Trump's Second Term

Resume said:
A long time ago when my wife was pregnant with our first, I got an offer to manage a fishing/hunting camp north of Churchill MB. We talked about it and the guy who made the offer suggested that either we wait until our child was born, or we move to Winnepeg where I could fly back when the time came. I passed and now really regret it as our granddaughters will have to endure out new fascist overlords, if not a civil war.
Click to expand...


NORTH of Churchill? Brrrr....

I went to Winnipeg and Churchill this past year. Vacation of a lifetime :) Great spot
 
Ziggurat said:
You're assuming that Putin is who that's aimed at. That's not an unreasonable guess, but I don't think it's actually correct. I think he's negotiating with Europe, not with Putin, and what he's negotiating is the level of support that THEY will provide to Ukraine. And in that sense, the statement isn't so much a minimalist demand as a maximalist demand: Europe needs to step up to the plate in a major way or Ukraine is toast. You can argue about whether or not this is the right approach, but if I'm right about who that's targeted at, it's very much in line with his general approach to negotiations.
Click to expand...
Negotiations work if both sides are realistic, not if one side is a demented snowflake who cannot handle the word 'no' and who randomly breaks agreements based on whoever last whispered in his ear.
 
Territory is not the issue, it really isn't. What matters is a Western presence in Ukraine that will. forcefully, prevent Russian aggression.
There is no doubt that Ukraine will win The Peace, recovering much faster than Russia will from the war with Western Aid and trade agreements.
Russia will not spend money to uplift its occupied territories, making the Ukrainians there pine to join the rest of the country once again - which will happen next time Russia is in a deep crisis of leadership.

Hence, Russia will do what it can not to have peace at all by making unreasonable demands.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Territory is not the issue, it really isn't. What matters is a Western presence in Ukraine that will. forcefully, prevent Russian aggression.
There is no doubt that Ukraine will win The Peace, recovering much faster than Russia will from the war with Western Aid and trade agreements.
Russia will not spend money to uplift its occupied territories, making the Ukrainians there pine to join the rest of the country once again - which will happen next time Russia is in a deep crisis of leadership.

Hence, Russia will do what it can not to have peace at all by making unreasonable demands.
Click to expand...

There's a dedicated thread for Ukraine
 
Ziggurat said:
You're assuming that Putin is who that's aimed at. That's not an unreasonable guess, but I don't think it's actually correct. I think he's negotiating with Europe, not with Putin, and what he's negotiating is the level of support that THEY will provide to Ukraine. And in that sense, the statement isn't so much a minimalist demand as a maximalist demand: Europe needs to step up to the plate in a major way or Ukraine is toast. You can argue about whether or not this is the right approach, but if I'm right about who that's targeted at, it's very much in line with his general approach to negotiations.
Click to expand...
This is your problem here. You keep twisting everything under the sun. "You're assuming that Putin is who that's aimed at." That's a strawman argument, you are making your own unfounded assumptions about me, and it is completely beside the point. I made no such allusions whatsoever. You completely ignored these words that I wrote and you directly quoted:

" He shouldn't have been saying anything along those lines at all. Not out loud. "

Who cares whether it was "directed at Putin" or not? That's not the point. None of what you are saying here is the point. The point is, again:

Trump should not have been saying anything along those lines at all. Not out loud. That's not how you act as a real negotiator. Again, you keep these thoughts close. Not blurt whatever enters your mind for the entire world to hear. And he supposedly wrote a book called "Art of the Deal." Or at least, had a ghost writer write that book and slapped his own name on it.

"Art of the Deal" my ass.
 
Nihilianth said:
This is your problem here. You keep twisting everything under the sun. "You're assuming that Putin is who that's aimed at." That's a strawman argument, you are making your own unfounded assumptions about me, and it is completely beside the point. I made no such allusions whatsoever. You completely ignored these words that I wrote and you directly quoted:

" He shouldn't have been saying anything along those lines at all. Not out loud. "

Who cares whether it was "directed at Putin" or not?
Click to expand...
Because that's the entire justification for not saying it. The logic is that if you concede a position before negotiations, because then you can't get anything in return for conceding it during negotiations. But that's only in regards to negotiations with Putin, because he's the one that this would be a concession to, not Europe. Ukraine giving up territory isn't a concession to Europe.

Otherwise, it's just "I don't like hearing that because it upsets me, and you shouldn't upset me". But that's childish logic, and there's no reason a head of state needs to be constrained by it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because that's the entire justification for not saying it. The logic is that if you concede a position before negotiations, because then you can't get anything in return for conceding it during negotiations. But that's only in regards to negotiations with Putin, because he's the one that this would be a concession to, not Europe. Ukraine giving up territory isn't a concession to Europe.

Otherwise, it's just "I don't like hearing that because it upsets me, and you shouldn't upset me". But that's childish logic, and there's no reason a head of state needs to be constrained by it.
Click to expand...
True, Trump's 'logic' is that childish though.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Better to measure the success by people in seats: Donors will compete against each other to buy out cinema seats to push up the numbers.
We will see a lot of empty theaters
Click to expand...

I remember during movies like Captain Marvel, there were people claiming that Disney/Marvel was buying all the tickets to make it look successful while the theaters were empty (who would want to watch a superhero movie starring a woman, after all?).
Every accusation ...
 
Last edited:
There is just so much weird going on with the Melanie Trump movie.

From: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/jeff-bezos-underlings-ordered-prop-113220382.html
Billionaire Jeff Bezos is sending in reinforcements to support First Lady Melania Trump’s flailing “documentary.”... Social media has also been flooded with videos of audiences booing the trailer... To prop up the film, Amazon is holding premiere events in nearly two dozen cities... Amazon has refused to share the film with critics ahead of its release....

Not sharing a movie with critics before its release is usually a bad sign, since it means that its probably a bad movie that would be hurt by critics reviews. And the booing and poor ticket sales are other bad signs.

Amazon executives are also being dispatched to attend premiere events, according to Fox News.

Not really sure how having "executives" at a premier will do much to boost ticket sales.

The first lady chose Amazon over other studies because it agreed to do “a quality film in theaters” followed by a docuseries.

A series following the movie? That changes everything. Now I HAVE to see the movie, otherwise I won't be able to follow what's happening in the series.

The project was helmed by Rush Hour director Brett Ratner, who was been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women...Ratner was spotted in a photo released as part of the Epstein files.

Well, at least Ratner (the director) will be familiar with the source material.

$40mil production plus $35mil marketing. Anyone want to play 'higher or lower' on what it'll make? I'll be generous and open at $5mil.
Click to expand...
I think 5 millions is on par with what analysts expect.

From my link above:
...film is only projected to bring in about $5 million during its opening weekend
Better to measure the success by people in seats: Donors will compete against each other to buy out cinema seats to push up the numbers.
We will see a lot of empty theaters
Click to expand...
I do have to wonder, just how much will donors want to push to artificially bump up the box office.

Yes, I know, they are usually all over themselves in order to bribe trump to get on his good side. But Melanie is one step removed from Trump. I wonder if they might cut their loses, deciding this particular project won't do enough to get on Stubby McBonespur's good side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom