President Trump 2.0

[spiderplant]

Can someone explain to me...
In Trump's first term, things weren't great but nothing particularly bad happened.
This time around, every day it's WTF.
What has changed?

Today I saw a car sticker which looked genuine: "Kennedy for President"

I broke it, now you fix it!



Monday: We have won

Tuesday: Iran is about to surrender

Wednesday: High oil prices are good

Thursday: There is nothing left to hit

Friday: They have no army, navy or missiles left

Saturday: I know I said you were a bunch of losers, and I’m going to screw your economies by raising oil prices slapping tariffs on anything you want sell to us, but HELP!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Can someone explain to me...
In Trump's first term, things weren't great but nothing particularly bad happened.
This time around, every day it's WTF.
What has changed?

Today I saw a car sticker which looked genuine: "Kennedy for President"

First time around he had adults in his team who had morals, principles and respect for the law, they put their oath of office on a higher pedestal than him, so this time around he only chose bootlickers and sycophants, January 6th would've turned out very differently under this lot

Anyone see donnies interview the other day, where he said very presidentially that no other president could do the shit I'm doing like what exactly, start illegal wars, abandon their allies, be so corrupt your wealth grows by over a billion bucks, cover up a child paedo ring, there's a reason why none of them would do it, they're not stupid crooks

Originally Posted by spiderplant

What has changed?

He wasnt (as) senile then.

[Sephiroth]

very interesting article from the telegraph. Well worth the read.

trump’s plan makes perfect sense, and it’s working

the us president is not just picking off chinese allies for sport – he’s working up to a deal with economic rival

there’s a strong misconception in europe that president donald trump prefers dictators and authoritarian powers over democratic allies. The fact is that he has just taken out a major chinese ally (venezuela), is in the process of taking out another (iran), and is threatening to take out a third (cuba).

As we think about the problem set that confronted the united states when he came into office, we see that he inherited a dwindling heavy-industry sector and a rigid us ideology about offering the world free markets, despite extremely unfavourable terms (us tariffs on eu cars were 2 per cent while eu tariffs on us autos were 11 per cent). He also inherited a rising rival in china, which seemed to be eating us manufacturing share every year while gaining dominance in global shipping and energy markets.

But unlike so many previous american presidents, trump looks at these problems differently. He sees different problems – inherited from his years as a businessman – and he responds differently.

In the art of the deal, he advocates boldness against one’s adversaries, recommends aggression towards perceived unfair treatment and promotes maximum flexibility by pursuing multiple “deals” at once. He is a new york real estate mogul, perfectly attuned to a competitive system and thinks of the international rules-based system as red tape and regulation put in place to hold him down.

They’re screwing us over with unfair tariffs? Hit them with huge tariffs and then leverage their response to your advantage. Europeans “screwing us” over defence spending? Ok, just threaten to leave natountil they agree to pay more.
China is building a coalition of partners willing to side with it against america? Fine, take them out one by one. The pace of news is almost too much for us to register the systemic changes that he is effecting by his unorthodox style and communications strategy. Everyone is constantly guessing, and he is literally taking his opponents to pieces.

Take venezuela: It has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. It accounts for up to 18 per cent of global reserves, surpassing saudi arabia and iran. When trump came into office, the relationship was non-existent between the united states and nicolas maduro’s regime. On the day that us special forces went in to get the venezuelan president, they knew he’d be in caracas because of a visiting chinese delegation which had brought him a $5bn (£3.8bn) cheque designed to boost his economy.

Trump got the cheque first. And he’s cashed it “indefinitely”. Maduro sits in an american jail cell, while the us is now importing venezuelan crude. The first 50 million barrels will be worth an estimated $300m. On jan 29, the us treasury formally authorised us oil companies to lift, refine, and sell venezuelan oil. As of march 2026, exports have surged to a seven-year high of 848,000 barrels a day. The revenue from that oil goes to the transition government but remains in us-controlled accounts. Leverage.

And guess who’s not getting venezuelan oil at favourable prices any more? China.

Now reconsider iran. Look past tehran’s long-running nuclear programme, past the long-range missile systems that have terrorised a region, or the proxy terror groups that receive iranian funding and training. Look at iran’s place in the chinese energy empire.

As with venezuela, iran has been a major player in a chinese oil trade system separated from the global market. As a result of being a sole buyer, beijing has been getting the best prices – about 10 to 20 per cent below global benchmarks like brent.

As a result, it’s estimated that china has been making annual savings of about $10bn and has been able to build up strategic reserves of 1.3 billion barrels, worth up to $112bn. By comparison, the us only maintains a strategic petroleum reserve of 415 million barrels of crude oil. Until now.

Now china is, like the rest of the world, trying to figure out the future of its oil supply. While some chinese tankers have managed to pick up oil and head home, the example of venezuela has got to be on xi jinping’s mind. It’s no wonder beijing is adamant that it wants the us-china summit to go ahead. Trump has xi over a barrel – if you’ll pardon the expression.

Unlike his predecessors, trump doesn’t care about the post-regime government. He wants it to be reasonably stable – shown by his insistence that the iranian civilian population guide the process – but at the end of the day, trump wants it to be on the side of america.

The us president is not just picking chinese allies off for sport. He knows that xi is obsessed with “rejuvenation of the chinese nation”, a legacy that sees all its lost territories reunited with the mainland – including taiwan.
For trump, knowing what your adversary wants makes him predictable and also provides you with an outline of his strategy – and leverage points to apply. If china is building an alternate anti-western coalition which also happens to control huge swathes of the international oil supply, take them out.

But don’t talk about taking them out in some grand-strategy way because that tips your opponent off to what you’re doing. So make it about the nuclear weapons programme, make it about the ballistic missiles, make it about the estimated 30,000 iranian protesters who were killed – but don’t tip your hand.
And then when your opponent realises that you’re carefully deconstructing his system, his architecture, go and meet him and see whether he offers you a deal. Because at the end of the day, that’s the art form that the donald loves most.

Sounds a lot like the Reformygraph is indulging in some impressive post-hoc rationalisation there, implying Trump is playing 5D chess, when reality, he has the attention span of a hyperactive five year old who has just eaten a family size bag of Haribo Fangtastics...

Pretty sure Countries don’t provide loans by cheque, and even if they did, all the donor country would have to do is cancel the cheque in the case quoted above…

[jem]

Why is this apparent ‘Telegraph' article so badly written? Trump, US, America, Venezuela should be spelt with initial capital letters. Inconsistent terminology (us tariffs on eu cars were 2 per cent while eu tariffs on us autos were 11 per cent). Cars and then autos?

It’s a piece of AI generated slop, isn't it?

Originally Posted by jem

Why is this apparent ‘Telegraph' article so badly written? Trump, US, America, Venezuela should be spelt with initial capital letters. Inconsistent terminology (us tariffs on eu cars were 2 per cent while eu tariffs on us autos were 11 per cent). Cars and then autos?

It’s a piece of AI generated slop, isn't it?

And the figures are wrong - in 2024 the US tariffs on EU made cars were 2.5%, and the EU tariffs on USA made cars was 10% (which was the same rate as all other WTO members).