Joe Jagunich: [Name Redacted] No,
Yes, what I said in my previous post is correct, just like what I'm about to say here.
Joe Jagunich: other democratic world leaders used to be eager allies. Trump has made snide remarks about the leaders from Germany, France, UK, Mexico, Canada, many African countries, Puerto Rico; among others.
Wrong.
First, they still want to be our allies. It would be a geostrategic disaster if they decided that they didn't want to be our allies. The alternative to the U.S. isn't pretty. Just ask the Asian countries surrounding China. Those countries are looking to the U.S. to counterbalance the Chinese. China's idea for their "national borders" extends deep into the South China Sea. Consequently, they have conflicting territorial claims... On islands closer to these countries than to China.
If you were to read their accounts about what's going on, you'd find that even Vietnam wants to politically ally with the U.S. against the Chinese. It speaks volumes when protesters in Hong Kong wave the American Flag and speak about President Trump in favorable terms.
Second, you ignore the fact that world leaders made remarks regarding President Trump and the United States. These were criticisms. Together with the mess that they have in their countries, that they are not effectively dealing with, it is just for President Trump firing back.
The Germans have a disaster on their hands with regards to migrants, as well as with their economic policy that makes them dependent on Russia. President Trump criticized them for these issues, and for the fact that they needed to be cattle prodded to meet their NATO obligations.
The French are dealing with similar problems, which reached the point that they've had demonstrations on their streets for multiple weekends.
The UK? Are you talking about the "stone-cold loser" London Mayor that attacked President Trump? Other UK politicians? Both their leaders and their talking heads, like to lecture the United States about topics like gun control. Yet, they have problems in that country that they are not effectively addressing... Like knife crimes.
Mexico? He hammered them hard for failing to enforce their own immigration policies. Result? The Mexicans are doing things now that they did not do during previous US administrations. They are effectively in the process of turning Mexico into an extension of "The Wall". If they were not eager to be our allies, they would not have gone through extensive measures to comply.
One of the purposes behind President Trump's remarks, regarding both Mexico and Canada, involves the fact that they were benefiting at our expense under NAFTA. During the negotiation process for the new trade agreement, he continued making those remarks regarding both countries and both leaders. Result? They ended up agreeing to a replacement trade agreement that's closer to being fair among the participating nations.
Those African countries whose leaders President Trump spoke against? They are still our allies. It would be suicide for them not to... Especially now that we are sending military advisory teams to their countries to advise and train them to deal with militant terrorists.
Puerto Rico? You do realize that Puerto Rico is an incorporated US territory, do you? As with the case with his criticisms of world leaders, his criticism of Puerto Rico is spot on. A generous amount of money was sent to Puerto Rico for them to deal with the hurricane's aftermath. Yet, Puerto Rico mismanaged the money. The help that this money could've brought about did not materialize. Where did the money go?
Legitimate corruption, within the Puerto Rican government, has come to light. Have you not noticed the fact that their previous governor stepped down? President Trump was dead right about these guys, just as he was about his criticisms of other countries' leadership.
Joe Jagunich: Almost none of these leaders can trust him.
The recent G-7 summit counters that assumption. The mainstream media didn't accurately report what occurred during that summit, just as they failed to accurately report what happened in Iraq during the Iraq War.
The fact that they still would attend meetings like the G-7 meeting in France, with President Trump there, proves you wrong. These meetings aren't events where people just get together to watch slide show presentations. Many deals are made during these meetings.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that these guys are politicians. They will say things to garner support back home and to hopefully leverage things their way during these meetings. President Trump secured some agreements during this meeting. President Trump wouldn't have accomplished this if "none" of these leaders trusted him.
Joe Jagunich: He has alienated most of his self-appointed cabinet members,
You mean, like how a supervisor would "alienate" a substandard performer for calling him out for his substandard performance? Like how a leader would "alienate" someone in the team who was not performing in a way that positively impacted the team's performance?
I put "alienate" in quotation marks, as these are examples of things that a leader would do. A leader has a goal to accomplish. If those under him refuse to support him or refuse to take the actions needed for him to accomplish his goals, then that leader has every right to provide constructive criticism.
That's what President Trump is doing. He's providing constructive criticism. If you've been in leadership positions during your career, you'd recognize this. I do; I've been in leadership positions in the military.
Joe Jagunich: any and all political opponents.o
Yet, no complaint on your part about his political opponents disparaging him first? This is the same pattern I see elsewhere. Certain "favored" people attack President Trump. He holds fire, and they continue to attack him. Then, "wham", President Trump hits back and he hits back hard.
Do those who attacked him get told, "That's what happens when you keep poking the bear!"? No, your side of the argument chooses to demonize President Trump and act like those that he fired back on were initially "innocent".
Up to 90% of the media coverage on him is negative. They amplify his opponents' and detractor's voices. They refuse to report accurately in situations involving President Trump. Do you honestly believe that President Trump would just sit there and take it? Negative. He will go to twitter. President Trump does and says things in a way that exposes his enemies and adversaries for who they really are.
No comments:
Post a Comment