Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
You really think Smith knows better how he’ll respond and to what than the people who have dealt with him before. Really?
You think it’s smarter to go into a negotiation by undermining your position and taking things off the table. Really?
The best you’ve got is that her plan is to “strengthen our relationship” by… doing different tariffs? Every tariff BUT energy? Oh… wow… I can feel it getting stronger already. You really think Trump is going to say, “Hey, thanks for not putting an export tax on oil and gas. I’ll ignore anything else and cancel the tariffs. We’re best friends now.”
Appreciate the offers to show me your finger painting, but based on your opinions here I doubt it’d make it on anyone’s fridge.
A little too ironic for you to post this.
|
I'm assuming that's exactly why she met with him for a few days.... These things don't happen over night. Not doing previous deals with Trump doesn't necessarily mean she's not the exact right person to be advocating for a win-win on this one, which i believe is exactly what she's doing. In addition, Trumps comments towards the last bunch we sent to get a deal done, no matter how you view them (right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate etc.), a change is probably in everyone's best interest.
I'd genuinely like to know how you think taking a threat off the table, that both sides know isn't a viable option, is undermining your strength in negotiation. Threats are hollow without the ability to execute. It shouldn't be a hard concept to get a grasp on, yet this one seems strangely out of reach for you.
Yes, responding with targeted tariffs you actually have the ability to impliment, would be incredibly more effective than threatening something we all should know we can't do without burning it all down. But again, as above, I know this one seems beyond your comprehension.