4 ms·

Lula 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 w

Lula 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 ago
Trump 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 ago
Are 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 ago
  Sorry, didn't understand what are you saying...? Did you confuse me with another person?
  - alganet 1y ago
    Nope, 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 ago
      Honestly 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 ago
        This 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 ago
        It 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.
        alganet 1y ago
        If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? If you didn't understood, why didn't you asked for clarification? It seems that what you really missed was an opportunity to engage the interaction in a healthy way. Or maybe you missed an opportunity to listen more respectfully to the opinions of others. Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        > If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? I agreed with your first post, not the weird reply to someone that engaged with your post agreeing with you. > Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake. That is exactly what I think you did with that reply.
    - vitorgrs 1y ago
      I didn't mention any rumors. I talked about an interview Lula gave that I watched. Not sure why you are so stressed.
      - alganet 1y ago
        I understand, it's not intentional then. I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty. You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc. You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        So your point is president Lula's own statements are worthless and we should be discussing possible diplomatic backroom deals instead. Who's really discussing rumours here? The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
        alganet 1y ago
        Perhaps I'm saying he trusts the Itamaraty with official information. Official diplomatic channels are the norm, not media theatrics (miles ahead of you, "do your art of the deal thing" was the first thing I said, you failed to see behind the nuance). Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition. Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility). Let's put some possibilities on the table: 1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else. 2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb. 2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion. 2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives. 3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part). --- Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is. See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.

Lula 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 ago

Trump 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 ago

Are 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 ago
Sorry, didn't understand what are you saying...? Did you confuse me with another person?
- alganet 1y ago
  Nope, 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 ago
    Honestly 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 ago
      This 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 ago
        It 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.
        alganet 1y ago
        If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? If you didn't understood, why didn't you asked for clarification? It seems that what you really missed was an opportunity to engage the interaction in a healthy way. Or maybe you missed an opportunity to listen more respectfully to the opinions of others. Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        > If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? I agreed with your first post, not the weird reply to someone that engaged with your post agreeing with you. > Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake. That is exactly what I think you did with that reply.
  - vitorgrs 1y ago
    I didn't mention any rumors. I talked about an interview Lula gave that I watched. Not sure why you are so stressed.
    - alganet 1y ago
      I understand, it's not intentional then. I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty. You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc. You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        So your point is president Lula's own statements are worthless and we should be discussing possible diplomatic backroom deals instead. Who's really discussing rumours here? The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
        alganet 1y ago
        Perhaps I'm saying he trusts the Itamaraty with official information. Official diplomatic channels are the norm, not media theatrics (miles ahead of you, "do your art of the deal thing" was the first thing I said, you failed to see behind the nuance). Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition. Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility). Let's put some possibilities on the table: 1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else. 2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb. 2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion. 2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives. 3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part). --- Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is. See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.