Davin News Server

On Wed, 7 May 2025 20:21:50 -0700,  Alan says...  

> 
> On 2025-05-07 20:02, AlleyCat wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:22:52 -0700,  Alan says...
> > 
> >> 
> >> On 2025-05-06 22:27, AlleyCat wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, 6 May 2025 19:24:55 -0700,  Alan says...
> >>> 
> >>>> So that directly contradicts your other posts, doesn't it?
> >>> 
> >>> Nope.
> >>> 
> >>> Like I said in another post.
> >>> 
> >>> ANY contact with China ABOUT tariffs, is "negotiating/
> >>> negotiations".
> >> 
> >> No. It is not.
> > 
> > So, why call them at all, if they're not negotiating?
> > 
> > Trump: "Hi, Xi... just callin' to say herro!"
> > 
> > "Herro!"

> Sorry, but Trump asking to negotiate is not negotiatING.

Another "that's beside the point", moment.

Contact with a co8untry over the phone or "other" is ALWAYS negotiatING, no matter the intent or topic.

Yes, countries communicate for several key reasons, and negotiation is the primary purpose. Here are some other reasons why 
countries engage in communication:

Negotiation: The most direct reason for communication is to negotiate agreements on various issues, such as trade, security, 
environmental policies, and territorial disputes. 

ANY time countries communicate with each other it's always a "negotiation".

I'm making a valid point. In many instances of communication between countries, there is often an underlying element of 
negotiation, even if it is not formal or explicit.

Building Relationships: When countries communicate to build relationships, there are often negotiations involved regarding mutual 
interests, shared values, and how to cooperate effectively. This can include discussions about trade agreements, cultural 
exchanges, or joint initiatives.

Information Sharing: Even when sharing information, countries may negotiate the terms of that exchange, such as what information 
will be shared, how it will be used, and the timing of the communication.

Crisis Management: In crisis situations, while the primary goal may be to coordinate responses, there can be negotiations about 
the specifics of assistance, resource allocation, or joint actions.

Public Diplomacy: When countries engage in public diplomacy, they may negotiate the messaging and framing of their positions to 
influence public perception and garner support for their policies.

Exploratory Discussions: Even informal or exploratory discussions can involve negotiation as countries assess each other's 
positions and interests, laying the groundwork for future agreements.

In essence, while not every instance of communication is a formal negotiation, many interactions do involve some level of 
negotiation, whether explicit or implicit. The nuances of how countries communicate often reflect a blend of negotiation and 
relationship-building, even in contexts that may not seem like traditional negotiations at first glance. So, it is reasonable to 
say that there is often some form of negotiation involved in various types of communication between countries.

https://i.imgur.com/3UzyIer.mp4

===============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike 
of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into 
three distinct phases or stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, 
as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting 
solely of hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk opposition from liberals to anything and everything 
Trump does. If Trump announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would suggest he was up to something 
nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be received 
positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was 
a punch line for late-night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first coined by the late conservative columnist Charles 
Krauthammer back in 2003. The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people 
in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush."