You are saying it was like Trump's reception now?
And you are under the impression that he [Ronald Reagan] was viewed as a Great President after a while? What gave you that impression? The bubble you live in?
He said what he was going to do during the campaign, and now he's doing it.
That is, he isn't one of the liberal elite or a go-along-to-get-along "conservatives". He said what he was going to do during the campaign, and now he's doing it.
Mind you: I think it was a bad idea to expand NATO to Russia's borders. (Not that I have anything against the Baltic states; certainly not against Estonia.) But as anyone with a grain of sense should have known, Russia would see such as a provocation; which it was... But note who did it.)
Again, I ask you -assuming you will act as a rational person- to see what President Trump does. But if you'd prefer to read tweets...
I think it was a bad idea to expand NATO to Russia's borders.
Not that I have anything against the Baltic states
But as anyone with a grain of sense should have known, Russia would see such as a provocation
It was tried in Russia, didn't work, and doesn't change the face of power. Voting would have been a more cost-effective approach.
Imagine how the USA would feel about Russian or Chinese military bases around his borders. Wonder if you can?
Being so beaten by the Women's March must have galled the new president. The scale and extent was impressive (even one here in Stockholm, and a cross-country skiing march at the resort town at Åre, exercise with a cause...), but marches on their own don't do much except in this case hurt fragile egos. It was tried in Russia,...
Imagine how the USA would feel about [...] around its borders. Wonder if you can?
Cost-effective? Maybe effective in the sense as involving no cost, but not effective in any other sense. Voting in Russia has less effect than in USA. How did the USSR collapse? By voting or did the people marching on the streets have a role?
It wasn't the merit of NATO that those Baltic states became independent in the first place.Through the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, the USA pursues only a geostrategic advantage in case of a military showdown or even in case of a first srike against Russia.However in such a scenario those states would be at risk to be wiped out first and forever...That would be the price they'd pay for the 'generous protection'.
Like the rest of the world I didn't watch the inauguration. Then again I didn't watch Obama's inauguration either, or any previous president.
I think "watch the inauguration" pretty much just means "on in the background" anyway, except at the beginning.
any Russian government would have the capacity for gross interference up to and including invasion, as they have done with the other former USSR republics.
"Provocation" is an understatement. It's a latent threat for Russia which could turn into an existential one.Imagine how the USA would feel about Russian [...] military bases around its borders. Wonder if you can?
What a lot of people my age or younger don't know is that the Soviet basing of nuclear missiles in Cuba followed the U.S. basing of nuclear missiles in Turkey... The naval blockade of Cuba (...a blockade is always an act of war) didn't cause the Soviets to dismantle their installations there; our agreement to dismantle our installations in Turkey did.
Americans are going to pay 20% more for what they import from Mexico... America always first...
You'all can calm down: Tariffs and taxes are Congress' purview. The president can only propose...
White House website is now intolerable in graphical browsers. There are splashes ...
You'all can calm down: Tariffs and taxes are Congress' purview.
WASHINGTON - American consumers and businesses would pay -- literally -- if President-elect Donald Trump followed through on his campaign pledge to slap big taxes on imports from China and Mexico.Trump said during the campaign that he'd impose tariffs of 35 percent on Mexican imports and 45 percent on Chinese imports to protect American jobs from unfair foreign competition. Companies that import those goods would pay the tax at the border.Many of those firms would likely try to heap as much of the cost as possible on their customers. The result is that American consumers could end up paying more for foreign-made clothing, tablet computers and other electronics.A 45 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods could drive up U.S. retail prices on those goods by an average of about 10 percent, Capital Economics has calculated. Consumers would find it hard to escape the price squeeze."There are few alternative sources for the main products the U.S. buys from China," says Mark Williams, Capital Economics' chief Asia economist. He notes, for example, that China supplies about 70 percent of the world's network equipment, cellphones, laptops and tablet computer
Page created in 0.044 seconds with 26 queries.