I agree with almost everything pointed out except Putin. Quarterbacks or no Putin moved under Obama twice and none with Trump only after Biden totally screwed up Afghanistan did Putin make his move. YOU COULD SEE THIS 2 OR 3 YEARS away (kinda like yardage but with time) What did Putin see? Weakness. You can say it, the a$$wipes not running anymore. What's wrong with the truth? Absolutely nothing.
There is little doubt but that Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" in Syria helped persuade Putin that NATO would not respond assertively when challenged, and it is a fair argument that such vacillation on Obama's part played a role in Putin's annexation of Crimea.
Yet Putin was militarily aggressive before Obama. The Second Chechen War and Russia's involvements in the Caucasus predate Obama's term of office. We should not ascribe Putin's latest actions solely to possible perceptions by him of NATO "weakness" or indecision.
Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. The Kerch bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper was completed in 2019, and has been a vital supply artery for Russia's forces operating in eastern Ukraine. It is not an unreasonable extrapolation to presume that the completion of Kerch bridge was a necessary predicate to an all out invasion of Ukraine.
Thus we should not presume that Putin's lack of military aggression during Trump's first term can be attributed solely to Donald Trump. We risk misapprehending Putin and his decision processes if we do so.
This does not mean that Putin would have assessed NATO's likely response to his invasion of Ukraine with a President Trump at the helm the same way he did with Biden. At a minimum Putin would have to contend with the reality that Trump enforced his red lines in Syria. Certainly the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan would have not indicated to Putin (or anyone else) that the US was capable of even coherent response, let alone strong response.
I view Putin's militarism through the lens of Great Power Competition. It is this pursuit of power and dominance that informs Russia's defensive doctrine of expanding out to physically defensible borders, and that defensive doctrine provides a consistent and cohesive framework for understanding all of Putin's wars. Within that framework, the invasion of Ukraine was always going to happen--Ukraine has the misfortune of being on the wrong side of the Carpathians relative to Russia's defensive objectives. It's not reasonable to believe that Trump would dissuade Putin from pursuing those objectives.
It is reasonable to presume that Trump would have handled the Ukraine situation differently. I do not believe Trump would have had NATO pursue its current strategy in Ukraine of cynically using Ukrainian forces to grind down and attrit the Russian military. Trump has been consistent in that regard--he wants the killing to stop.
Yes, Thank you for this summary, Peter. I did listen to most of the presser and I have to agree with Edwin. Trump is going to be Trump! Never heard of "adult ADHD," but I am fully versed on ADHD.
The main thing is Trump is focused on the issues that the American people care about deeply. Yes, he will continue to name call, but this is signature Trump. It's a rambling "conversation" that most people can relate to on a human level!
Oh I agree that Trump is able to speak on the breadth of issues that concern a large swathe of the electorate. And I know that, in the end, Trump is going to be Trump.
My desire for him to be more focused is twofold: 1) I want him to be effective and 2) there are points I wish got greater emphasis.
An organized deconstruction of Bidenomics would help make the case for his election, so that people can see how bad she's been. It would make a powerful case against the lawfare that's been levied against himself and RFKJr.
People deserve all the information about Kamala Harris to understand what a toxic person she is.
My fear is that case is not getting made sufficiently.
Trump will be Trump. I just pray he's successful being Trump.
Excellent points, Peter. He must keep hammering home how bad her policies are and have been and explain how price controls cause shortages, etc. I know economics can be hard for some people to understand, but supply and demand are pretty simple concepts!
When shelves are empty and every visit to the grocery store every few days costs over $75 then people understand. We are just 2 old people and that’s happening. At Walmart. So much is double or more. But price controls won’t do it. Trump has to get gnarly about this.
I thought the presentation was all Trump. Could you see her (or him) doing something similar. He has perfect control of the issues, she doesn't have any control, much less him (Genocide Joe), and depends on the MSM to bail her out.
Would he sound more "Presidential" if he were tighter and more focused in his responses? Yes. Is his point that he's quite deliberately not going to be what we typically regard as "Presidential"--that could be.
And he's the candidate so of course he gets to be Trump.
But when I'm listening to him answer a question and trying to tease out the important bits trust me when I say I have new appreciation for the benefit of a tightly worded answer!
Trust me, I understand. It was challenging to stick with it.
I get Trump's focus issue--I'm fairly certain he's got adult ADHD, which is something I struggle with as well. But it doesn't make listening to him do a press conference any easier!
I'm not as old as Trump (not quite!) and anyone who asks me a question still has to contend with 2-3 answers. Which is an improvement over the >5 it used to be!
I hear you. Drives my hubby nuts. I also answer his questions with answers that are more nuanced and maybe several further questions from him from where we would get eventually. Not sure what that is. 😜🫤
Trump’s tendency to ramble and go off topic might actually work in his favor. We’re in an era when the most frequently used adjective by many people is “f*cking”, and few people appreciate oration of any kind. Trump’s talking style is more like an informal conversation with a friend. Also, people pay attention because you never know what slightly astonishing thing he might say.
Meanwhile, Harris’s cackling gets old really fast.
Kompared to Kamala's word salads as answers, Trump's rambling monologues at least come to a point – eventually – even it it take an average listener a moment to parse what's been said so it makes sense. You listen to the man long enough you get used to his style of oratory. Listening to Kamala over and over again just grates on one's nerves.
I agree with almost everything pointed out except Putin. Quarterbacks or no Putin moved under Obama twice and none with Trump only after Biden totally screwed up Afghanistan did Putin make his move. YOU COULD SEE THIS 2 OR 3 YEARS away (kinda like yardage but with time) What did Putin see? Weakness. You can say it, the a$$wipes not running anymore. What's wrong with the truth? Absolutely nothing.
There is little doubt but that Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" in Syria helped persuade Putin that NATO would not respond assertively when challenged, and it is a fair argument that such vacillation on Obama's part played a role in Putin's annexation of Crimea.
Yet Putin was militarily aggressive before Obama. The Second Chechen War and Russia's involvements in the Caucasus predate Obama's term of office. We should not ascribe Putin's latest actions solely to possible perceptions by him of NATO "weakness" or indecision.
Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. The Kerch bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper was completed in 2019, and has been a vital supply artery for Russia's forces operating in eastern Ukraine. It is not an unreasonable extrapolation to presume that the completion of Kerch bridge was a necessary predicate to an all out invasion of Ukraine.
Thus we should not presume that Putin's lack of military aggression during Trump's first term can be attributed solely to Donald Trump. We risk misapprehending Putin and his decision processes if we do so.
This does not mean that Putin would have assessed NATO's likely response to his invasion of Ukraine with a President Trump at the helm the same way he did with Biden. At a minimum Putin would have to contend with the reality that Trump enforced his red lines in Syria. Certainly the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan would have not indicated to Putin (or anyone else) that the US was capable of even coherent response, let alone strong response.
I view Putin's militarism through the lens of Great Power Competition. It is this pursuit of power and dominance that informs Russia's defensive doctrine of expanding out to physically defensible borders, and that defensive doctrine provides a consistent and cohesive framework for understanding all of Putin's wars. Within that framework, the invasion of Ukraine was always going to happen--Ukraine has the misfortune of being on the wrong side of the Carpathians relative to Russia's defensive objectives. It's not reasonable to believe that Trump would dissuade Putin from pursuing those objectives.
It is reasonable to presume that Trump would have handled the Ukraine situation differently. I do not believe Trump would have had NATO pursue its current strategy in Ukraine of cynically using Ukrainian forces to grind down and attrit the Russian military. Trump has been consistent in that regard--he wants the killing to stop.
Yes, Thank you for this summary, Peter. I did listen to most of the presser and I have to agree with Edwin. Trump is going to be Trump! Never heard of "adult ADHD," but I am fully versed on ADHD.
The main thing is Trump is focused on the issues that the American people care about deeply. Yes, he will continue to name call, but this is signature Trump. It's a rambling "conversation" that most people can relate to on a human level!
Oh I agree that Trump is able to speak on the breadth of issues that concern a large swathe of the electorate. And I know that, in the end, Trump is going to be Trump.
My desire for him to be more focused is twofold: 1) I want him to be effective and 2) there are points I wish got greater emphasis.
An organized deconstruction of Bidenomics would help make the case for his election, so that people can see how bad she's been. It would make a powerful case against the lawfare that's been levied against himself and RFKJr.
People deserve all the information about Kamala Harris to understand what a toxic person she is.
My fear is that case is not getting made sufficiently.
Trump will be Trump. I just pray he's successful being Trump.
Excellent points, Peter. He must keep hammering home how bad her policies are and have been and explain how price controls cause shortages, etc. I know economics can be hard for some people to understand, but supply and demand are pretty simple concepts!
When shelves are empty and every visit to the grocery store every few days costs over $75 then people understand. We are just 2 old people and that’s happening. At Walmart. So much is double or more. But price controls won’t do it. Trump has to get gnarly about this.
Greatly appreciate this summary.
I thought the presentation was all Trump. Could you see her (or him) doing something similar. He has perfect control of the issues, she doesn't have any control, much less him (Genocide Joe), and depends on the MSM to bail her out.
Let Trump be Trump.
Trump is going to be Trump, I know that.
Would he sound more "Presidential" if he were tighter and more focused in his responses? Yes. Is his point that he's quite deliberately not going to be what we typically regard as "Presidential"--that could be.
And he's the candidate so of course he gets to be Trump.
But when I'm listening to him answer a question and trying to tease out the important bits trust me when I say I have new appreciation for the benefit of a tightly worded answer!
Yes, but then he would sound like an ordinary politician, and he is anything but ordinary.
I’d get suspicious if this change happened. The Dems are automatons and feelings led at the same time. Not a good combo.
Fair point.
Thanks for this I just don't watch these things but need the info.
Trust me, I understand. It was challenging to stick with it.
I get Trump's focus issue--I'm fairly certain he's got adult ADHD, which is something I struggle with as well. But it doesn't make listening to him do a press conference any easier!
I agree about the ADHD. I’m sure I have had a form of it all my life and I’m older than Trump. He’s still very sharp IMO. thanks for this.
I'm not as old as Trump (not quite!) and anyone who asks me a question still has to contend with 2-3 answers. Which is an improvement over the >5 it used to be!
I hear you. Drives my hubby nuts. I also answer his questions with answers that are more nuanced and maybe several further questions from him from where we would get eventually. Not sure what that is. 😜🫤
Trump’s tendency to ramble and go off topic might actually work in his favor. We’re in an era when the most frequently used adjective by many people is “f*cking”, and few people appreciate oration of any kind. Trump’s talking style is more like an informal conversation with a friend. Also, people pay attention because you never know what slightly astonishing thing he might say.
Meanwhile, Harris’s cackling gets old really fast.
Trump's rambling works well in this regard--he is able to keep talking. Kamala gets flustered and then retreats into that annoying cackle.
If they were to ever do a "town hall" style debate he would shred her because she just can't keep riffing the way he can.
Kompared to Kamala's word salads as answers, Trump's rambling monologues at least come to a point – eventually – even it it take an average listener a moment to parse what's been said so it makes sense. You listen to the man long enough you get used to his style of oratory. Listening to Kamala over and over again just grates on one's nerves.
No argument there. And every Kamala question ends in that hyena cackle!