Those are scary words.
Donald Trump’s Presidency 2017 - 2021 AND 2025-202X
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #whineylittlebitch alaska = mexicans are we great again yet? brianhcm1 appreciation thread donnie two scoops i'm gonna cum i'm gonna do something inside brianhcm1 indecent proposal individual 1 mama says foosball is the devil president man-baby president super spreader you're messing with my people
With only six canadian pornstars, i'm hoping my free pornhub account won't go up in price.
Are we taking any bets on what shenanigans are going down this weekend that are being covered up by this tariff smokescreen?
Btw who planted the idea in Trump that tariffs are a good idea? Plan25?
Every negotiator knows that it’s important to come right out of the blocks with a position that exposes your weaknesses without any sort of ask nor opportunity to negotiate. That’s the best.
I am expecting him to relent by EOB today, after markets dip, before tariffs take place. “I got concessions from Canada and Mexico. We’ve closed the border. I win. I am smrt”. If not, same scenario in two weeks.
Elon Musk's DOGE gains access to sensitive Treasury data, including Social Security and Medicare payment systems
The move by DOGE means it could have wide leeway to access important taxpayer data, among other things.
You just can't make this shit up! Only the left can come up with this, definitely explains why some of you enjoy pegging.
www.theatlantic.com
The Democrats Show Why They Lost
At a meeting of the DNC, the party seemed to be at pains to demonstrate that it learned nothing from its 2024 defeat.
www.theatlantic.com
News from my hometown; a whole bunch of valley farmers are about to have their faces eaten.
sjvwater.org
Sierra snow pack is 47% of normal
Water, water everywhere – SJV Water
After the Army Corps of Engineers began dumping water out of Kaweah and Success lakes late Thursday in response to President Trump's Jan. 24 emergency
sjvwater.org
Sierra snow pack is 47% of normal
No woke zone. Jesus is the answer or something.
“Just a repost originally put online by a family member. Please enjoy and think about where we are after these disastrous new tariffs have been put in place. I know it's a little dry, but I believe it's very important to understand who we're dealing with, and how he operates. God bless America. Thank you all!
"The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University."
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about [t-rump] and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
[t-rump], as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to [t-rump] and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed [t-rump] lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In [t-rump's] world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with [t-rump] is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
[t-rump] has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. [t-rump] saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
[t-rump] has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
[t-rump] is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at [t-rump] and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, [t-rump] isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.” ~David Honig
"The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University."
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about [t-rump] and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
[t-rump], as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to [t-rump] and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed [t-rump] lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In [t-rump's] world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with [t-rump] is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
[t-rump] has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. [t-rump] saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
[t-rump] has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
[t-rump] is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at [t-rump] and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, [t-rump] isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.” ~David Honig
5d
imagine being so sloped of forehead that you think any of this is a good idea
Or just blame Biden.
you well and truly are an idiot. a border has two sides. meaning we have to work together to control it. What the fuck does spitting in the face of the people you need to work with accomplish!?! Sweet fuck all.
Also, fentanyl from Canada?! illegal immigrants? We probably get more of that shit from south of the border than you do. that and your stupid fucking guns. Here's some fact checking for you, even if I already know facts don't mean shit to you.
how about you fuck right off with your stupid ignorant bullshit.
I think it's more likely that he's just jealous of what Putin has been able to accomplish in Ukraine, and wants in on that action too.
less than 1% on both counts.
Healthy, or they just know how much to take?
Fine. My assumption is oversimplified as all else equal.
The question is… what’s the DEA doing with all that cocaine and why isn’t that a problem we are trying to solve?
…actually that’s two questions.
hey i hope nobody was attached to being able to file their taxes for free
FACT FOCUS: No evidence that $50 million was designated by the US to buy condoms for Hamas
President Donald Trump claimed during the Laken Riley Act signing that his administration had “identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas.”
apnews.com
What I want to know -
Why did Donny Two scoops try to tell the world that apple prices have doubled.
@Brian HCM#1
I can tell you right now Trump is lying to everyone.
Why did Donny Two scoops try to tell the world that apple prices have doubled.
@Brian HCM#1
I can tell you right now Trump is lying to everyone.
If one assumes that in a infinite universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities, then we are living in absolutely the dumbest one.“USAID procures condoms for around $0.05 apiece,” he wrote. “$50m would be ONE BILLION condoms. What’s going on here is NOT a billion condoms for Gaza. What’s going on is that the bros at DOGE apparently can’t read govt spreadsheets.”
FACT FOCUS: No evidence that $50 million was designated by the US to buy condoms for Hamas
President Donald Trump claimed during the Laken Riley Act signing that his administration had “identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas.”
Trump Golf Track
Tracking the number of days President Donald Trump spends his second term playing golf.
trumpgolftrack.com
There's a shocker.
Department of Education? Or was it the Department of Indoctrination?
Either way you call it, gone.
Either way you call it, gone.