what scares me is the comparitively small # of quotes and stories we have out of Kushner.

-staple in the campaign since pre-announcing he was running
-staple in the whitehouse while a handful of chief of staffs run though and a dozen or so secretaries
-making international outreach plans
-by the POTUS's side constantly

it shocks me we have so little on him comparatively to some people who were a flash in the pan. it helps that he seems allergic to the camera.

I think he doesnt want to ruin his reputation among the New York high society, since he's still young and there will be a lot of life and career left for him after the Trump era is over. That's why I think he tries to keep a low profile and wants as few media reports as possible to come out linking him to all the Trump drama and shadiness.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 17 2019 12:43pm

i think there's a real chance too that he has some social anxieties. i dont know many people that are comfortable in the limelight when that amounts to billions watching. it could be an actual clinical anxiety thing or just he's more normal socially than other people in the WH.

Clever enough I suppose, but obviously more damaging for Trump to not have the platform of the SOTU address than Nancy skipping an overseas trip.

Honestly, America deserves to decline. We're quibbling over 5b of wall funding, while China is strategically moving forward and spreading their influence.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 17 2019 01:20pm

... and when Trump calls the Chinese out on it and tries to rein them in, he receives a shitstorm from pretty much everyone outside of his base, and is once again depicted as the boogeyman.

but we should go back to US vs Russia cold war shit flinging while neocons/neolibs sell us out to China behind closed doors, right?

I don't know about that. Some are concerned about how a trade war will effect the economy, and if he wanted to counter Chinese influence he should've signed TPP.

People also forget that Romney was sounding the alarm on China in 2012.



That's right.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 17 2019 01:40pm

This is incorrect phraseology. he's not criticized for criticizing china, he's criticized in how he tries to reign them in.

it shouldn't shock anyone however that everyone outside his base dislikes tariffs, it's a tax on the US people. only his base is willing to pay their money to protect millionaire profits that are hurt by IP theft, mainly because they buy into the "tariffs aren't a tax on the US people" horse hockey.

when you do shit that is universally disagreeable to all economists on both sides of the aisle you tend to get universal backlash.

trump promised a new deal with china, that has fallen through thus far. he called them out for currency and market manipulation and has done nothing to combat that, in all likelihood he cant do anything anyways.

and invariably when you say u dont like the tariff packages simpletons respond that you're a defeatists who prefers doing nothing, when trump himself said he'd get a deal negotiated years before he mentioned tariffs.



it's been a common thing since as far back as 2006 imo. in the movie The Departed, Jack's character mentions that we'll likely be at war with the Chinese in 20 years and people are still selling them military grade weapons. 15 years later they're making their own.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 17 2019 01:51pm

Some people were concerned about how the ongoing trade war had been affecting our economy for the past half a century. That's what propped up Sanders and then Trump, except in retrospect I doubt Sanders would have had the balls it took to play hardball on China. When the neocon/neoliberal answer to china is to say that free trade is always a positive sum game and give the hypovolemic patient more leeches, it really wouldn't matter if it was a Romney or Clinton or Obama.

Peter Navarro will save us all.