong.
A bit like the terrorist cells that I have written about several times, that I expect them to strike. Then when I just speculate that maybe it’s because they are not that common after all (with reference to you), you interpret it as criticism (but also misinterpret it as me meaning that they don’t exist at all).
I have also speculated about other reasons that could possibly be the cause of us not seeing anything and which therefore assume that they exist, just that they haven’t done anything yet.
I believe that there are cells and I am still surprised that not more has happened than the little we have seen.
But you didn’t handle this thread about that, of course.
It’s not about admiring Trump in everything he does. The criticism on this site has been about foreign policy. And Trump’s actions towards Russia, in Ukraine and beyond Ukraine. And here it has hardly been about dazzling ideas rooted or drawn in Trump’s megalomania. What comes from Washington and especially from the Pentagon is something completely different, built on decades of war planning and various scenarios. When Trump says that it was only a matter of time (CBS last night) before Iran attacked the Gulf states, it’s not free fantasies, but certainly information from the CIA. Which is not some MAGA department. And when Zelensky speaks about Iran/Russia, it’s not fantasies either or something he says to please Trump and Vance. So, it’s not, as you suggest, about any kind of admiration for Trump. What we do know for sure, however, is that Kamala Harris has criticized the Iran intervention. However, it could be about winning over disillusioned MAGA supporters. Taking into account the intelligence that Trump outlined as mentioned above, it’s not impossible that the same intervention would have taken place without Trump and with Harris, with the difference being that it was Trump they criticized. That the US does not support Ukraine is also wrong. That Europe should have taken much greater responsibility from the start and even now is true. It is towards Europe that criticism should primarily be directed. You make yourself a martyr completely unnecessarily. I will not participate in the survey.
Ah, I don’t feel like a martyr at all! Maybe if I were voted out, of course. 🤔
We’ll see if the USA will hand over (or leak) any evidence of an imminent attack. It would presumably be in their interest.
I don’t see anything Trump says (considering how rarely he sticks to the truth) as evidence of anything at all. Trump replaced the head of the CIA with John Ratcliffe, a loyal supporter (and a lot of other staff). There may have been a report from the CIA, but it may have been tailored to Trump’s wishes to support his actions.
When it comes to Harris and Trump, it could very well have turned out as you write, the other way around, and regardless, the other party would have criticized. Unfortunately, that’s where we’ve ended up (like when Magdalena complains about the nuclear power discussions with France).
I completely agree that Europe should have done more, but you must agree that the support from the USA is minimal nowadays, right? They seem to get intelligence, and Europe buys weapons.
Are you suggesting that Trump did what he did in Venezuela and Iran to support Ukraine?
Last paragraph, not necessarily “because”, but in practice it is the most reasonable way to disarm the threat from Russia. Start at the periphery and work towards the source. In the periphery, we have Syria, Venezuela, Hamas, Iran. Also India.
China? And if one wants to reach China, perhaps Russia is in the periphery… or vice versa…
Second to last paragraph: Assuming the above about the last paragraph, then it is a reasonable division of labor. Iran seems to be (have been) heavily armed!
These two are connected: If the way to disarm the threat from Russia is reasonable and in line with what is happening (cutting off the tentacles before going for the head (where we are not yet!), then Iran is a completely different effort than Syria and Venezuela.
Also note here: if Ukraine had not held Russia at bay, the situation would have been completely different in Venezuela but especially in Iran. Then probably the USA wouldn’t have even tried. The Ukrainian and American efforts are interconnected and mutually supportive. Otherwise, Putin could have delivered on his promised support to the respective regimes. He has not succeeded at all. Neither in Syria, Venezuela, nor Iran.
No, didn’t really keep track of the CIA, and who has come in instead. Also don’t know how common it is there with such “personnel changes” when changing administrations.
I can buy that there is a logic in your theory, that the USA chooses to weaken Russia and China’s friends in order to slowly tighten the noose primarily around Russia, which in turn also affects China.
In that case, I suspect that it comes from more knowledgeable and influential strategists in the USA and that they have then managed to convince Trump that it is the right way to go. It could be hawks who saw their chance with Trump (but were held back under Biden). So there may be some in the USA who manage to steer Trump where they want him, but to him, they have sold it as being for the benefit of the USA (and Trump).
This could also explain why Trump often doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about, he simply isn’t the one pulling the strings.
Trump has been working against Ukraine for several years and caused problems for them even before he became president. I am completely sure that he does not stand on Ukraine’s side unless it can benefit him in some way.
Now I don’t believe in that, but as I said, it’s a possibility.
As you write, the war in Ukraine has weakened Russia so much that they cannot help their friends.
Isn’t it then almost even more cynical of the USA? They take the opportunity to pressure Venezuela, among others, mostly for their own gain (the regime is still in place), when the best way to hit Russia instead would have been to give Ukraine twice as much weapon support as before? Instead of now stopping almost all deliveries?
Certainly, US efforts weaken Russia, but in the meantime, Ukrainians continue to die. So just as Europe should do more, the USA should also do more.
If Ukraine had instead defeated Russia and weakened them even more, it would have been even more advantageous to then go after the other countries.
Iran might have been necessary regardless, but there was hardly any urgency with Venezuela. Their oil production was heavily sanctioned, and the economic exchange with Russia and China was largely geopolitical.
Therefore, I do not think it indicates any intention to actually weaken Russia in order to help Ukraine, but rather it is about their own sphere of interest, and what they do partly benefits Ukraine just happens to coincide.
Resources! The Iran operation involves significant resources. Can one simultaneously engage in Ukraine without depleting the margins too much? Venezuela has supported Russia militarily, not only vice versa, there are reports about. Additionally, drug cartels supported by Maduro have financed terror groups linked to Hezbollah, thus an Iranian-supported operation. Or vice versa, see article from October 2020:
October 7, 2020 The Maduro-Hezbollah Nexus: How Iran-backed Networks Prop up the Venezuelan Regime
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-maduro-hezbollah-nexus-how-iran-backed-networks-prop-up-the-venezuelan-regime/
So, no rush with Venezuela? Who knows, the Iranian-Venezuelan terrorist activity may still have been so significant that it has facilitated the current Iran operation to first enter Venezuela.
Low-hanging fruits! Syria, Venezuela <less than< Iran <less than< Russia (which is tied up in the war against Ukraine, and therefore not as dangerous as otherwise).
While you seem to be ready to take the bull by the horns, the alternative I believe is happening is to take one layer at a time, from the outside in. And in that way, work methodically and reduce the amount of unknown factors and thus the risks of a set-back.
One would have increased support to Ukraine from day one (already during Biden’s time) then the war would have already been over. If Trump had started from his day one, Russia would have been significantly weaker today even if they may not have been defeated yet.
Then the other countries would have been much easier to pick off.
But perhaps it is so that the US military superiority is mostly on paper, just as Europe has been poorly equipped so they simply do not dare to do anything other than to pussyfoot around.
Regardless, it is obvious that they don’t give a damn about Ukraine even if they see Russia (and China) as the end goal and that as a side effect hopefully will benefit Ukraine.
I do not agree that it is obvious that the USA doesn’t care about Ukraine, to know this one must first clarify other things. Such as that it is clear that the USA wants Europe to take on greater responsibility. Sometimes the only way to get someone else to clean up/take care of things is to not do it oneself. And in that way, force Europe to take care of security. It is not individual European countries that do not want to take responsibility but it is a built-in problem where a single country, such as Hungary, can block decisions.
Staff changes are of course quite common when leaders are replaced, even though I am not familiar with how it usually looks when it comes to executives within the CIA, FBI, etc. but Trump has clearly favored loyalty over competence so my (prejudiced) guess is that it is the former that is Ratcliffe’s main merit.
Then (I assume) it’s not just any car dealer in Maga-land who has been recruited for the position. Internal recruitment, right? Then at least basic competence should be ensured, shouldn’t it?
See that Ratcliffe was the head of DNI before whom among CIA answers. The same position that Tulsi Gabbard now holds. Tulsi Gabbard was a Democrat until October 11, 2011. Tulsi Gabbard was invited by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) in 2012 to speak at the Democrats’ 2012 national convention. In addition to a long-standing relationship with the Democrats during Obama and partly Biden, Tulsi Gabbard has 13 military medals from her military career. The fact that the successor as head of DNI is not a typical MAGA speaks to the fact that neither her predecessor Ratcliff is, even though he has not had a history within the Democratic Party.
However, the USA does award military medals on par with the scouts and their cloth badges.
But it’s a bit comical that the “peace president” who doesn’t want war has just started one and also renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, and the top honcho is basically the Minister of War, right?
Yes, it’s a bit funny. It also shows that he doesn’t care about his voters. He promises a lot before the election which he then completely ignores.
hen is most likely as close to brain dead as one can be without being unconscious.
I am who I am.
Or as they say.
It’s lucky one turned out as one did,
When one didn’t become as one should have.
👍
I’m not so sure that Trump understands that drug prices cannot be lowered by 1,500 percent – unfortunately.
I did it again, got logged out while I was writing…
I must learn to copy the text before pressing “Publish” if I have been writing for a long time.
My comment was in short.
Trump lacks all the qualities associated with a statesman, he also lacks manners and common sense. When he meets, for example, Merz, Stubb, or Zelensky, it’s like when matter and antimatter collide. It’s as if one would expect their handshake to result in them being annihilated in a flash of pure energy.
But despite all his shortcomings, his actions can also have positive results, such as weakening Russia, and improving opportunities for freedom for the populations of Venezuela and Iran.
Does it still happen often to you? The login should, as mentioned, last for 20-30 days if you have checked the remember me option. So it happens to me too on rare occasions.
We have about the same view on Trump.
I probably forgot to check the box, but it would be good if there was a reminder that you will be logged out after a while, especially when you are in the editor.
Personally, I am very conflicted about Trump.
I sympathize with quite a few aspects of his politics, while at the same time I find him very difficult as a person.
I believe that many of his so-called “lies” are indeed untrue, but they are often of the “hyperbole” type, which feels very foreign to a Swede. It is also a way to manipulate the media. It’s like the focus is on “but lowering it by 1500% is impossible” and the actual issue falls into the background. To focus on that is to be manipulated, not because 1500% is a lie, but because now other more important questions were not asked or highlighted.
I also believe that it is wrong to dismiss him as unintelligent, demented, impulsive, etc. Much rather indicates a fairly high IQ and that he holds the same political positions today as he has expressed for decades. Hardly impulsive, rather extremely long-term. He also seems to have had a very long-term plan on how to navigate to his current position. Furthermore, at least since the last term, he seems to have worked hard to create a program and strategy that he is now executing. And that many people have been and are part of this. It’s not a one-man show.
I don’t like his win/lose thinking and dominance behavior. However, I am a bit unsure of how much better he is in that regard than others in similar positions and how much is about others handling it more discreetly and trying to show a kind of facade of goodness, which he doesn’t care about in plain Swedish.
So… I welcome critical analysis of him and his politics, but it should preferably be on a slightly higher level than his inability to calculate percentages.
I am genuinely curious about both what indicates high IQ and what in his politics you like. It is of course *possible* that there is a good plan for the Iran intervention despite different plans being communicated all the time. It is also *possible* that there are good reasons for the constant Putin-flattery and pressure on Zelensky when the whole sensible world and the majority of Congress would like to do things differently. It is *possible* that there was a good plan behind the whole Greenland adventure even though it is very difficult to see what that would be. It is possible that all descriptions of him as deeply ignorant from before are incorrect. I don’t even want to consider January 6th as a possibility, just this should in a sensible world disqualify him for all future in my opinion.
For my part, I still think the hypothesis of a rather stupid Krasnov is the most reasonable.
What I like about his politics revolves around the following:
Regarding Greenland and other geopolitics, he is explicitly “America first.” This may be true even beneath the surface, but it may also be more about “oligarch first” beneath the surface. The latter is then the line that there is a kind of understanding with Putin, etc. I hold both of these possibilities in mind simultaneously and am of course not fond of an oligarch-first policy. Regardless, Europe must grow up and take responsibility for its own defense policy and energy policy. Our shortcomings in these areas are not Trump’s fault, and it is childish to get mad at him for pointing out these shortcomings.
Regarding, for example, Greenland, I have two thoughts in mind:
Still unclear to me whether point 1 or 2 applies. I will continue to try to interpret the coffee grounds for further signals.
Yes, one might think he is smart when he manipulates the media and his supporters, and you can’t deny that he managed to become president for a second time despite dismal approval ratings last time.
But is that really the kind of person, with those exact qualities, that you want to see as president?
Someone who constantly lies about everything? Like now, when he has claimed several times recently that gasoline prices are below 2 USD in several places? Just to make people believe that prices haven’t risen?
When he goes out and says that energy will become so cheap in the USA that it will solve all economic problems within a year because it all depends on energy?
Exactly the same rhetoric he had before the election with the tariffs that were supposed to bring in trillions and trillions so that it would also solve all economic problems.
So, is he smart for lying about these things and deceiving everyone? Or is he perhaps so stupid that he believes it himself?
Regardless of whether it’s one or the other, I don’t think he’s the right man for the job.
I don’t know if “smart” is the right epithet to gaslight his voters. However, he is certainly not alone in using this strategy in politics. This is one of the things I consider a negative on his record.
Furthermore, I believe this is part of a deliberate communication strategy. This strategy aims to make the media focus on irrelevant details and lose sight of the bigger picture. The strategy works excellently for this purpose. It successfully confuses the media from the more overarching issues while making his supporters view the media as “nitpickers.”
So, I’m not saying at all that I appreciate or like his approach to this. I don’t.
What I’m saying is that the media and critics are doing a terrible job in responding to his strategy in this area. And yes, because of that, maybe he is “smart” insofar as his strategy achieves the goals he is after.
As mentioned, he is far from alone in using gaslighting, but the media is not as keen on exposing all gaslighting to the same extent. For example, the claims in Swedish politics that longer sentences would not reduce recidivism in crimes have been put forward unchallenged for decades. Life imprisonment would quite obviously lead to a 0% recidivism rate, to highlight the absurdity of this claim.
Good morning!
990 KWIA
5 Tanks
3 AFVs
61 Artillery systems
1 MLRS
2157 UAVs
281 Vehicles and Fuel tanks
1 Special equipment
Glory to Ukraine
https://bsky.app/profile/matsextrude.bsky.social/post/3mgr724juak2b
Ended up in the wrong thread, but Russian losses are worth repeating!