3 ms·

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

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.
      - alganet 1y ago
        Giving the lack of good candidates, I'll take the lead again then, and bring back the discussion to its tracks. Trump thinks he's the US. He thinks he is the country. You (all commenters on this sub-thread alike) are playing his game, a cult of personality game. If I talk about presidents, I make nations smaller than them. Therefore, Trump to me is just like a used car salesman in this discussion. In our country, Brazil, the Itamaraty answers foreign relation issues. Not the media, not president interviews. We, as a people, do not want to live in a cult of personality. I think our diplomats represent well that intent. You are free to disagree, of course, and cheer for your favorite leader. But in that case, you need to do it in another sub-thread. I do not welcome that kind of discussion. Now you met a different kind of brazillian, with a different kind of argument. Not new, not exactly original, but way different than you seem to be used to. It's completely fine that you find it weird that I keep trying the diplomacy stuff. You're used to the leader talk stuff, probably never saw anything other than that. Now you have. Having made the proper introductions (unecessary, you could have read the history of the Itamaraty and inferred why I answered that way), now you are better equipped to talk with me. If you don't do that and go back to leader vs leader nonsense, I will assume ill intent. In regards to diplomacy, it is in the interest of our nation to keep commerce with the US. We have a long history of it. Our nations also have much in common culturally, and our peoples are connected in several ways. These tariffs represent a break of that trust. We, as a nation, were spied on, meddled with and bullied. Our apparent inaction to some of those breaks of trust is not due to fear or some secret alliegence, but to work for enduring peace (we're tolerating a clown, trusting that people will see beyond the circus).
        owebmaster 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

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.
    - alganet 1y ago
      Giving the lack of good candidates, I'll take the lead again then, and bring back the discussion to its tracks. Trump thinks he's the US. He thinks he is the country. You (all commenters on this sub-thread alike) are playing his game, a cult of personality game. If I talk about presidents, I make nations smaller than them. Therefore, Trump to me is just like a used car salesman in this discussion. In our country, Brazil, the Itamaraty answers foreign relation issues. Not the media, not president interviews. We, as a people, do not want to live in a cult of personality. I think our diplomats represent well that intent. You are free to disagree, of course, and cheer for your favorite leader. But in that case, you need to do it in another sub-thread. I do not welcome that kind of discussion. Now you met a different kind of brazillian, with a different kind of argument. Not new, not exactly original, but way different than you seem to be used to. It's completely fine that you find it weird that I keep trying the diplomacy stuff. You're used to the leader talk stuff, probably never saw anything other than that. Now you have. Having made the proper introductions (unecessary, you could have read the history of the Itamaraty and inferred why I answered that way), now you are better equipped to talk with me. If you don't do that and go back to leader vs leader nonsense, I will assume ill intent. In regards to diplomacy, it is in the interest of our nation to keep commerce with the US. We have a long history of it. Our nations also have much in common culturally, and our peoples are connected in several ways. These tariffs represent a break of that trust. We, as a nation, were spied on, meddled with and bullied. Our apparent inaction to some of those breaks of trust is not due to fear or some secret alliegence, but to work for enduring peace (we're tolerating a clown, trusting that people will see beyond the circus).
      - owebmaster 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]