President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#21,951
#21,951
Majors said:
So now we pick and choose when good things are bad? And bad things are good? Must be exhausting taking the opposite stance so hard. 177K would disagree on the term worthless.
Click to expand...
Don't you realize how much Republicans/ Conservatives/ Trump supporters complained about how jobs reports are always initially inflated, but then later adjusted downward? That doesn't just happen when a Democrat is President. That is standard practice.
 
#21,953
#21,953
BowlBrother85 said:
Don't you realize how much Republicans/ Conservatives/ Trump supporters complained about how jobs reports are always initially inflated, but then later adjusted downward? That doesn't just happen when a Democrat is President. That is standard practice.
Click to expand...
Nice what about.
 
#21,955
#21,955
BowlBrother85 said:
That's not a "what-about-ism." It's pointing out how jobs reports are always initially inflated and adjusted down later. It's pointing to a standard operating procedure in the reporting of such data.
Click to expand...
Definition of BB85 whataboutism. You got played by your own game. Now you’re in thenspin deflection phase.
 
#21,956
#21,956
Majors said:
Definition of BB85 whataboutism. You got played by your own game. Now you’re in thenspin deflection phase.
Click to expand...
No, it's not getting played. I never argued that numbers are inflated in the initial data. Those who follow these reports understand how to interpret them.

You are very tribal, and childish with how everything is team-like competition to you, and a zero sum game.

The bottom line is that Trump's tariffs are bad for the country, and he has too big of an ego and too much pride to admit error and reverse course. He would rather just run the country into a crippling recession. This isn't just bad for Republicans. It's bad for all of us. Trump doesn't know what he is doing and we will all suffer for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#21,958
#21,958
n_huffhines said:
This guy is so stupid he doesn't even know he's saying the opposite of what he means.

View attachment 739508
Click to expand...
OMG.

There certainly is a direct correlation between not brushing your teeth .... and having a mouthful of cavities.

I mean, what is he saying here? People with rotten teeth are smarter than people with nice teeth? It's been my observation that the exact opposite is the case.
 
Last edited:
#21,959
#21,959
BowlBrother85 said:
No, it's not getting played. I never argued that numbers are inflated in the initial data. Those who follow these reports understand how to interpret them.

You are very tribal, and childish with how everything is team-like competition to you, and a zero sum game.

The bottom line is that Trump's tariffs are bad for the country, and he has too big of an ego and too much pride to admit error and reverse course. He would rather just run the country into a crippling recession. This isn't just bad for Republicans. It's bad for all of us. Trump doesn't know what he is doing and we will all suffer for it.
Click to expand...
The tribe leader of Broken Trump has spoken.
 
#21,960
#21,960
BowlBrother85 said:
OMG.

There certainly is a direct correlation between not brushing your teeth .... and having a mouthful of cavities.

I mean, what is he saying here? People with rotten teeth are smarter than people with nice teeth? It's been my observation that the exact opposite is the case.
Click to expand...

He's talking about fluoridated water, not brushing teeth

Only the best and brightest

- Citing BS research conclusively
- Contradicting himself because he doesn't know what he's saying
- Fear-mongering over a non-issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan and BowlBrother85
#21,961
#21,961
jmacvols1 said:
from GROK:

The U.S. and Ukraine signed a minerals deal on April 30, 2025, establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund to grant the U.S. preferential access to Ukraine’s critical minerals and natural resources, including rare earth elements, while supporting Ukraine’s economic recovery and defense against Russia. Below are the key details based on available information:

Overview of the Deal
Purpose: The agreement aims to provide the U.S. with access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of critical minerals, such as graphite, titanium, lithium, and rare earth elements, while creating a fund to reinvest revenues into Ukraine’s reconstruction and economic stability. It also signals U.S. commitment to a “free, sovereign, and prosperous” Ukraine amid ongoing peace negotiations with Russia.

Structure: The deal establishes a joint investment fund managed equally by the U.S. and Ukraine, with three board members from each country. Ukraine contributes 50% of revenues from future (not existing) state-owned mineral, oil, and gas licenses to the fund, which will be reinvested in Ukraine for at least the first decade. The U.S. has the first right of refusal to buy resources or designate buyers.

Signatories: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko signed the agreement in Washington after months of negotiations.

Ratification: The deal requires approval from Ukraine’s parliament to take effect.

Key Minerals Involved
Ukraine holds significant reserves of critical minerals, with estimates suggesting it possesses 5% of global critical raw materials and deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals classified as critical by the European Union. Specific minerals include:
Graphite: Ukraine has 19 million tonnes of proven reserves, ranking among the top five global suppliers. Graphite is crucial for electric vehicle batteries and nuclear reactors.

Titanium: Ukraine accounts for 7% of global production and has some of Europe’s largest reserves, used in aerospace (e.g., F-35 fighter jets), medical, and automotive industries.

Lithium: Ukraine holds one of Europe’s largest untapped lithium reserves (estimated at 500,000 tonnes), vital for batteries, ceramics, and glass.

Rare Earth Elements (REEs): A group of 17 metals (e.g., lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, dysprosium, yttrium) used in electronics, defense, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. Ukraine’s REE deposits are largely untapped, with limited modern data on economic viability.

Other Minerals: Ukraine has significant deposits of manganese, uranium, beryllium, cobalt, nickel, copper, lead, zinc, silver, gallium, zirconium, apatite, and fluorite, critical for energy, defense, and high-tech industries.

Strategic Context
Geopolitical Importance: The deal reduces U.S. reliance on China, which controls 70–95% of global rare earth production and other critical minerals. The U.S. sees Ukraine as a key supplier to diversify supply chains.

Russia’s Role: Russia occupies about 20% of Ukraine’s territory, controlling roughly 40% of its metal resources, including parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, where significant REE and lithium deposits are located. Russia has proposed a competing deal to the U.S. for minerals in occupied Ukrainian territories, which the Trump administration has not ruled out.

Trump’s Involvement: President Trump has framed the deal as a way to recover U.S. aid to Ukraine (previously estimated at $350 billion, though BBC Verify found the actual amount lower). Earlier drafts proposed Ukraine repaying $500 billion in aid, but the final agreement excludes debt obligations, focusing on future profits.

Challenges and Barriers
Landmines and War Damage: About 25% of Ukraine’s land is contaminated with landmines, particularly in the mineral-rich east, posing significant risks to mining operations.

Infrastructure Loss: The war has destroyed nearly half of Ukraine’s power-generation capacity, and mining is energy-intensive, requiring substantial infrastructure rebuilding.

Uncertain Reserves: Soviet-era geological surveys (30–60 years old) provide limited data on the commercial viability of Ukraine’s REEs and other minerals. Modern assessments are needed to confirm economic feasibility.

Security Risks: Ongoing conflict and the lack of explicit U.S. security guarantees deter long-term private investment, as mining projects can span decades.

Economic Viability: Experts question the deal’s short-term impact due to high development costs and the global rare earth market’s modest size (estimated at $12 billion, far below Trump’s $500 billion claim).

Negotiation History
Initial Tensions: A February 2025 meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office turned contentious, with Trump demanding $500 billion in mineral revenues and accusing Zelenskyy of risking escalation. The deal stalled after Zelenskyy rejected terms that would burden future Ukrainian generations.

Breakthrough: A more amicable meeting at Pope Francis’ funeral in April 2025 and subsequent negotiations led to a revised agreement, finalized after Ukraine addressed U.S. concerns about fund governance and transparency.

Ukrainian Perspective: Ukraine views the deal as a way to attract global investment and secure U.S. support without compromising sovereignty. Kyiv retains ownership of its resources and control over extraction decisions.

Implications
For Ukraine: The deal could attract U.S. and European investment, bringing technology, jobs, and revenue, but its success depends on demining, infrastructure restoration, and peace. Ukrainian officials emphasize that it strengthens ties with the U.S. without debt obligations.

For the U.S.: It enhances access to critical minerals, reducing dependence on China, and aligns with Trump’s transactional diplomacy. However, the deal’s long-term impact on U.S. mineral security is uncertain due to investment barriers.

For Russia: The agreement signals U.S. commitment to Ukraine, potentially complicating Russia’s ambitions. Russia’s competing offer for minerals in occupied territories adds a layer of geopolitical competition.

Sources
BBC, NPR, Reuters, AP News, CSIS, Newsweek, The Independent, Euronews, NBC News, Fox News, CBS News

Posts on X reflect sentiment but are not conclusive evidence.

If you need more specific details or want me to dig deeper into a particular aspect (e.g., specific minerals, economic projections, or geopolitical implications), let me know!
Click to expand...


Thanks for this info. Obviously, there are no specific arrangement,s i.e. that we will provide equipment and manpower for X mineral at Y location by Z date, which is what Ukraine would want so there is a US presence there as a deterrent to Russian aggression. But, I don't think it should be that specific yet, it should be somewhat open ended like this, try to get Putin to the bargaining table. So, seems like a good first step.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#21,962
#21,962
n_huffhines said:
He's talking about fluoridated water, not brushing teeth

Only the best and brightest

- Citing BS research conclusively
- Contradicting himself because he doesn't know what he's saying
- Fear-mongering over a non-issue
Click to expand...
Obviously, not the only issue he does that with. It's embarrassing that he is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and it only happened because he dropped out of the Presidential race and then endorsed Donald Trump. That cabinet position should never be filled strictly as part of a political quid-pro-quo arrangement. It is unprofessional.
 
#21,963
#21,963
Majors said:
Let’s be honest, you have no clue about the country except what you’re told to think.

The Stock Market loves the April jobs report, which is much stronger than expected, with the U.S. adding 177,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.2%.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it'll more honest than Biden's jobs reports. He / they always revised it down 3 months later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majors
#21,966
#21,966
hndog609 said:
I'm actually curious to see how that goes. Will reports now be revised down? (almost a certainty) If so more or less than under Biden?
Click to expand...
They were always later revised downward during his first term from 2017-2021. This isn't something that just started under Biden. The same was always true under Obama.
 
#21,967
#21,967
BowlBrother85 said:
Obviously, not the only issue he does that with. It's embarrassing that he is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and it only happened because he dropped out of the Presidential race and then endorsed Donald Trump. That cabinet position should never be filled strictly as part of a political quid-pro-quo arrangement. It is unprofessional.
Click to expand...

That pretty much always happens.
 
#21,968
#21,968
BowlBrother85 said:
They were always later revised downward during his first term from 2017-2021. This isn't something that just started under Biden. The same was always true under Obama.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I made it clear that was an expectation. What I'm curious about will be what the numbers are and how they'll hold up. Under Biden it was made a huge deal to have all these job numbers (see blue gazillion EL tweets back in the day) only to end up lowered, sometimes dramatically. I'm just looking forward to what difference there may be with this circus as opposed to the last one and how the numbers will be treated.
 
#21,969
#21,969
hndog609 said:
I'm pretty sure I made it clear that was an expectation. What I'm curious about will be what the numbers are and how they'll hold up. Under Biden it was made a huge deal to have all these job numbers (see blue gazillion EL tweets back in the day) only to end up lowered, sometimes dramatically. I'm just looking forward to what difference there may be with this circus as opposed to the last one and how the numbers will be treated.
Click to expand...
gov jobs accounted for 25% of Bidens numbers in 2023..of course, they took credit for jobs they took away and allowed back later..solid ideology.
 
#21,971
#21,971
Orangeburst said:
gov jobs accounted for 25% of Bidens numbers in 2023..of course, they took credit for jobs they took away and allowed back later..solid ideology.
Click to expand...
If you really wanted to know who around you at that time was either a genuine idiot or a completely reprogrammed partisan (or both) all you had to do was suss out who bought into people being allowed back to work as jobs "created" under Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#21,972
#21,972
BowlBrother85 said:
Not for Secretary of Health and Human Services. No.
Click to expand...

Although the last two had MDs, I would say it happened with them as well. I mean that is just general politics, people are choosing based on favoritism. Now you could argue that Kennedy is one of the least qualified candidates in recent history, notable from an academic perspective. However, if you don't think Fauci or others were political appointees, you have your head buried in the sand.
 
#21,973
#21,973
volbound1700 said:
Although the last two had MDs, I would say it happened with them as well. I mean that is just general politics, people are choosing based on favoritism. Now you could argue that Kennedy is one of the least qualified candidates in recent history, notable from an academic perspective. However, if you don't think Fauci or others were political appointees, you have your head buried in the sand.
Click to expand...
That is not true.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top