David Brooks on Trump

[Darth Omar]

Maybe Trump intuited something about the sorts of people who run the North Korean regime that others missed.

The second piece of evidence is our trade talks with China. Over the past few decades, the Western diplomatic community made a big bet: If we all behaved decently toward Chinese leaders, then they’d naturally come to embrace liberal economic and cultural values and we could all eventually share a pinot at the University Club.

The bet went wrong. Today’s Chinese elites are polite and coolheaded, but their economic, political and military behavior remains pure thug. Beijing throws its economic weight around with abandon, punishing foreign firms like Mercedes-Benz that don’t toe its line, cutting off Philippine trade over dubious geographic disputes, closing off its own economy to foreign investment and stealing hundreds of billions of dollars in American intellectual property each year.

The president has pushed back harder on the Chinese and has netted some results. After some Trump swagger, Xi Jinping promised to “significantly lower” Chinese tariffs on imported vehicles.

Again, it’s hard to know how this will turn out, but as The Financial Times’s Jamil Anderlini and my colleague Thomas Friedman have argued, Trump is picking the right fight at the right time.

The third piece of evidence is Iran. I have doubts about the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the nuke agreement. But I do know that the argument that many of the Obama people relied on as predicate for the deal is wrong. They argued that, deep down, the Iranian leaders are worldly sophisticates who, if we just gave them the welcome mat, would want to join our community of nations.

This is the vanity of the educated class going back for centuries. Since we’re obviously so superior, everybody else secretly wants to be like us. It’s wrong. Thugs gotta thug. Religious fanatics gotta fanaticize.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/1...e=sectionfront
__________

This piece is notable because it’s penned by David Brooks and not Brietbart.

And Brooks basically says what many Trump supporters ‘intuited’ about Trump: Trump has plenty of real world experience in dealing with thugs of every stripe. As opposed to the sort of ‘faculty lounge’ assumptions about the world that an Obama would adhere to.

There is a lot that can still go wrong, but I am not surprised at Trump’s successes thus far. And yes, he has a decent shot at being an historical president in foreign policy terms.

[Bourbon]

[Stretch]

"As opposed to the sort of ‘faculty lounge’ assumptions about the world that an Obama would adhere to."

[cawacko]

He had to negotiate with the mafia for years in New York

[Darth Omar]

He had to negotiate with the mafia for years in New York

Thugs gotta thug.

[Cancel 2020.1]

He makes a lot of connections in there without showing any cause or correlation whatsoever.

It's what the Trump crowd does in general.

[Darth Omar]

He makes a lot of connections in there without showing any cause or correlation whatsoever.

It's what the Trump crowd does in general.

You’re asking for a level of evidence I’m pretty sure you know doesn’t exist.

Brooks is a prominent Never Trumper [the NYT would never tolerate an actual Trumper lol.] and his piece is peppered with all the usual criticisms of Trump.

Let’s just say your opinion is on the way to becoming the minority opinion.

[Jarod]

He had to negotiate with the mafia for years in New York

I’d say it takes one to know one.

[canceled.2021.3]

He makes a lot of connections in there without showing any cause or correlation whatsoever.

It's what the Trump crowd does in general.

I AM GROOT

[archives]

This piece is notable because it’s penned by David Brooks and not Brietbart.

And Brooks basically says what many Trump supporters ‘intuited’ about Trump: Trump has plenty of real world experience in dealing with thugs of every stripe. As opposed to the sort of ‘faculty lounge’ assumptions about the world that an Obama would adhere to.

There is a lot that can still go wrong, but I am not surprised at Trump’s successes thus far. And yes, he has a decent shot at being an historical president in foreign policy terms.

Nothing wrong with David Brooks, he is a good writer, usually interesting, but he is also coming from a conservative point of view

So, if I'm correct, your saying Trump is a "historical president" cause he is a thug, not quite the quality that has measured past historical Presidents

And this "success" so far hasn't really materialized, nothing other than agreeing to talk has been resolved with North Korea, if you think the Iranians lied what on earth makes you think the North Koreans are going to tell the truth. Trump has potentially given Iran the capability of having atomic weapons within a year, and why wouldn't China give him concessions, he was pulled the US out of the Far East allowing China to eventually become the dominate power in the area, they got everything going their way

[archives]

You’re asking for a level of evidence I’m pretty sure you know doesn’t exist.

Brooks is a prominent Never Trumper [the NYT would never tolerate an actual Trumper lol.] and his piece is peppered with all the usual criticisms of Trump.

Let’s just say your opinion is on the way to becoming the minority opinion.

"You’re asking for a level of evidence I’m pretty sure you know doesn’t exist," in other words, nothing substantial other than agreeing to talk has actually been accomplished, and North Korea has talked with every President since Carter, at this point, hopeful, but that is about it

[cancel2 2022]

Maybe Trump intuited something about the sorts of people who run the North Korean regime that others missed.

The second piece of evidence is our trade talks with China. Over the past few decades, the Western diplomatic community made a big bet: If we all behaved decently toward Chinese leaders, then they’d naturally come to embrace liberal economic and cultural values and we could all eventually share a pinot at the University Club.

The bet went wrong. Today’s Chinese elites are polite and coolheaded, but their economic, political and military behavior remains pure thug. Beijing throws its economic weight around with abandon, punishing foreign firms like Mercedes-Benz that don’t toe its line, cutting off Philippine trade over dubious geographic disputes, closing off its own economy to foreign investment and stealing hundreds of billions of dollars in American intellectual property each year.

The president has pushed back harder on the Chinese and has netted some results. After some Trump swagger, Xi Jinping promised to “significantly lower” Chinese tariffs on imported vehicles.

Again, it’s hard to know how this will turn out, but as The Financial Times’s Jamil Anderlini and my colleague Thomas Friedman have argued, Trump is picking the right fight at the right time.

The third piece of evidence is Iran. I have doubts about the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the nuke agreement. But I do know that the argument that many of the Obama people relied on as predicate for the deal is wrong. They argued that, deep down, the Iranian leaders are worldly sophisticates who, if we just gave them the welcome mat, would want to join our community of nations.

This is the vanity of the educated class going back for centuries. Since we’re obviously so superior, everybody else secretly wants to be like us. It’s wrong. Thugs gotta thug. Religious fanatics gotta fanaticize.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/1...e=sectionfront
__________

This piece is notable because it’s penned by David Brooks and not Brietbart.

And Brooks basically says what many Trump supporters ‘intuited’ about Trump: Trump has plenty of real world experience in dealing with thugs of every stripe. As opposed to the sort of ‘faculty lounge’ assumptions about the world that an Obama would adhere to.

There is a lot that can still go wrong, but I am not surprised at Trump’s successes thus far. And yes, he has a decent shot at being an historical president in foreign policy terms.

Holy fuck, the NYT finally publishes a article that is not 100% pure bile towards Trump.

[dukkha]

Trump is pushing China actively on NK and trade.
Obama used strategic patience (worthless) and did nothing to combat Chinese theft of intellectual property

The bet went wrong. Today’s Chinese elites are polite and coolheaded, but their economic, political and military behavior remains pure thug. Beijing throws its economic weight around with abandon, punishing foreign firms like Mercedes-Benz that don’t toe its line, cutting off Philippine trade over dubious geographic disputes, closing off its own economy to foreign investment and stealing hundreds of billions of dollars in American intellectual property each year.

China is used to throwing it's weight around without being challenged.
Trump understands China is the biggest threat to American long term strategic and economic prowess.

The rest of the IDIOTS in DC think Russia is our existential threat -it is not -it's China's burgeoning military and economy.

Trump is pushing back on the "9 dash line" and unfair Chinese trade practices

"The president has pushed back harder on the Chinese and has netted some results. After some Trump swagger, Xi Jinping promised to “significantly lower” Chinese tariffs on imported vehicles"

Trump is picking the right fight at the right time.

exactly. Trump is combating Chinese nationalism with US nationalism

The days of the global elitists running the show for their own benefit are over.

[Darth Omar]

Holy fuck, the NYT finally publishes a article that is not 100% pure bile towards Trump.

Brooks is their token conservative.

And even he is a Never Trumper lol.

[Truth Detector]

Maybe Trump intuited something about the sorts of people who run the North Korean regime that others missed.

The second piece of evidence is our trade talks with China. Over the past few decades, the Western diplomatic community made a big bet: If we all behaved decently toward Chinese leaders, then they’d naturally come to embrace liberal economic and cultural values and we could all eventually share a pinot at the University Club.

The bet went wrong. Today’s Chinese elites are polite and coolheaded, but their economic, political and military behavior remains pure thug. Beijing throws its economic weight around with abandon, punishing foreign firms like Mercedes-Benz that don’t toe its line, cutting off Philippine trade over dubious geographic disputes, closing off its own economy to foreign investment and stealing hundreds of billions of dollars in American intellectual property each year.

The president has pushed back harder on the Chinese and has netted some results. After some Trump swagger, Xi Jinping promised to “significantly lower” Chinese tariffs on imported vehicles.

Again, it’s hard to know how this will turn out, but as The Financial Times’s Jamil Anderlini and my colleague Thomas Friedman have argued, Trump is picking the right fight at the right time.

The third piece of evidence is Iran. I have doubts about the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the nuke agreement. But I do know that the argument that many of the Obama people relied on as predicate for the deal is wrong. They argued that, deep down, the Iranian leaders are worldly sophisticates who, if we just gave them the welcome mat, would want to join our community of nations.

This is the vanity of the educated class going back for centuries. Since we’re obviously so superior, everybody else secretly wants to be like us. It’s wrong. Thugs gotta thug. Religious fanatics gotta fanaticize.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/1...e=sectionfront
__________

This piece is notable because it’s penned by David Brooks and not Brietbart.

And Brooks basically says what many Trump supporters ‘intuited’ about Trump: Trump has plenty of real world experience in dealing with thugs of every stripe. As opposed to the sort of ‘faculty lounge’ assumptions about the world that an Obama would adhere to.

There is a lot that can still go wrong, but I am not surprised at Trump’s successes thus far. And yes, he has a decent shot at being an historical president in foreign policy terms.

Great piece. Liberals won't be able to comprehend it.