The thing about Trump is that he pretty much is what he says he is, and did what he said he would do. This is much different than expecting him to do what the right or left wing conspiracies said he would do, be it starting WWIII with (or for? It always was fluid) Russia or bringing National Sociaism to the USA as the next Hitler or locking up everyone in DC and being some sort of super hero working with "the good guys"...
Overall, by policy and actions, not words and hype, Trump was a moderate and slightly to the left of Bill Clinton on most every issue he worked on. (Though media on both sides will obfuscate and deny this fact.)
He is also arrogant, boastful, egotistical and thoroughly mid-brow intellectually. An example being his fast food banquet... I beleive it was totally sincere... the fast food companies are the largest and most profitable restaurant chains in the world, and 100% American (garbage culture imo). So, to him, they won the market and therefore they are the best.
His good points were that he genuinely does support the idea of America, and that America is better than anywhere else. He was not tied to GOP dogma on economic issues or gay marriage crap but did support a free market system and was 100% correct about needing to reshore our manufacturing and achieve energy independence. If Biden had left nothing but Trump's energy policy in place, the US would currently be in an economic boom as the sole supplier of energy to Europe.
Of course, Putin never would have invaded Ukraine if our energy policy had stayed the same... that is the entire truth of what enabled his invasion.
I don't doubt that he won the election if it had not been corrupted. And I also don't doubt that he would lose if he runs again, which is what the Democrats are hoping for.
DeSantis, despite faults, is the only real choice for president. Trump is over and needs to simply use his influence with the conservative base to push issues as essentially the new Roger Ailes. But he is to vain and stupid to realize this.
Which was also a time (under Obama) where the US was signaling weakness and begging for energy production from others.
But, at that time, there were other factors at play as well. This was also during the period that Biden was involved in (whatever the full scope be) shady dealings he was doing in Ukraine that seem to have come back to haunt our foreign policy.
The current situation hinges on US energy production in a way that the 2014 invasion did not. If the US had continued the domestic energy production trajectory of the Trump policies, then the attempts to use economic sanctions on Russia would be successful because the U.S. would be able to provide the EU with all the oil and gas that they are not obtaining from Russia! This would put the US in a very good financial position rather than the catastrophe we are currently in, and would have placed us on top economically again.
I say that Russia would not have invaded in this case because the invasion would have only caused the EU to drop all Russian energy imports and buy from the U.S. instead serving to bolster our economy and harm their own. It would totally change the calculus of the invasion.
This is probably one thing that Trump was very clear on and could read what was blatantly obvious about the potential risk of Nordstream II. (Which humorously Biden approved only because Trump opposed it before having to change positions after the invasion). In light of events of the past year, it is especially funny to re-watch the Trump-Germany meeting where he lectured them mockingly about buying Russian oil and see the articles from our media calling him an idiot for "not understanding the situation" since it played out EXACTLY the way he said it would.
Yep. I'm seeing almost exactly what you see, regarding Germany also.
I say that Russia would not have invaded in this case because the invasion would have only caused the EU to drop all Russian energy imports
My only argument with your assessment is that I can't so casually separate "annexing" 2014 Crimea from "invading" 2022 Kharkiv. Both are invasions into the same nation by the same other nation. Only difference is the more recent one met resistance.
The thing about Trump is that he pretty much is what he says he is, and did what he said he would do. This is much different than expecting him to do what the right or left wing conspiracies said he would do, be it starting WWIII with (or for? It always was fluid) Russia or bringing National Sociaism to the USA as the next Hitler or locking up everyone in DC and being some sort of super hero working with "the good guys"...
Overall, by policy and actions, not words and hype, Trump was a moderate and slightly to the left of Bill Clinton on most every issue he worked on. (Though media on both sides will obfuscate and deny this fact.)
He is also arrogant, boastful, egotistical and thoroughly mid-brow intellectually. An example being his fast food banquet... I beleive it was totally sincere... the fast food companies are the largest and most profitable restaurant chains in the world, and 100% American (garbage culture imo). So, to him, they won the market and therefore they are the best.
His good points were that he genuinely does support the idea of America, and that America is better than anywhere else. He was not tied to GOP dogma on economic issues or gay marriage crap but did support a free market system and was 100% correct about needing to reshore our manufacturing and achieve energy independence. If Biden had left nothing but Trump's energy policy in place, the US would currently be in an economic boom as the sole supplier of energy to Europe.
Of course, Putin never would have invaded Ukraine if our energy policy had stayed the same... that is the entire truth of what enabled his invasion.
I don't doubt that he won the election if it had not been corrupted. And I also don't doubt that he would lose if he runs again, which is what the Democrats are hoping for.
DeSantis, despite faults, is the only real choice for president. Trump is over and needs to simply use his influence with the conservative base to push issues as essentially the new Roger Ailes. But he is to vain and stupid to realize this.
Can you expand on this? It doesn't ring true to me as Crimea was annexed by Russia under Obama in 2014.
Which was also a time (under Obama) where the US was signaling weakness and begging for energy production from others. But, at that time, there were other factors at play as well. This was also during the period that Biden was involved in (whatever the full scope be) shady dealings he was doing in Ukraine that seem to have come back to haunt our foreign policy.
The current situation hinges on US energy production in a way that the 2014 invasion did not. If the US had continued the domestic energy production trajectory of the Trump policies, then the attempts to use economic sanctions on Russia would be successful because the U.S. would be able to provide the EU with all the oil and gas that they are not obtaining from Russia! This would put the US in a very good financial position rather than the catastrophe we are currently in, and would have placed us on top economically again.
I say that Russia would not have invaded in this case because the invasion would have only caused the EU to drop all Russian energy imports and buy from the U.S. instead serving to bolster our economy and harm their own. It would totally change the calculus of the invasion.
This is probably one thing that Trump was very clear on and could read what was blatantly obvious about the potential risk of Nordstream II. (Which humorously Biden approved only because Trump opposed it before having to change positions after the invasion). In light of events of the past year, it is especially funny to re-watch the Trump-Germany meeting where he lectured them mockingly about buying Russian oil and see the articles from our media calling him an idiot for "not understanding the situation" since it played out EXACTLY the way he said it would.
Yep. I'm seeing almost exactly what you see, regarding Germany also.
My only argument with your assessment is that I can't so casually separate "annexing" 2014 Crimea from "invading" 2022 Kharkiv. Both are invasions into the same nation by the same other nation. Only difference is the more recent one met resistance.