13 ms·
Fine, old man. Do your art of the deal thing. I won't play victim, I won't support tariff retaliation. We're a peaceful nation, interested in diplomacy, with a
by alganet 1y ago
Fine, old man. Do your art of the deal thing.
I won't play victim, I won't support tariff retaliation. We're a peaceful nation, interested in diplomacy, with a long history of healthy commerce with the US and close ties to the north american people. This is the only sane response that one could give to such an announcement.
- matheusmoreira 1y agoSo much for peace and diplomacy. Looks like Lula is gonna retaliate and start a trade war with our second biggest trade partner even though we're exporters of commodities.
- alganet 1y ago> Looks like Rumours. I approve the Itamaraty's reaction of not acknowledging the letter and sending it back. Lacking a proper world leader, we the people must take the responsability of actually not negotiating with terrorists. We need to step up.
- vitorgrs 1y agoLula said today that they will try to negotiate (how? Trump is asking something that you can't negotiate), and if the day comes the tariff starts, then Brazil will retaliate with another 50% back.
- matheusmoreira 1y agoTrump has already threatened to retaliate if he does that. Said he'll throw whatever value Lula musters up right back at him on top of the 50%. If he does what you're saying, Trump is expected to make ours a 100% tariff. He's also threatened to apply 100% tax on countries trying to replace USD as their reserve currency, which is exactly what Lula and his friends are once again threatening. China has a lot of leverage due to the fact they manufacture the USA's technology. We sell commodities. Natural resources and soy.
- alganet 1y agoAre you trying to name drop stuff to gauge how I keep interacting with this kind of discussion? Maybe it's unconscious on your part, IDK. Do you understand what you're doing?
- vitorgrs 1y agoSorry, didn't understand what are you saying...? Did you confuse me with another person?
- alganet 1y agoNope, that's for you. I said "rumours". You jumped right in at it with more rumours and name dropping. Are you doing it because you see other people doing or do you know what you're doing?
- owebmaster 1y agoHonestly reading his post I'm having a hard time understanding what you are talking about. > I said "rumours". You jumped right in at it with more rumours and name dropping. that is what happens when someone agrees with your "rumour"? weird interaction.
- alganet 1y agoThis is most likely because you don't understand that I was approaching the subject from the foreign relations perspective. I did gave a big hint though (mentioning the Itamaraty)! It was hard to miss, but somehow you missed it. Of course it's weird. It is meant to bring this lesser known approach to a potential public that does not know much about it.
- owebmaster 1y agoIt would be a better interaction if you made things more clear in place of thinking we thought too much about your way to write. > I did gave a big hint though (mentioning the Itamaraty)! It was hard to miss, but somehow you missed it. I approve the Itamaraty's reaction of not acknowledging the letter and sending it back. Lacking a proper world leader, we the people must take the responsability of actually not negotiating with terrorists. We need to step up. Missed what? Your point is that the Itamaraty did not acknowledged a tweet-letter and "sent it back"? Are you talking that our foreign ministry is competent? If that is the case, I agree, that is obvious for any brazilian that knows the bare minimum of foreign relations.