I do not appreciate the label of "personality cult". Specifically because policies of the Trump doctrine are unique to Trump. His use of strategic econ leverage to achieve national security & expanded econ growth objectives are unmatched.
Overlooked by most financial pundits Trump pre-positioned risk mgmt with the basis for their analysis & internal investment advice.
In a similar move 2018, President Trump suspended tariffs against China based on an agreement (G20 in Argentina).
After several months and a 150 page initial agreement of principle, China walked away from their prior promises and terms.
Without hesitation Trump's tariffs against China were immediately implemented at the previous rate.
That 2018 China example with tariffs became the baseline for all multinational investment to consider as they reviewed their 2019 tariff exposure in Mexico.
Trump wasn't bluffing
If any financial investor (bank or corporation) believed Mexico would not adhere to the border/migration agreement, then by extension they were accepting/predicting the Mexican tariffs would take effect in 90-days.
Believe me, those multinational corps with investments in Mexico immediately began telling Lopez-Obrador not to screw around with this.... They had the China reference, and knew Trump would hit the tariff hammer without a blink.
President Trump gave notice to all global business interests to organize their financial affairs toward Mexico within 90 days.
If border not secured, tariffs were a done deal.
Do not underestimate the power of a few dozen multinational banks and corporations calling Lopez-Obrador and his ministers demanding assurances; concrete assurances; of their follow-through.
That put massive pressure on Mexico to comply with the border security agreement.
Trump made border security something it never was. It wasn't politics, or a broken political promise, this time it was business.
A high-stakes multi-billion business issue with multiple downstream consequences.
That was the difference with business-centric President Trump in the White House; he was not a politician.
Mexico quickly put their military on the border and held back any migrants. Ergo, the 'remain in Mexico policy' was about economics, not politics.
Economic security is national security. Once again we saw the ‘Trump Doctrine‘ at work.
President Trump used economic strength as leverage to achieve a national security objective and solve national security problem, vis-a-vis the border.
There's not another political contender in 2024 who has even a remote ability to do this. Even DeSantis who I very much appreciate, but I accept he is tied to the RNC donor class, which means he can't do this stuff.
I could give you dozens more examples, but the bottom line is that only Donald Trump has the mind to look at it this way; along with the ability and skillset to apply this level of strategic policy to protect our interests. All other candidates are politicians by nature.
Show me a republican who will talk positively, publicly and openly about the benefits of tariffs. Show me one, just one.... Hell, show me a Democrat for that matter.
They all are purchased. EXCEPT TRUMP !
Like I said, I will debate anyone on policy and outcome. For any GOP candidate -vs- Trump. /END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Overlooked by almost everyone. Pay close attention to the reason why General Mark Milley contacted the Chinese, as Milley stated during his testimony.
2) Video at 09:51
..."The specific purpose of the October and January calls were generated by concerning intelligence, which caused us to believe the Chinese were worried about an attack on them by the United States.”
3) The U.S. Intelligence Community, aka The Fourth Branch of Government, determined the Chinese were concerned.
...Why would John Durham spend 27 pages, outlining in painstaking detail the Sussmann background, if his true intent was to simply to spray paint the rusting corruption?
2) The answer lies in really understanding how the DC system, that permits John Durham to exist, operates.
I mean the real system, how it works in actuality, not how the former insiders and defenders of the system want us to believe it works. But rather how it really works.
3) If you were inside the system and *initially* concerned about the very beginning of public scrutiny upon a series of corrupt events that took place.
If you were, say, in the latter part of 2017, and recognizing things were going to come out no matter what.
Nothing makes my blood pressure rise as much as these manipulative econ creeps. Go ahead and complain about corporate food profiteering..... then f**king explain to me why you raise foodstamp/snap reimbursement rates to fatten their f**king corp bottom line.
(2) This is the @BrianDeeseNEC grocery price equivalent of Jonathan Gruber saying "we rely upon the stupidity of the American voter", during Obamacare....
(3) Part of the lobbying in the food industry by BigAg multinationals is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control.
(1)Australia has an unusual/unique parliamentary system reflecting history of their creation.
There are no recognized "natural" or inherent rights in Australia. All rights are granted by a governmental system structured around extreme democracy. That's why voting is mandated.
(2)It took me a while to figure out why the Australian people would be so compliant toward what looks like government authoritarianism.
After research, I understand it now.
(3) All rules, laws, regulations, etc. come from the top down. They are proposed by command and control and then approved by the people in mandatory elections where participation is not optional.
Jake Sullivan is Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor. Jake Sullivan controls the National Security Council, which is an assembly of security strategists from across the spectrum of government, located inside the White House.
(2) In his role NSA Jake Sullivan coordinates with the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence apparatus (foreign and domestic) writ large. Sullivan is a 44-year-old political ideologue.
(3) In this interview today Sullivan’s role was/is to protect the interests of the White House amid the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan.
Lloyd Austin is the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Lloyd Austin is responsible for the U.S. military and pentagon response to the crisis in Afghanistan.
(2) Secretary Austin is the woke, highly political hire within the Biden administration, and it is his responsibility to weaken the U.S. military and infect the institution through a process of advanced cultural Marxism (political correctness).
(3) The collapse of security and stability within Afghanistan is ultimately a distraction from the purpose of Lloyd Austin. From the perspective of international security and advanced, strategic U.S. military operations, this is not his forte’.