The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
In an Oval Office meeting earlier this month, President Trump gave his top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, an Art of the Deal-style coaching session on how to negotiate with the South Koreans.
"You've got 30 days, and if you don't get concessions then I'm pulling out," Trump told Lighthizer.
"Ok, well I'll tell the Koreans they've got 30 days," Lighthizer replied.
"No, no, no," Trump interjected. "That's not how you negotiate. You don't tell them they've got 30 days. You tell them, 'This guy's so crazy he could pull out any minute.'"
"That's what you tell them: Any minute," Trump continued. "And by the way, I might. You guys all need to know I might. You don't tell them 30 days. If they take 30 days they'll stretch this out."
This is amazingly foolish. If they don't know how long they actually have, they have a good chance of stretching it out past the limit. "He could pull out any minute" is pretty much meaningless in reality.
That the only people who can believably use the madman theory are actually madmen is also a problem.
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
Trump's never-ending focus on scoring "wins" in international relations is a distressingly unorthodox perspective, precisely because it's commonly understood that there are no easy "wins" in international relations.
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
He's not.
This is bone standard typical bullying negotiation bullshit that he thinks is the pinnacle of all negotiation strategies.
He's treating international politics no different than his own board room. He's used to throwing his weight around to get his way, and if that doesn't work, skimp on a deal and let his shady lawyers keep him from seeing any fallout.
I don't want to see the USA in a bad place, I really don't. But I hope this deal blows up in his face because it needs to be clear to any future Presidential hopefuls that this shit is not OK, and won't work.
In an Oval Office meeting earlier this month, President Trump gave his top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, an Art of the Deal-style coaching session on how to negotiate with the South Koreans.
"You've got 30 days, and if you don't get concessions then I'm pulling out," Trump told Lighthizer.
"Ok, well I'll tell the Koreans they've got 30 days," Lighthizer replied.
"No, no, no," Trump interjected. "That's not how you negotiate. You don't tell them they've got 30 days. You tell them, 'This guy's so crazy he could pull out any minute.'"
"That's what you tell them: Any minute," Trump continued. "And by the way, I might. You guys all need to know I might. You don't tell them 30 days. If they take 30 days they'll stretch this out."
This is amazingly foolish. If they don't know how long they actually have, they have a good chance of stretching it out past the limit. "He could pull out any minute" is pretty much meaningless in reality.
That the only people who can believably use the madman theory are actually madmen is also a problem.
It also is the best way to convince them that no agreement will be long-standing, and therefore isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Can I just say it absolutely fucking sucks that we have a lunatic asshole like Trump in the white house and to make matters worse we also have a lunatic asshole like Un running North Korea.
Can I just say it absolutely fucking sucks that we have a lunatic asshole like Trump in the white house and to make matters worse we also have a lunatic asshole like Un running North Korea.
They are both playing the madman. The aim seems to be that China figures out what to do. China has been reluctant to do anything as the hostile equilibrium has been acceptable to them. But now they are facing the danger of war next door, between a weak ally and a powerful foe. I really hope they figure something out.
+1
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Doesn't his strategy rely on Korean negotiators not reading Axios?
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
I'm sorry but these are not good comparisons. Trump didn't always conduct business with the upper hand in every situation; that's impossible, and one certainly doesn't go bankrupt doing that. Repercussions, layers, people with memories. These are basic features of any organized group, which of course Trump has dealt with before. Trump has no idea what he's doing, I think that is clear. But saying he hasn't encountered these basic diplomatic scenarios isn't true.
It's worth pointing out that, aside from the obvious ongoing threat of destabilisation in East Asia and possible nuclear war, Trump's tweets to his Secretary of State have, in one fell swoop, neutered his administration.
It could not be more obvious that Congress and the Cabinet have no control over Trump, and that he does whatever he feels like at any given moment. Coupled with the fact that Trump himself is ridiculously easy to manipulate, America's ability to interact on a global stage in any meaningful capacity has been fatally undermined.
Put simply, none of us are going to believe a word that comes out of any of your diplomats' mouths, and we all know that any agreement with Trump himself lasts until his next mood swing.
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
I'm sorry but these are not good comparisons. Trump didn't always conduct business with the upper hand in every situation; that's impossible, and one certainly doesn't go bankrupt doing that. Repercussions, layers, people with memories. These are basic features of any organized group, which of course Trump has dealt with before. Trump has no idea what he's doing, I think that is clear. But saying he hasn't encountered these basic diplomatic scenarios isn't true.
And that's exactly why he's gone bankrupt multiple times and finally reached the point where only shady Russian oligarchs would do business with him. (Also, Trump University.) Even in the business world, his tactics eventually caught up with him. Granted, it took decades for it to happen, and there are still actors willing to deal with him, such as Palm Beach's city council and various Republican politicians, but the international stage is simultaneously much bigger - with more lights, more onlookers, fewer dark corners, no rules - and much smaller - with many fewer agents to deal with, and much more cross-talk between them.
Doesn't his strategy rely on Korean negotiators not reading Axios?
Right?
And! If the only people possessing this knowledge of a deadline are administration officials, the only pressure being exerted is on administration officials. Officials who Trump has told the deadline doesn’t actually mean anything because he might pull out at any minute anyway.
He gave up the game to the only people it might have ever influenced while explaining how to negotiate.
In an Oval Office meeting earlier this month, President Trump gave his top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, an Art of the Deal-style coaching session on how to negotiate with the South Koreans.
"You've got 30 days, and if you don't get concessions then I'm pulling out," Trump told Lighthizer.
"Ok, well I'll tell the Koreans they've got 30 days," Lighthizer replied.
"No, no, no," Trump interjected. "That's not how you negotiate. You don't tell them they've got 30 days. You tell them, 'This guy's so crazy he could pull out any minute.'"
"That's what you tell them: Any minute," Trump continued. "And by the way, I might. You guys all need to know I might. You don't tell them 30 days. If they take 30 days they'll stretch this out."
This is amazingly foolish. If they don't know how long they actually have, they have a good chance of stretching it out past the limit. "He could pull out any minute" is pretty much meaningless in reality.
That the only people who can believably use the madman theory are actually madmen is also a problem.
edit: Forgot to read clearly, yikes. The South again? Let it go, Trump, they're our allies here. Nor a party to grift.
Harry Dresden on
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Aside from him not recognising the difference between father and son leaders, his idea that they haven't "fixed" the issue by now so he will is terrifying. destroying the country and getting thousands of our soldiers and allies killed is not a "fix". He has no concept that war is a last resort and even then it can make things much worse.
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
I'm sorry but these are not good comparisons. Trump didn't always conduct business with the upper hand in every situation; that's impossible, and one certainly doesn't go bankrupt doing that. Repercussions, layers, people with memories. These are basic features of any organized group, which of course Trump has dealt with before. Trump has no idea what he's doing, I think that is clear. But saying he hasn't encountered these basic diplomatic scenarios isn't true.
He didn't always have the upper hand no.
But that doesn't mean he didn't come in and throw swagger around like he did.
Trump is used to being the CEO.
Come in, act like the stereotype that he sees all men of power as, then let his minions swoop in and make the actual deals.
He's NEVER had to pay the piper as it were.
Even when he's come close he's just ignored debt, filed for bankruptcy, etc, and then moved on.
Art of the Deal came out in 1987, and Trump has never changed his tactics before or after that. It's always been the same playbook.
He's trying to use that playbook in diplomacy, and while it might work on some (and still have terrible repercussions), it's most certainly not going to work across the board... and will NOT give countries any incentive to ever deal with the USA for the duration of Trump's presidency (if not beyond).
The only major change for Trump is his going on twitter now and spewing all his crap on the internet. Before then at least it was limited to his tv/radio time and occasional leaked "locker room" talk.
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
I'm sorry but these are not good comparisons. Trump didn't always conduct business with the upper hand in every situation; that's impossible, and one certainly doesn't go bankrupt doing that. Repercussions, layers, people with memories. These are basic features of any organized group, which of course Trump has dealt with before. Trump has no idea what he's doing, I think that is clear. But saying he hasn't encountered these basic diplomatic scenarios isn't true.
He didn't always have the upper hand no.
But that doesn't mean he didn't come in and throw swagger around like he did.
Trump is used to being the CEO.
Come in, act like the stereotype that he sees all men of power as, then let his minions swoop in and make the actual deals.
He's NEVER had to pay the piper as it were.
Even when he's come close he's just ignored debt, filed for bankruptcy, etc, and then moved on.
Art of the Deal came out in 1987, and Trump has never changed his tactics before or after that. It's always been the same playbook.
He's trying to use that playbook in diplomacy, and while it might work on some (and still have terrible repercussions), it's most certainly not going to work across the board... and will NOT give countries any incentive to ever deal with the USA for the duration of Trump's presidency (if not beyond).
The only major change for Trump is his going on twitter now and spewing all his crap on the internet. Before then at least it was limited to his tv/radio time and occasional leaked "locker room" talk.
Art of the Deal Trump, and The Apprentice Trump are a fictional, smarter Trump. As bad as that version is he was nowhere near as intelligent or a success of they are.
It's interesting to know that Trump is consciously using the madman strategy. Not as dumb as he's sometimes painted.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
I'm sorry but these are not good comparisons. Trump didn't always conduct business with the upper hand in every situation; that's impossible, and one certainly doesn't go bankrupt doing that. Repercussions, layers, people with memories. These are basic features of any organized group, which of course Trump has dealt with before. Trump has no idea what he's doing, I think that is clear. But saying he hasn't encountered these basic diplomatic scenarios isn't true.
He didn't always have the upper hand no.
But that doesn't mean he didn't come in and throw swagger around like he did.
Trump is used to being the CEO.
Come in, act like the stereotype that he sees all men of power as, then let his minions swoop in and make the actual deals.
He's NEVER had to pay the piper as it were.
Even when he's come close he's just ignored debt, filed for bankruptcy, etc, and then moved on.
Art of the Deal came out in 1987, and Trump has never changed his tactics before or after that. It's always been the same playbook.
He's trying to use that playbook in diplomacy, and while it might work on some (and still have terrible repercussions), it's most certainly not going to work across the board... and will NOT give countries any incentive to ever deal with the USA for the duration of Trump's presidency (if not beyond).
The only major change for Trump is his going on twitter now and spewing all his crap on the internet. Before then at least it was limited to his tv/radio time and occasional leaked "locker room" talk.
Art of the Deal Trump, and The Apprentice Trump are a fictional, smarter Trump. As bad as that version is he was nowhere near as intelligent or a success of they are.
They are Trump filtered through the author/director.
I'm certain that Trump doesn't even see the differences between his fictional portrayals and his everyday self.
Good news, if his 'plan' of acting like an insane person has been leaked, his only option to surprise people he's negotiating with is to act like a reasonable sane person.
They'll never see it coming.
Good news, if his 'plan' of acting like an insane person has been leaked, his only option to surprise people he's negotiating with is to act like a reasonable sane person.
They'll never see it coming.
It's partially worked already when NK asked the admin if they thought Trump was for real. That sure was a moment for America's history with diplomacy.
Good news, if his 'plan' of acting like an insane person has been leaked, his only option to surprise people he's negotiating with is to act like a reasonable sane person.
They'll never see it coming.
It's partially worked already when NK asked the admin if they thought Trump was for real. That sure was a moment for America's history with diplomacy.
I can imagine the administration hemming and hawing over how to answer. Is it more to their advantage to pretend that he can be reasonable, or to be honest and/or try to scare them with "no, not really"?
"This guy is crazy and will do anything at any minute" is maybe a motivating/intimidating tactic in business. You want to make a move before he pulls out of the deal or financially ruins you or whatever.
"This guy is crazy and will do anything at any minute" is maybe the most fucking terrifying thing you can possibly say when you control nuclear weapons, the biggest military, and helm the country with the largest economy in the fucking world.
"This guy is crazy and will do anything at any minute" is maybe a motivating/intimidating tactic in business. You want to make a move before he pulls out of the deal or financially ruins you or whatever.
"This guy is crazy and will do anything at any minute" is maybe the most fucking terrifying thing you can possibly say when you control nuclear weapons, the biggest military, and helm the country with the largest economy in the fucking world.
It also completely neuters the diplomatic bargaining because if a country can’t be trusted to keep its word then its word is worthless. And soon its economy and its military. Still got nukes though. *shudder*
Christ. He genuinely doesn't understand that Kim Jong-un and Kim Jong-il are different people.
More importantly, it has worked in that it's prevented seoul and thousands of american service men from being anihilated by conventional artillery.
+5
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Shit. In the midst of all the other horrific breaking news, Javad Zarif makes it clear that if the Iran deal breaks down there will be no second attempts to revisit it:
Iranian leaders, to put it mildly, have made clear just how much they hated Trump’s comments — and showed just how far they’re willing to go in launching attacks of their own. The latest, and most striking, came from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who told Politico’s Susan Glasser how “insulting” he found Trump’s comments.
“This was the most insulting statement that had ever been made by any US president against Iran since the Revolution,” Zarif told Glasser in a podcast released this morning. “[It’s] certainly one of the worst and most negative statements ever made against Iran in the General Assembly by anybody.”
That’s a big claim considering former President George W. Bush put Iran into his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002 and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said the Iranian regime had “genocidal intentions” to destroy Israel during his 2015 UN address.
...
In the Politico interview, Zarif noted he still believes the deal has a “better than 50” percent chance of surviving. But if the US pulls out, Zarif said Iran wouldn’t renegotiate a new accord — which could potentially put Tehran on the path toward a nuclear weapon and hurt America’s diplomatic credibility.
Persian dudes don't fuckin come out and say shit plainly ever, so...I think he's serious
Because Trump is an unstable toddler, nuclear nonproliferation is essentially over. Hooray.
With the end result being Wahabists with the bomb.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Shit. In the midst of all the other horrific breaking news, Javad Zarif makes it clear that if the Iran deal breaks down there will be no second attempts to revisit it:
Iranian leaders, to put it mildly, have made clear just how much they hated Trump’s comments — and showed just how far they’re willing to go in launching attacks of their own. The latest, and most striking, came from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who told Politico’s Susan Glasser how “insulting” he found Trump’s comments.
“This was the most insulting statement that had ever been made by any US president against Iran since the Revolution,” Zarif told Glasser in a podcast released this morning. “[It’s] certainly one of the worst and most negative statements ever made against Iran in the General Assembly by anybody.”
That’s a big claim considering former President George W. Bush put Iran into his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002 and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said the Iranian regime had “genocidal intentions” to destroy Israel during his 2015 UN address.
...
In the Politico interview, Zarif noted he still believes the deal has a “better than 50” percent chance of surviving. But if the US pulls out, Zarif said Iran wouldn’t renegotiate a new accord — which could potentially put Tehran on the path toward a nuclear weapon and hurt America’s diplomatic credibility.
Persian dudes don't fuckin come out and say shit plainly ever, so...I think he's serious
Because Trump is an unstable toddler, nuclear nonproliferation is essentially over. Hooray.
So if a Persian says something it must be true? Iranian leaders and politicians bluster, lie, deceive and use all the other tricks and quirks of people elsewhere. See for example Khamenei's numerous statements about how the nuclear deal wouldn't be permitted to go ahead.
I fully support the nuclear deal of course. It would be a tremendous waste to scuttle it.
+1
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Shit. In the midst of all the other horrific breaking news, Javad Zarif makes it clear that if the Iran deal breaks down there will be no second attempts to revisit it:
Iranian leaders, to put it mildly, have made clear just how much they hated Trump’s comments — and showed just how far they’re willing to go in launching attacks of their own. The latest, and most striking, came from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who told Politico’s Susan Glasser how “insulting” he found Trump’s comments.
“This was the most insulting statement that had ever been made by any US president against Iran since the Revolution,” Zarif told Glasser in a podcast released this morning. “[It’s] certainly one of the worst and most negative statements ever made against Iran in the General Assembly by anybody.”
That’s a big claim considering former President George W. Bush put Iran into his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002 and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said the Iranian regime had “genocidal intentions” to destroy Israel during his 2015 UN address.
...
In the Politico interview, Zarif noted he still believes the deal has a “better than 50” percent chance of surviving. But if the US pulls out, Zarif said Iran wouldn’t renegotiate a new accord — which could potentially put Tehran on the path toward a nuclear weapon and hurt America’s diplomatic credibility.
Persian dudes don't fuckin come out and say shit plainly ever, so...I think he's serious
Because Trump is an unstable toddler, nuclear nonproliferation is essentially over. Hooray.
This is one of those circumstances where Trump is the symptom not the disease. The US electorate has shown this guy Zarif that we are entirely capable of electing our own version of Ahmadinejad so he has no reason to trust us even if a more level-headed president follows Trump.
Shit. In the midst of all the other horrific breaking news, Javad Zarif makes it clear that if the Iran deal breaks down there will be no second attempts to revisit it:
Iranian leaders, to put it mildly, have made clear just how much they hated Trump’s comments — and showed just how far they’re willing to go in launching attacks of their own. The latest, and most striking, came from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who told Politico’s Susan Glasser how “insulting” he found Trump’s comments.
“This was the most insulting statement that had ever been made by any US president against Iran since the Revolution,” Zarif told Glasser in a podcast released this morning. “[It’s] certainly one of the worst and most negative statements ever made against Iran in the General Assembly by anybody.”
That’s a big claim considering former President George W. Bush put Iran into his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002 and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said the Iranian regime had “genocidal intentions” to destroy Israel during his 2015 UN address.
...
In the Politico interview, Zarif noted he still believes the deal has a “better than 50” percent chance of surviving. But if the US pulls out, Zarif said Iran wouldn’t renegotiate a new accord — which could potentially put Tehran on the path toward a nuclear weapon and hurt America’s diplomatic credibility.
Persian dudes don't fuckin come out and say shit plainly ever, so...I think he's serious
Because Trump is an unstable toddler, nuclear nonproliferation is essentially over. Hooray.
So if a Persian says something it must be true? Iranian leaders and politicians bluster, lie, deceive and use all the other tricks and quirks of people elsewhere. See for example Khamenei's numerous statements about how the nuclear deal wouldn't be permitted to go ahead.
I fully support the nuclear deal of course. It would be a tremendous waste to scuttle it.
:rotate:
No, obviously. I am saying, with not an inconsiderable amount of cheek, that Persian dudes are usually not straightforward, and the bluntness of this comment is seemingly straightforward, thus strikes me as a genuine expression of Iran's position. I am not sure I needed the weird lesson in the historical precedent of diplomatic dissembling by Iranian leadership.
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Look, I think Iran's usual argument that there is no reason why they shouldn't have the bomb, because it is their sovereign right to protect itself, and its enemies are nuclear armed as well and it is its rational self interest to obtain a bomb, frustratingly difficult to mount a strong argument against. Iran isn't crawling with terrorists and despite the government being shitty theocratic oppressive bullshit I think they actually have their shit together a whole lot better than nuclear-armed Pakistan.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
Look, I think Iran's usual argument that there is no reason why they shouldn't have the bomb, because it is their sovereign right to protect itself, and its enemies are nuclear armed as well and it is its rational self interest to obtain a bomb, frustratingly difficult to mount a strong argument against. Iran isn't crawling with terrorists and despite the government being shitty theocratic oppressive bullshit I think they actually have their shit together a whole lot better than nuclear-armed Pakistan.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
Also, you know, those nukes leaking out to one of the many other political/terrorist groups just kinda floating around there.
I mean, I guess the Pakistanis have managed to prevent this from happening, but I'm not really eager to be throwing them dice a few more times and hoping we get good rolls.
Posts
That the only people who can believably use the madman theory are actually madmen is also a problem.
The U.S.-South Korean trade deal
Rhythm Method Negotiations!
That never ends badly.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Okay, and is he going to pretend that he's some other President Trump when he's talking with the South Koreans about their North Korea strategy and mutual defense pact?
Unlike in the business world, as President, Trump 1) does not have the luxury of always negotiating with the upper hand, 2) cannot just walk away from undesirable deals without repercussion, 3) has to engage with international partners with complex relationships on a multitude of different issues, 4) is dealing with "partners" who all know each other and can just as easily treat with one another, and 5) won't be dealing with "partners" unaware of his reputation.
Trump's never-ending focus on scoring "wins" in international relations is a distressingly unorthodox perspective, precisely because it's commonly understood that there are no easy "wins" in international relations.
He's not.
This is bone standard typical bullying negotiation bullshit that he thinks is the pinnacle of all negotiation strategies.
He's treating international politics no different than his own board room. He's used to throwing his weight around to get his way, and if that doesn't work, skimp on a deal and let his shady lawyers keep him from seeing any fallout.
I don't want to see the USA in a bad place, I really don't. But I hope this deal blows up in his face because it needs to be clear to any future Presidential hopefuls that this shit is not OK, and won't work.
It also is the best way to convince them that no agreement will be long-standing, and therefore isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
They are both playing the madman. The aim seems to be that China figures out what to do. China has been reluctant to do anything as the hostile equilibrium has been acceptable to them. But now they are facing the danger of war next door, between a weak ally and a powerful foe. I really hope they figure something out.
I'm sorry but these are not good comparisons. Trump didn't always conduct business with the upper hand in every situation; that's impossible, and one certainly doesn't go bankrupt doing that. Repercussions, layers, people with memories. These are basic features of any organized group, which of course Trump has dealt with before. Trump has no idea what he's doing, I think that is clear. But saying he hasn't encountered these basic diplomatic scenarios isn't true.
It could not be more obvious that Congress and the Cabinet have no control over Trump, and that he does whatever he feels like at any given moment. Coupled with the fact that Trump himself is ridiculously easy to manipulate, America's ability to interact on a global stage in any meaningful capacity has been fatally undermined.
Put simply, none of us are going to believe a word that comes out of any of your diplomats' mouths, and we all know that any agreement with Trump himself lasts until his next mood swing.
And that's exactly why he's gone bankrupt multiple times and finally reached the point where only shady Russian oligarchs would do business with him. (Also, Trump University.) Even in the business world, his tactics eventually caught up with him. Granted, it took decades for it to happen, and there are still actors willing to deal with him, such as Palm Beach's city council and various Republican politicians, but the international stage is simultaneously much bigger - with more lights, more onlookers, fewer dark corners, no rules - and much smaller - with many fewer agents to deal with, and much more cross-talk between them.
Right?
And! If the only people possessing this knowledge of a deadline are administration officials, the only pressure being exerted is on administration officials. Officials who Trump has told the deadline doesn’t actually mean anything because he might pull out at any minute anyway.
He gave up the game to the only people it might have ever influenced while explaining how to negotiate.
edit: Forgot to read clearly, yikes. The South again? Let it go, Trump, they're our allies here. Nor a party to grift.
There is explicitly a rule against identifying public figures with stupid nicknames so...
He didn't always have the upper hand no.
But that doesn't mean he didn't come in and throw swagger around like he did.
Trump is used to being the CEO.
Come in, act like the stereotype that he sees all men of power as, then let his minions swoop in and make the actual deals.
He's NEVER had to pay the piper as it were.
Even when he's come close he's just ignored debt, filed for bankruptcy, etc, and then moved on.
Art of the Deal came out in 1987, and Trump has never changed his tactics before or after that. It's always been the same playbook.
He's trying to use that playbook in diplomacy, and while it might work on some (and still have terrible repercussions), it's most certainly not going to work across the board... and will NOT give countries any incentive to ever deal with the USA for the duration of Trump's presidency (if not beyond).
The only major change for Trump is his going on twitter now and spewing all his crap on the internet. Before then at least it was limited to his tv/radio time and occasional leaked "locker room" talk.
Art of the Deal Trump, and The Apprentice Trump are a fictional, smarter Trump. As bad as that version is he was nowhere near as intelligent or a success of they are.
They are Trump filtered through the author/director.
I'm certain that Trump doesn't even see the differences between his fictional portrayals and his everyday self.
They'll never see it coming.
It's partially worked already when NK asked the admin if they thought Trump was for real. That sure was a moment for America's history with diplomacy.
I can imagine the administration hemming and hawing over how to answer. Is it more to their advantage to pretend that he can be reasonable, or to be honest and/or try to scare them with "no, not really"?
"This guy is crazy and will do anything at any minute" is maybe the most fucking terrifying thing you can possibly say when you control nuclear weapons, the biggest military, and helm the country with the largest economy in the fucking world.
It also completely neuters the diplomatic bargaining because if a country can’t be trusted to keep its word then its word is worthless. And soon its economy and its military. Still got nukes though. *shudder*
More importantly, it has worked in that it's prevented seoul and thousands of american service men from being anihilated by conventional artillery.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396500/iran-trump-zarif-glasser-interview-nuclear-deal
Persian dudes don't fuckin come out and say shit plainly ever, so...I think he's serious
Because Trump is an unstable toddler, nuclear nonproliferation is essentially over. Hooray.
NNID: Hakkekage
So if a Persian says something it must be true? Iranian leaders and politicians bluster, lie, deceive and use all the other tricks and quirks of people elsewhere. See for example Khamenei's numerous statements about how the nuclear deal wouldn't be permitted to go ahead.
I fully support the nuclear deal of course. It would be a tremendous waste to scuttle it.
This is one of those circumstances where Trump is the symptom not the disease. The US electorate has shown this guy Zarif that we are entirely capable of electing our own version of Ahmadinejad so he has no reason to trust us even if a more level-headed president follows Trump.
:rotate:
No, obviously. I am saying, with not an inconsiderable amount of cheek, that Persian dudes are usually not straightforward, and the bluntness of this comment is seemingly straightforward, thus strikes me as a genuine expression of Iran's position. I am not sure I needed the weird lesson in the historical precedent of diplomatic dissembling by Iranian leadership.
NNID: Hakkekage
i mean the Iranians aren't Wahhabists
i don't know if that's what you mean, though, or if you're talking about Al-Qaeda or someone
how come the Saudis don't have a nuke program? that's like the first thing I would do if I were Prince Mohammad
The point is if Iran gets the bomb, the Saudis will as well.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
NNID: Hakkekage
Also, you know, those nukes leaking out to one of the many other political/terrorist groups just kinda floating around there.
I mean, I guess the Pakistanis have managed to prevent this from happening, but I'm not really eager to be throwing them dice a few more times and hoping we get good rolls.