Locator: 49751HEAVYOIL.
Anas is not my favorite analyst, but is is worth paying attention to him.
A lot of folks who should be very knowledgeable about the "oil issue" with regard to Venezuela seem not to understand what's going on here. Trump is playing chess when most of us are playing checkers when it comes to geopolitics. On top of that, he is incredibly transactional. I would assume most successful businessmen are transactional but Trump makes it so incredibly obvious -- obvious that he is transactional; not that his actions or objectives are obvious.
One needs to remember, "transactional" is generally used in a "business / buying / selling / trading" setting. For the most part, the US has not been known to have businessmen as presidents (or any leaders at the national level for that matter), and so, perhaps, Trump only looks more transactional than past presidents.
The definition of transactional:
Anas' post:
But again, the purpose of this post is to remind folks that ... well, I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is. LOL.
Hey, by the way, I'm glad to have come across this truism: two opposite things can both be correct.
With regard to Trump, Venezuela, and Maduro:
- it was all about oil;
- it had nothing to do with oil.
So, both CNN and Scott Jennings can be correct.
It's called dialectics.
Yes, two opposite things can both be correct through concepts like dialectics (two truths coexisting), paradox (self-contradictory but true statements), oxymorons (contradictory words side-by-side), or juxtaposition (contrasting ideas revealing deeper truth), often depending on perspective or context, like feeling both strong and weak, or needing to "save" money by spending it on necessities.
