Milley's unsent letter
-
@taiwan_girl said in Milley's unsent letter:
Wow! Scary stuff. As I have said before, it is amazing the amount of people who were very close to Presdient Trump who have said that basically President Trump was unfit to be president. If it were one person, it could maybe be dismissed. But when the number starts reaching double digits.........
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc.
I agree with @Catseye3 I think President Trump set back foreign relations by many years during his time in the President office.
Difficult to disentangle perception from reality, but when perception is reality, what’s the point? But one could make a good faith attempt to describe the tangible ways in which this foreign relation setback affects us. Unless the point of saying there was a setback, is to make people believe there was a setback, so that they no longer vote in ways that set us back.
@Horace said in Milley's unsent letter:
@taiwan_girl said in Milley's unsent letter:
Wow! Scary stuff. As I have said before, it is amazing the amount of people who were very close to Presdient Trump who have said that basically President Trump was unfit to be president. If it were one person, it could maybe be dismissed. But when the number starts reaching double digits.........
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc.
I agree with @Catseye3 I think President Trump set back foreign relations by many years during his time in the President office.
Difficult to disentangle perception from reality, but when perception is reality, what’s the point? But one could make a good faith attempt to describe the tangible ways in which this foreign relation setback affects us. Unless the point of saying there was a setback, is to make people believe there was a setback, so that they no longer vote in ways that set us back.
You are correct that it is difficult to disentangle perception from reality.
I was basing my comment on being outside the US and getting peoples thoughts on the US (trustworthiness, admiration, etc). Obviously it depends on who I talked to, but I think I got feelings from a pretty wide cross section of people.
-
Does it effect trade, monetary policy or defense agreements?
If not, it's eyewash.
-
@Jolly said in Milley's unsent letter:
Does it effect trade, monetary policy or defense agreements?
If not, it's eyewash.
It does. For example, the US pulling out of TPP. The next time there was a major trade agreement in Asia, China was the country who benefited the most. (To me, while TPP may not have been the best trade agreement between US-Asia, pulling out ended up as a worse result)
If countries do not have the trust that the US will follow up on things, they may be less incline to deal with the US in the future.
-
@Jolly said in Milley's unsent letter:
Does it effect trade, monetary policy or defense agreements?
If not, it's eyewash.
It does. For example, the US pulling out of TPP. The next time there was a major trade agreement in Asia, China was the country who benefited the most. (To me, while TPP may not have been the best trade agreement between US-Asia, pulling out ended up as a worse result)
If countries do not have the trust that the US will follow up on things, they may be less incline to deal with the US in the future.
TPP aside the forced renegotiation and renaming of NAFTA was costly for all three parties and, in the end, of little, if any, gain to the US. It was mostly window dressing for Trump.
In fact, one primary goal of the US was to dismantle Canada’s supply management programs for agriculture products. While the new trade agreement opened the door for more US dairy products into the CDN market, it did not spell the end of supply management. Interestingly after the signing US milk was available in grocery stores for about 6 months then disappeared completely. It was even priced below locally produced milk. No one though would buy it and it expired on the store shelves.
Another area that remained essentially remained the same was dispute arbitration. It was tweaked but not substantially changed.
One good outcome was an agreement by all three parties to review and adjust the trade agreement as required on a regular basis. That however could have been accomplished without the Twittering whining and theatrics of the then POTUS. It was clear to all that the then POTUS was incapable of grasping the notion of free trade, international treaties and how private industry actually conducts trade and investment. Truly inept as a statesman and diplomat.
-
Says the man led by Justin Castro.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I agree that countries will look if it is in their interest. But it is often not a clear choice between two different alternates.
For example, many people (me included) are willing to pay slightly more for something if it comes from a brand/company I have had good luck in the past or have a good relation ship with.
Same with countries. Maybe they want to build a new many billion $ refinery. China (or Chinese companies) will bid. US (or US companies) will bid, etc.
You can be sure that the lowest bidder will not necessary get the approval. Country to country relationships will count a lot for sure when the final award is done.
-
@Jolly said in Milley's unsent letter:
Says the man led by Justin Castro.
Am working hard to oust the Dauphin. His days as leader of the Liberal Party are numbered. He won’t be there come next election.
So what’s your point other than you concur with what I wrote? Or is it just another of your famous distractors when you have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation?
