Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
This thread is intended as a fresh starting point for substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, his political legacy and the enduring questions raised by the Mueller investigation and January 6 riot. The previous thread, sprawling over 800 pages, covered much ground but often veered into repetition, flame wars and rhetorical posturing. Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact.
Some facts have been established in the meantime.
The Mueller Report: A Recap
Released in 2019, Special Counsel Robert Muellers report was the product of a two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump. The report established beyond dispute that the Russian government mounted a coordinated campaign to influence the elections outcome, primarily to Trumps benefit. This involved both a disinformation campaign via social media (spearheaded by the Internet Research Agency) and the theft and release of Democratic Party emails via Russian military intelligence.
The report also documented over 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian individuals, including meetings and the sharing of internal polling data. However, it did not conclude that these amounted to a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law, citing insufficient evidence and uncooperative witnesses.
The second volume of the report explored ten instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, including his attempts to limit the investigation and pressure witnesses. Mueller did not indict Trump, citing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president, but explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate him. Mueller referred the matter to Congress, framing it as a constitutional question rather than a prosecutorial one.
January 6: A recap
Since the events of January 6, 2021, a growing body of evidencegathered through investigations, testimony, and official proceedingshas established several key facts about former President Donald Trumps actions and involvement.
In the months following the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly and publicly claimed the results were fraudulent, despite being informed by his legal team, campaign advisors, and Department of Justice officials that there was no significant evidence of widespread voter fraud. Internally, aides confirmed he was aware that the claims lacked merit, yet he continued to promote them to the public. He also sought to involve federal agencies in this effort, including pressuring the Department of Justice to back his false claims. At one point, Trump even considered replacing the acting Attorney General with a loyalist who was willing to advance his narrative. This pressure campaign extended to Vice President Mike Pence, whom Trump urged to block or delay the certification of the Electoral College results on January 6an action Pence ultimately refused, citing constitutional limits on his authority.
On the morning of January 6, Trump addressed a large crowd near the White House, repeating his debunked allegations of electoral fraud and urging his supporters to fight like hell and march on the Capitol. As the Capitol was breached, Trump watched events unfold from the White House. Reports and testimony later revealed that he was initially reluctant to intervene, and during the critical first hours of the assault, he made phone calls not to halt the violence, but to encourage Republican senators to continue opposing the certification of the election results. Despite appeals from advisors and family members to publicly call off the rioters, Trump delayed releasing a statement. When he finally did, he issued a video telling the rioters to go homewhile also repeating the lie that the election had been stolen and referring to the attackers as very special.
In the aftermath, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The Senate ultimately acquitted him. However, the matter did not end there. Congressional investigations and Special Counsel inquiries have since uncovered additional details, including evidence that Trump was involved in a broader, multi-pronged effort to overturn the electionranging from the creation of false slates of electors to pressuring state officials and promoting baseless legal challenges. While he has not been criminally convicted for these actions - and with his releection probably never will, court filings and testimony continue to suggest that he was at the center of a coordinated campaign to subvert the democratic process.
After he left office, Trump continued to downplay the seriousness of January 6, even going so far as to glorify those imprisoned for their roles in the attack. In campaign appearances, he has referred to them as patriots and played musical tributes to them during rallies and issued a blanket pardon to over 1,500 individuals wo where charged or convicted in connection with the events at the Capitol.
A Polarised Reaction
Public and political reactions to the Mueller Report and Cogrnessional investigations fell largely along partisan lines. Trump and his allies declared total vindication, while critics pointed to the documented misconduct and pattern of obstruction as grounds for accountability. The same partisanship has been on full display in the previous Trump thread.
A New Conversation
We've left the Trump thread rage on for way too long. We've closed it, have established the above as fact and will delete any comment or argument denying it without substantial proof as the crackpot theory it is. As always, participants are encouraged to support claims with evidence, engage charitably with disagreement and resist the temptation of tribal thinking.
Some facts have been established in the meantime.
The Mueller Report: A Recap
Released in 2019, Special Counsel Robert Muellers report was the product of a two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump. The report established beyond dispute that the Russian government mounted a coordinated campaign to influence the elections outcome, primarily to Trumps benefit. This involved both a disinformation campaign via social media (spearheaded by the Internet Research Agency) and the theft and release of Democratic Party emails via Russian military intelligence.
The report also documented over 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian individuals, including meetings and the sharing of internal polling data. However, it did not conclude that these amounted to a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law, citing insufficient evidence and uncooperative witnesses.
The second volume of the report explored ten instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, including his attempts to limit the investigation and pressure witnesses. Mueller did not indict Trump, citing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president, but explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate him. Mueller referred the matter to Congress, framing it as a constitutional question rather than a prosecutorial one.
January 6: A recap
Since the events of January 6, 2021, a growing body of evidencegathered through investigations, testimony, and official proceedingshas established several key facts about former President Donald Trumps actions and involvement.
In the months following the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly and publicly claimed the results were fraudulent, despite being informed by his legal team, campaign advisors, and Department of Justice officials that there was no significant evidence of widespread voter fraud. Internally, aides confirmed he was aware that the claims lacked merit, yet he continued to promote them to the public. He also sought to involve federal agencies in this effort, including pressuring the Department of Justice to back his false claims. At one point, Trump even considered replacing the acting Attorney General with a loyalist who was willing to advance his narrative. This pressure campaign extended to Vice President Mike Pence, whom Trump urged to block or delay the certification of the Electoral College results on January 6an action Pence ultimately refused, citing constitutional limits on his authority.
On the morning of January 6, Trump addressed a large crowd near the White House, repeating his debunked allegations of electoral fraud and urging his supporters to fight like hell and march on the Capitol. As the Capitol was breached, Trump watched events unfold from the White House. Reports and testimony later revealed that he was initially reluctant to intervene, and during the critical first hours of the assault, he made phone calls not to halt the violence, but to encourage Republican senators to continue opposing the certification of the election results. Despite appeals from advisors and family members to publicly call off the rioters, Trump delayed releasing a statement. When he finally did, he issued a video telling the rioters to go homewhile also repeating the lie that the election had been stolen and referring to the attackers as very special.
In the aftermath, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The Senate ultimately acquitted him. However, the matter did not end there. Congressional investigations and Special Counsel inquiries have since uncovered additional details, including evidence that Trump was involved in a broader, multi-pronged effort to overturn the electionranging from the creation of false slates of electors to pressuring state officials and promoting baseless legal challenges. While he has not been criminally convicted for these actions - and with his releection probably never will, court filings and testimony continue to suggest that he was at the center of a coordinated campaign to subvert the democratic process.
After he left office, Trump continued to downplay the seriousness of January 6, even going so far as to glorify those imprisoned for their roles in the attack. In campaign appearances, he has referred to them as patriots and played musical tributes to them during rallies and issued a blanket pardon to over 1,500 individuals wo where charged or convicted in connection with the events at the Capitol.
A Polarised Reaction
Public and political reactions to the Mueller Report and Cogrnessional investigations fell largely along partisan lines. Trump and his allies declared total vindication, while critics pointed to the documented misconduct and pattern of obstruction as grounds for accountability. The same partisanship has been on full display in the previous Trump thread.
A New Conversation
We've left the Trump thread rage on for way too long. We've closed it, have established the above as fact and will delete any comment or argument denying it without substantial proof as the crackpot theory it is. As always, participants are encouraged to support claims with evidence, engage charitably with disagreement and resist the temptation of tribal thinking.
Comments (1171)
Is it just posturing to do deals, or is it all about something else(more sinister)?
Is there anything in his ideology(any sense in it), or is it all about his narcissistic ego?
From what I can make of it, I don't think it's ideology but there seems to be consistency. I would say, he is first and foremost, transactional. There need to be personal or national "wins" and "losses". Loyalty, power dynamics and image outweigh strategy or principle. (And maybe loyality needs its separate point as well?)
Basic populism is a common thread as well; nationalist, anti-elitist, anti-immgrations and disdain for institutions, norms and the law.
If I would summarise it, I think it would be like this:
"The world is a zero-sum game. America is being ripped off. Only I can fix it. Loyalty to me is patriotism. Elites and institutions are your enemy. Winning is the only value that matters."
That moment you realize... all of that IS the strategy and principle... (Hey I don't agree with it, but you pander to your audience. Cheap seats fill faster. Am I wrong?)
Quoting Benkei
So, basically anyone more educated, successful, or for that matter, happier (no not even happy, simply less miserable) than me (not even that, simply a functionally sane and civilized human being in times, places, or situations I simply cannot or will not) is basically/might as well be, the devil. Basically, there's never anything wrong with me, there's simply no logical room for any other case scenario than "that other guy way over there who isn't bothering me and happens to be doing better than me is terrible and is (somehow) at fault". Yeah, sounds about right for the unrefined. :lol:
Very dangerous mindset. Literally why cages were invented. So those whose minds experienced failure to launch don't drag an entire civilization or society down and cause it to disappear or worse.
Great stuff here, BTW. Just following from the rafters is all.
Already at the table are Vietnam, who announced lower tariffs on American goods, and Israel, who cut tariffs on American goods across the board. But if the rhetoric is any indication, the trade war is poised to continue with other governments.
The gamble is widely panned by economists. Yet Trump is the first president (as far as I can tell) to take such a bold move on the national debt, which one could argue was about to lead the country into insolvency or collapse.
What's the metric for success exactly?
Oh and Im the most powerful person on the planet and you all have to dance to my tune.
Isn't the "bold move" about tax cuts (strongly favoring the 1%) and not the debt?
Wasn't it the longest thread in PF or is there a thread longer? Over 24 200 replies and over 800 pages... and it wasn't the first Trump thread, only a common Trump-thread put together in 2018.
But even if it's evidence-based and engagement grounded in fact, I'm not sure you will get it to tone down.
Just think if we would have this kind of forum in the 1930's, where people anonymously participated from both sides of the Atlantic. Do you think it wouldn't get to repetition and flame wars if people commented about the Great Depression, economic policies to fight the great depression, authoritarianism and rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Or if the topic was the invasion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War or isolationism in the US?
Anyway, perhaps the "Day of Liberation" is an apt point to restart the Trump discussion, or perhaps in a month we have forgotten it.
The presidents proposals for tax cuts include no taxes on tips, no taxes on social security, no taxes on overtime, and more recently, no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year. How do those tax cuts favor the 1% in your view, given that to be in the top 1% you have to make around $800000 a year?
On the other hand, tariffs are taxes, and those are rising. Whether this and other schemes (like his golden visa) works, I have no clue.
The debt is what, around 36 million? That means each American is six-figures in the red. It would take about $8 trillion of ten-year savings to stabilize debt as a share of the economy and about $15 trillion to balance the budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So the battle is uphill, requires all branches and sides to participate, and requires massive reductions in spending. If history is any indication, very little of this will be occurring soon, but maybe Trump can set the ball rolling.
Talks are now occurring in Canada in regards to zero tariffs, which is exactly what the president wants.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/04/02/could-canada-and-the-u-s-strike-a-zero-tariff-deal-ford-says-carney-is-open-to-idea/
It would be ironic if protectionism ends protectionism, on both sides of the border, but this is the best outcome in my view. Lets hope cooler heads prevail.
Yet the average salary in the US is half of that, if not a bit less. And for those inflation will be an issue. Stagflation? How much?
Quoting NOS4A2
Maybe, but I'm not seeing how you would avoid a recession here. Trump of course can make quick turnarounds and people are OK with that. But otherwise what I'm anticipating is just a huge trade war.
Let's just remember that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were similar or less (depends on what Trump does today) and, above all, the World had far less international trade and globalization as it has today.
Quoting NOS4A2
I hope that. And here Trump could perhaps do a real turnaround. But how cool heads prevail, we'll see in the following weeks and months.
....and NOPE.
EU 20%
China 34%
Vietnam 46%
Japan 24%
India 26%
and so on... :shade:
Hooray for Mercantilism! :vomit:
Trump doesnt believe in trade. He has said he thinks trade is bad, that there is always a winner and a loser. As a mercantilist, the last thing he wants is tariff-free open trade.
:lol: Thats what he was promising before being elected.
Quoting ssu
Im all in favor of these tariffs. Trump only won the election because his core MAGA supporters were joined by libertarian free-market neo-liberal business types who believed Trump basically shared their economic perspective, and just used tariffs as a bargaining chip. They didnt realize the Trump who made them money in his first term was a Trump whose real goals were being constrained by those around him. They didnt think they were electing an imperialist mercantilist. A lot of them dont even know what that is, its been discredited for so long. But they are likely to learn now the hard way, with a deep recession and steep bear market. If that happens, I think they will vet all future candidates for office to make sure that no imperialist-mercantilist platform ever gets voted in again.
This is so true.
The futures markets say no bueno.
So many hard working people who got indoctrinated into voting for him will now wonder why every damn thing around them got so expensive.
Bold to increase it by giving huge tax cuts for those who already have the most. Bold to try to pay for that loss by cutting social services and making other countries/trading partners pay for that tax cut.
Bold indeed.
And they deserve everything that comes from that if they keep wanting to flirt with this moron. Despite the efforts of many to tell them about his tariff plans their reasoning never went beyond "well inflation wasn't a problem when he was president last time so I guess he'll fix it this time".
Quoting Thomas Friedman, NY Times
Mercantilist is little more than a pejorative, these days, and in that sense quite meaningless. Its not like were dealing in gold bullion.
Neo-mercantilist? Maybe, though I would argue his policies resemble McKinley more than Hamilton. In any case, with the decline of neoliberalism, neomercantilism stands to be the next paradigm.
But youre right. The only way I could see this being a good thing is if it is the only way to combat the neomercantilism of China, who aims to form asymmetrical trade. Im not too sure, but to me the theory is a sound one. The difference is that Trump aims for symmetrical trade, at least if you consider statements hes made about fair trade over the past 40 years.
The presidents proposals for tax cuts include no taxes on tips, no taxes on social security, no taxes on overtime, and more recently, no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year. How do those tax cuts favor the 1% in your view, given that to be in the top 1% you have to make around $800000 a year?
A bold move on the national debt?
Btw, I haven't heard of a proposal to eliminate taxes for those who make less than $150k a year.
Absolutely. No one has utilized so many tariffs, no one has proposed an External revenue service, no one has created a department of government efficiency. Your image says if not offset. The offsets just mentioned are far bolder than just taking peoples income.
Figures.
So all countries have to do now is bend the knee and dress up what they were already doing as a concession. This leaves the countries, or trading blocks he hates left with the high tariffs, the EU and the Far East. I doubt he will keep the high tariffs on China, Im expecting a state visit to China with lots of staged handshakes and the greatest trade deal in history.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were implemented, which were one of the causes for the Great Depression, all imports to the US was like 5% of GDP. Now it's over 13% of GDP. And then the World wasn't so interconnected. And during that time, there wasn't so much international trade globally. And tariffs between non-US states were higher too.
I'm not sure how you could avoid stagflation now. If the American consumer has been worried about rising egg prices, wait until you see what this will bring on... starting with your morning coffee. Prior to these tariffs, Trump already had a negative effect on the economy with things like travel to the US was declining. The dollar is weakening to the euro and investments are going away from the US. Not the usual thing when recession is coming.
Quoting Punshhh
Or then double down if other countries put tariffs on the US. The US has a surplus on services trade, so likely that will be hit. And then when the economic growth goes negative, Trump will insist that it's just a time for "detoxing". As @Josh put it so well, tariffs here aren't just a way to bargain for a better deal for Trump, it really is the way he incorrectly thinks that manufacturing gets back to the US.
And this is the main ludicrous line here: if you just raise trade barriers and leave the US manufacturers to produce things for Americans, you're missing out on the Global market.
It takes minutes to impose tariffs, but 5 to 10 years to build a factory. Also why would a manufacturer build that factory when in 4 years Trump will be gone and the tariffs may well be reversed. Not to mention that the cost of building that factory and producing the goods will be very high. There might not be anyone left with enough money to buy the goods at the end of it all.
Investors will turn away and leave the U.S. to stagflation.
And why invest in a country that severely damages it's own economy on purpose? China is already putting limits for Chinese companies to invest in the US. But this might be a totally voluntary thing to do: the US isn't a rapidly growing market, so why invest there?
Far more lucrative is for European corporations to turn for example to the growing European defense market, just like Volkswagen did. (See Volkswagen Ready to Enter Military Production Exploring Defense Equipment Supply)
Again something that Trump himself did. That US defense industry corporations are down and European defense industry like Rheinmetall is well up over +100% tells where we are heading.
The US is utterly untrustworthy and totally unpredictable in it's actions during the time Trump is in power, so the reasonable thing would be to stear clear away from this self-inflicted trainwreck. When the Trump price hikes hit the US consumer, they aren't going to be delighted.
Also what should be noted is the political impact of this. Now there's a clear reason why the economy will be hurt in many countries. It's because of Trump's actions. This means that people aren't going to be disappointed in their own governments, because the culprit is so evident.
A big problem for the EU has always been to be a bit behind the US on certain innovations and technology, but with new trade agreements the EU could actually have the chance to surpass the US if done right.
That would be the most profound retaliation, far greater than any counter-tariffs as those would just make it more expensive to produce that which is in need of US supplies.
The important thing is that Trump chokes his own voters, that's the only way to get rid of him. Making his zealots turn on him.
In today's geopolitical circumstance, it simply cannot compete with a united Russia-China-Iran bloc. And while the US would have to spend all its energy counteracting this bloc, other power blocs would start to pop up, creating more unsolvable headaches for the US.
The best thing there would be to do is to fall back on the Monroe-doctrine of US primacy in the western hemisphere - the bedrock of US foreign policy - which the Trump administration is already hinting at wanting to reinforce.
We can of course talk about how crazy all these moves supposedly are, but likely we are not fully aware of the economic realities that led to them - for example, how great the threat of a US default might actually be. For obvious reasons these things cannot always be made public.
In my opinion, everything points to full-blown panic within the US establishment. The jig is up.
It's also the same reason why Trump's attempts to woo Russia away from China are doomed to fail, which is that nobody expects his policies to actually remain in 4 years.
It must have slipped your mind that Russia and Iran are basket cases and China does not do this pariah state nonsense. She will likely do a deal with Trump, which will be hailed as the greatest deal of all time.
The government was funded by tariffs before income tax. That was before social security, Medicare, and other programs. It would certainly be a bold move to attempt ending all these programs.
Quoting NOS4A2
I thought you might want to show where no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year is proposed. I couldnt find it.
Trump will probably be followed by Vance, unless a Democratic superstar emerges. And even if a Democratic president follows, remember, Biden didn't rescind the tariffs from the first Trump administration, in fact he added to them. Completely exposing American labor to competition with China was a pretty brutal thing to do. The consent to do that again would have to be manufactured (to garble one of the chapter titles of David Harvey's book on neoliberalism).
The left died. This is what's taking its place.
The tariffs against China are warranted though. They basically hide slave labor and has the government involved in all companies, making security in other nations a nightmare while pressing prices down to dominate against nations with better working conditions for their citizens. Such nations SHOULD have tariffs against them instead of enriching them and giving them influence.
It's the tariffs against other nations who are allies and collaborators that's nuts. No one benefits from it. The only thing would be if the tariffs became the cash to pay off the extreme dept the US has. But I've yet to see the money being bookmarked as such.
Quoting frank
Agreed, but mostly because the ones in the Democratic party with most power are liberal centrists. Every time someone more to the left, like Sanders speaks up, the people actually listens. The people, the actual people who votes and not the pseudo-intellectuals online, love Sanders; but the Democratic party does not push him out there enough.
What the Democrats need is a young, charismatic, more-to-the-left candidate who are versed in constructing a narrative to communicate the policies through.
The solution is quite simple, even if they don't get a candidate like that, at least they need the narrative bit. The right and conservatives have been framing everything in narratives and easily understood slogans.
The people are stupid, uneducated and must be considered so when drafting what to communicate to them. Not in terms of talking to them like the 5-year old's they are, but rather in terms of producing a narrative for them to gather around.
Any policy can be communicated through an easily understood narrative, getting to the heart and emotion of it for people to rally behind.
This is what the democrats need to do and as long as they have the elderly home of centrists controlling the party, they will fail. Hopefully they all die off until the next election and we have some proper young candidate who can give the people a confident and warm smile, that's mostly what the dumb mob goes for anyway.
I see no world where Vance becomes president because either Trump succeeds in dismantling US democracy in which case he'll just stay in until he dies, or the democratic process continues as usual in which case given what we've been seeing from this administration means Vance gets annihilated electorally. The Democrats can run a corpse and they will win. They did the last time and hopefully they won't the next time.
I guess use your imagination then. How would that tax cut benefit the 1% in your view?
Quoting frank
Not for long.
I completely agree with this assessment for Atlantic columnist Jonathan Chait:
Quoting NOS4A2
Heres an interesting take on that alleged no taxes for anyone making less than $150,000 a year, from New Republics Timothy Noah:
Quoting James Surowiecki · Apr 2, 2025
Quoting Kush Desai · Apr 2, 2025
Quoting James Surowiecki · Apr 3, 2025
(the correspondence has additional comments/details if anyone cares)
I suppose the Trump team is free to determine/calculate whatever. Doesn't inspire much confidence. More importantly, what do you make of it?
With regard to the country turning on Trump, if they have an alternative, maybe. If the Democrats run AOC next time, Vance will be the president. He'll definitely keep some of Trumps policies.
You may be right. I doubt it though.
Oh, you're talking about his tax cuts from 2018, due to be extended. And now we're talking about benefits to the top 20%. Do you think the tax policies he campaigned on in this term on might benefit the lower 80%?
I initially wrote:
Isn't the "bold move" about tax cuts (strongly favoring the 1%) and not the debt?
But also it doesnt make economic sense, but rather, it only makes sense if you agree with Trumps novel views on trade. Views which hes held unchanged for 40years and are naive and show a poor understanding of whats involved and a deep prejudice.
Not enough to offset the tax from his tariffs and the gutting of government programs from DOGE. But hey no taxes on tips... if we're lucky.
That having made a great start on wrecking the Government, hes now turned his attention to wrecking the economy.
Meanwhile, Trump has just summarily dismissed the Head and Deputy Head of the National Security Authority and US Cyber Command, Timothy Waugh and Wendy Noble, following an Oval Office meeting with notorious crank and conspiracy theory peddler, Laura Loomer (who thinks 911 was staged by the US Government.)
No reason was given.
I think youve hit the nub of the issue here. All the woes (well most of them) of the U.S. economy, along with the EU and most Western countries are as a result of this. The undercutting of consumables, product and tech by China and some other Far Eastern producers. Over a period of about 30years.
Along with Western producers outsourcing production to these countries.
This is the imbalance that needs correcting. And yet Trump is going after other Western countries and small countries, for a problem caused by and in cahoots with China. As a result he will cause an unnecessary global recession and the collapse, or re-ordering of global trade.
I could give countless examples of what has gone wrong here. But Ill give one to illustrate. In the U.K. we have an entrepreneur inventor guy, who until recently was hailed as an example of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, Sir James Dyson. Now he is hated and despised by many because of what he did when he had made his money and became very successful. At the first sign of production cost increases at home, probably caused by China undercutting us on production cost. He closed his U.K. production lines down and manufactured his vacuum cleaners in the Far East. Then he became a campaigner and cheerleader for Brexit from his home in Singapore. Apparently he recently bought the most expensive penthouse apartment in Singapore. More recently he has started buying up farmland in the U.K., which has tax breaks for inheritance and capital transfer taxes. Contributing to the unsustainable increases in the cost of farmland, which is pushing many small farmers out of business.
If only innovators like this used their brain power and worked out what the problems are and how to fix them. But no, it was class driven exceptionalism all the way.
Is it?
Wouldn't you expect half of the world's population to produce half of the stuff and get half of the profits?
a) The World economy tanking, but especially the US economy going down
b) US prices going up (with "a" above that's stagflation)
c) Democrats winning the midterms, but Trump totally disregarding then the Congress
d) People protesting in large numbers against Trump
e) Trump using force against these protesters and MAGA-supporters clashing with demonstators
f) The US ending up with political instability like a country in Latin America.
Just asking... of course it might not happen, but one scenario.
A) I don't think the world economy tanks other than in the short term. But if the world retaliate tariffs against the US, then it doesn't look good for most citizens of the US.
B) Definitely.
C) They will win the midterms if this chaos continues. Just look at the recent win for the democrats in Wisconsin, it was technically a landslide compared to before in the region. Trump will continue do what he does, so things boil down to if people have the balls enough to stand up against it for real or just make public speeches against him for the sake of gaining points and saving their own asses (not so much actually do something for real against him)
D) If prices skyrocket for regular citizens, yes, and in massive scale. Protests so far have been ideological, but when people can't afford living they could become furious.
E) MAGA supporters clashing with them could happen, but since many MAGA supporters are the ones actually getting the worst of the economical fallout, they might just change side through cognitive dissonance. Trump using force against protestors might happen, but I don't think it would be worse than regular such happenings. If he goes too far that would be the end of him, literally.
F) Not likely. A nation's stability is also proportional to its size. A nation as large as the US takes longer to "fall" than smaller nations. As I see it, this is a conservative cult that has infected gullible republicans. And since most republicans seem to be just botox Karens and disgusting uncles, they are essentially doomed if you remove the cult factor of Trump. With Trump gone and if the nation finally stands up to ban conspiracy nutjobs from political power, it will return to "normalcy". Democrats have a problem at the moment, but they're still operating as a "normal" party. What will happen with republicans in the future I don't know; but I think that the self-radicalization of the internet is pretty damaging to the limited conservative mindset of that party. Essentially, the internet works better for progressive views to move fast, which is against what conservative ideals stand for and that incompatibility required essentially a cult to form stability. Without the cult, it's impossible for republicans to keep up with societal movements.
Further, for Australia, which enjoyed a goods trade surplus with the US (cars and delivery trucks, apparently), he simply set an arbitrary rate of 10%.
Yes, even thought we have a trade surplus, we get a minimum 10% tariff.
The net effect of course is that the US is simply removing itself from the global market. Twits.
This ignores labour conditions, EH&S regulations, environmental regulations, etc. that are at the basis of the absence of a level playing field. On the other hand, colonialism and economic neoliberal policy has screwed over most other countries now in a position to produce cheaply but mostly through exploitation of people or the environment. If they make half the stuff in accordance with the regulations that apply to local firms they absolutely deserve half of the profits.
Personally, I'm in favour of a principled based tariff system:
1. Not a full democracy? 10%
2. Authoritarion? 25%
3. Work week not limited to 40 hours? 10%
4. No unions allowed? 10%
5. No EH&S rules at EU level? 25%
6. No environmental standards at EU level? 25%
Then we allow companies to voluntarily meet EU obligations to the extent they can, to make their products exempt from most tariffs through an accreditation process and ban any company to sell to the EU for 10 years if they falsely obtain such accreditation.
But this has fuck all to do with Trump so let's stop the discussion here.
Well, so what. Again, wouldn't you expect half of the world's population to produce half of the stuff and get half of the profits?
Why shouldn't we have robots produce everything and use the profits to avert climate change?
The imbalance being talked about is trade-surplus and trade-deficits. Those with a trade-surplus are producing more than what they can sell to their population. They have achieved that by lower wages, lower enviromental standards, lower quality requirements, direct state-aid, a strong dollar, regulatory barriers, taxes and to a lesser extend tarifs... thus undercutting other economies en forcing them to a race to the bottom in many cases.
Tarifs are probably not going to solve it, but it is a problem for the US and Western countries, and so also for the world economy, that will eventually need some resolution. The US can't just keep loaning to buy up the worlds excess production.
The more interesting question is what would be a solution that could work?
These tarriffs have been dictated by Trump, with neither Congressional nor Senate contribution or approval. There can be no doubt that Trump is now a dictator.
I think this is a misstatement. It's not those people who are represented as "half of the world's population", who are getting these profits. A company, like Tesla for example, can set up operations in a country like China, and reap huge profits. Those people working those factories, are not getting these profits. There may even be significant tax loopholes due to the international nature of the company. That is the long standing tradition of capitalism.
But why shouldn't half of the world's population produce half of the stuff and get half of the profits?
New modelling reveals full impact of Trumps Liberation Day tariffs with the US hit hardest
The nation that suffers the greatest reduction in GDP in both scenarios is the US.
Curiously, Australia and a few other countries - Brazil, New Zealand - receive a small benefit from the Stupidity of the Orange Emperor. So, thanks.
Overall, the world economy will decline.
But to this damage to the US GDP, add the breach in trust...
Quoting Trumps Liberation Day tariffs are the highest in decades ? an economist explains how that could hurt the US
Decreased government spending and tax cuts will certainly offset the cost of tariffs to the American public. Whether they can pass the tax bills is the problem.
The world is flipping out with retaliatory tariffs but the tariff is a tax on Americans. So its odd that they spin around and tax their own citizens, and in a Trumpian way. Its astounding.
What actual tax proposals are being submitted currently? Where can we find it?
Quoting NOS4A2
That clearly lacks nuance. Trump is basically engaged in protectionism. Retaliatory tariffs serve as deterrents by raising the cost of protectionism for the instigating country and signaling strength in trade negotiations. By targeting politically sensitive industries and choosing goods with low domestic disruption, countries can create pressure while shielding their own economy.
These measures are also seen as proportionate responses that uphold balance in trade relations. However, they come with clear downsides: higher consumer prices, reduced competitiveness and GDP losses on both sides.
In short: retaliatory tariffs hurt but theyre meant to make protectionism hurt more.
If so, then why don't people do anything about it? Why is everyone just accepting that all of this is going on? That Trump does what he does is nothing strange, what is strange is the total apathy and inaction of others. If he is indeed breaking against the constitution and ignore rules and regulations, then do something about it.
Anyway I was talking about the imbalance that has produced the poor economic circumstances in Western countries. There are numerous other factors, but the largest one is cheap labour and remarkable efficiencies in the East undercutting labour in the West.
Quoting Christoffer
If you live in the U.S. , why dont you do something? You can start by joining the nationwide protests planned for tomorrow.
https://handsoff2025.com/
The U.S. will fall into a deep and prolonged recession which will put many out of work, and a steep bear market will wipe out retirement portfolios. Heightened inflation will add insult to injury. Those Trump voters who thought they were getting a free-market champion will be out for blood. Congressional Republicans will remove their heads from Trumps butt as they realize they have more to fear from their constituents than from displeasing Great Leader. By the time we get to the mid-terms, the country will look like something from a Cormac McCarthy dystopian wasteland, which will return some power to the Democrats. In 4 years, the MAGA brand will a toxic , shrunken vestige of what it once was.
Have you spoken with an expert in economics or geopolitics about these predictions? There are a number of educated opinions on Reddit, although the moderator on AskEconomics just locked the thread because it was getting too rambunctious.
I have been obsessively reading everything I can get my hands on by economists, both liberal and conservative. None of them are foolish enough to declare a recession before it begins, but there is a consensus that what is happening now is a profound shock to the global economy the likes of which hasnt been seen in 95 years.
https://www.nordea.com/en/news/mar-a-lago-accord-explained-a-new-era-for-the-dollar
Seems like a good trick if you could pull it off. Any nation that kissed the ring would become a vassal state.
Quoting praxis
The article you linked to is called sane-washing, trying to to turn an utterly incoherent attempt to rationalize Trumps
logic-free actions into a coherent plan.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-tariffs-threats-incentive-for-canada-mexico-and-everyone-else-to-break-free-by-j-bradford-delong-2025-03
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/25/trump-trade-wars-mar-a-lago-accord/
I guess I'm looking forward to seeing how it works out. Crises can be good things, but inviting crisis is not something a wise person would do.
That said, one expert opinion is that recession probably wouldn't be caused directly by the tariffs, but rather by the fear inspired by them. If people put off buying durable goods out of fear, that can actually bring on a recession.
Do check out Reddit if you're looking to talk to a professional or an academic. They're usually friendly and generous with explanations.
I just glanced the article and posted a link as a reference for the Mar-a-Lago accord. Was wondering what others thought about it.
It seems like if that is the plan the Trump administration would be doing other things to support the industrial sector. Is that also happening?
Quoting frank
Its not just fear. Its impossible for a company to invest in expansion if there isnt predictability over a 5 year horizon, which is how long it takes to build new plants, etc. Trump continually changes his mind about tariffs, wanting to subject every country to the prospect of renegotiation based on his whim. As a result, businesses are suffering from paralysis right now, which leads to a freeze on hiring and other effects which can lead to recession.
Black swan events happen often enough that every company takes risks to expand. But if anything, a lot of American companies should look for an increase in demand resulting from the tariffs. Agriculture and luxury goods are the ones likely to be hurting.
Quoting frank
Natural disasters and cyclical recessions are one thing, but businesses dont expect Black Swan events to be caused by the policy whims of a dictator, which is why there is little urge to invest in authoritarian regimes where policy changes on a dime.
There may be a temporary increase in demand, but in the longer term American companies will not be able to compete with foreign companies who re-assemble cheaper supply chains excluding the U.S.
Money is blind. It will happily take up with dictators when the bottom line says it should.
Quoting Joshs
The US has a pretty big market of its own. It's well versed in automated manufacturing. It has abundant natural resources and a big ass military to protect its shores.
I'm not predicting rosy days, I'm just saying an emotionally neutral viewpoint is not predicting disaster. Maybe a recession.
Quoting frank
Voters need to feel like its a disaster for their quality of life. Thats the only way to be rid of Trump.
I developed a full blown case of Stockholm syndrome when I realized Vance will be elected next. I advise you do the same.
China is certainly an authoritarian regime, and it had a pretty long history of radical policy shifts when it began sucking in trillions of foreign investment in the 1980s and 1990s. Corporations will go wherever they can get short-term profits, which is why they will also flock back to Russia without state intervention to stop them. Jack Ma, the Chinese equivalent of Jeff Bezos, chided the Chinese Communist Party on market liberalization (fairly mildly) and then got disappeared for half a year. Bao Fan likewise disappeared. China averaged executing one of its billionaires on charges related to corruption or overstepping the lines on the power of private individuals vis-a-vis the Communist Party about once a year through the 2000s.
Western corporations have largely shrugged at this, just like they (and the Arab states) shrugged at the re-education of Muslims in East Turkestan.
Meanwhile, Trump won the most votes in a free and fair election, and his party won both chambers of Congress. People are getting what they voted for. It's not a failure of "too little democracy" (i.e. "too much authority") when a proven incompetent populist demagogue wins power, quite the opposite.
It's probably more likely to be the opposite, provided the tarrifs remain in place. The silver lining is that a good deal of near-shoring already occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that near-shoring potentially has a lot of environmental benefits. Off-shoring production has been a way to off-shore polluting as well, i.e., to get around the labor and environmental regulations in developed states. But this comes with the very real environmental costs of shipping stuff all across the world for different stages of production.
Politically, I get "playing to the crowd" on consumption having to go down temporarily, but I think liberals should acknowledge that actual meaningful action on climate change would also require this sort of "short-term pain" for long term gain. The problem I see with the Trump plan is more that it, like everything his administrations do, doesn't seem well thought out, is implemented chaotically, and will likely be subject to all sorts of favoritism.
Lots of wealthy states have vibrant economies despite significantly higher levels of protectionism than the US though. The conventional orthodoxy surrounding the analysis of protectionism puts a premium on GDP growth and raw consumption that is vastly too high, while tending to ignore or downplay the effects on social mobility, inequality, sectoral shift, and median consumption or particularly the consumption of the lower two quintiles.
We have now had a ton of research on how the shift of millions of jobs and trillions in investment to China has played out for US citizens. While it seems that, had this not occurred, US GDP might be lower, it also seems that many areas of the country would be doing vastly better, and that overall inequality and mobility would be improved to a meaningful degree. Whether or not it is possible to "undo" the damage at this point is another question.
However, the inability of the West to scale up military production for the Ukrainian war does at least show that there are pretty massive national security reasons for wanting to bring industry back, since the ability to scale up has been, frankly, pathetic. Unfortunately, where the need is highest is in commercial ship building (essentially extinct in the US, with China outproducing it almost 200:1 in tonnage commissioned), and that would require direct, major government intervention to resuscitate.
I mean, Vance strikes me as incredibly opportunistic and unlikable, but he would surely be an improvement over the chaos of Trump. He would be preferable if only because he is less charismatic and so less able to get by on sheer bluster.
Tax cuts can offset the impact of tarriffs only for those families that pay a sufficient amount of taxes. It keeps the wealthy whole.
According to this, 40% of households pay no income tax. This article shows the average tax rate by income level.
The other big problem: if tarriffs are in place for the long term, it will drive more domestic manufacturing - which is great for the manufacturers and for employment, but this will reduce imports, and thus reduce tarriff revenue.
Read Dark Enlightenment and reassess.
But then Trump is inexplicably coddling Russia right as they are facing what I think could only be fairly called a defeat, so it's not like that seems part of their thinking. He seems to be actively courting an invasion of Taiwan by turning on an ally, while at the same time removing China's main incentive (exports) not to take Taiwan and alienating all the allies we'd rely upon to sanction/boycott China in the event of a war. So, his bizarre Russophilia (Putinphilia) basically undermines that line of argument.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
My point is that if I own a corporation in the U.S. and I am interested in expanding, I would consider my best strategy to be to sit on my hands and wait this thing out rather commit my company to a move with the assumption that I can plan on the basis of whatever Trump declares to be the tariff situation this month, this week or this afternoon.
From Thomas Sowell:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I never claimed that he didnt win fair and square. Hitler won in a fair and free election, too. That doesnt mean he didnt govern by edict rather than rule of law. As to people getting what they voted for, a sizable chunk of those who voted for Trump thought they were getting someone quite different than what he has turned out to be. The ones who put him over the top did not vote for 19th century mercantilist protectionism.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Explain to me how we build cheaper cars when we have to make all the components here, while other countries will forge their own trade deals to integrate production among multiple countries for the lowest prices. Of course the heartland would be better off if it werent for offshoring and automation. There would still be millions of workers in assembly lines with high wages under labor protections. But even if all the companies that left came back, they would offer many fewer jobs than decades ago.
"Hey tariffs will make things cost more but at least there's less government spending on social security" isn't the win you think it is.
Quoting Mr Bee
Neither are cuts spending on research and innovation in medicine, AI, energy and all the other things that China is pulling farther and farther ahead of us on.
Seems like you wouldnt make these cuts if you were interested in revitalizing American industries.
Quoting praxis
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao banished intellectuals to the countryside and decimated academic institutions, so that there would be no smart people around to challenge his power. Parallels here?
Trump is the opportunist who took advantage by riding the wave of disinformation. Unfortunately he is a snake oil salesman, a conman. Not the sort of person to pull off such a seismic correction in global trade. If it doesnt crash and burn, it will be a miracle. Like the miracle that supposedly caused Trump to dip his head when the bullet grazed his ear.
I agree. One of the worst effects of the Neo-Liberalist shift to ever cheaper labor markets is that a huge reservoir of knowledge became suddenly unneeded by the body politic. A home-grown production revival is going to have to go the other way and develop new skills.
The withdrawal of regulation will mean the end of invention in many industries.
The whole thing is as dumb as a stick shoved into moist ground.
Wont be long now then.
I wonder if he can outlive a lettuce, which the UKs last PM but one failed to do (when she implemented neo-con policy).
Trump convinced Americans to elect him and Elon. No need to make us any stupider.
China today
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/980315
Quoting NOS4A2
Can Trump replace income taxes with tariffs?:
Also
Quoting Why Trump's tariff proposals would harm working Americans
These headlines are explained in the article mentioned...
You are being shafted. Enjoy.
This isn't about a fall like let's say Yugoslavia. What I mean is the similar kind of political instability that Latin America can have. Latin America has had it's share of political instability, but no Latin American country has become a failed state, even if Venezuela could be said to be on the way. Above all, Latin American countries do work... somehow fairly OK. It's not the kind of political instability that you find in Africa. For a long time we haven't seen something comparable to a real revolution in Latin America.This is just an observation, when you just look at what has happened in the US already, even if it has been the richest country in the World, it has been prone to political violence, riots and so on.
As a young boy, I've seen the huge smokestacks what widespread burning and arson do in an American riot. I witnessed myself the 1980 Miami riots, a not so well known incident anymore.
(Miami riots, 1980)
Yet the fact is that the US has a very violent past with it's presidential assassination attempts and political violence, it's lynchings and riots. Things can get indeed out of hand in the US, even if it's a prosperous country. Not everywhere, but in many cities the tensions that could spark off something are there. Add to this what Trump can do.. and has done. There are simply too many guns that deadly accidents can happen. You already had close calls during the George Floyd riots, and deaths. Add to this an administration that goes down hard on "criminals" or "terrorists" without due process, and the end result can be a real tragedy. And I call it tragedy, because a lot of it might be at first unintentional. Yet we have to contemplate how Trump would react to large scale protests or riots. It might be different than last time.
This doesn't at all mean that the US is going to anarchy or a true revolution such like the Russian revolution or the French revolution. But political instability? Yes. It's economy will be just hurt, but will endure even the Trump tariffs easily. And the fall from being the sole Superpower to being the largest Great power isn't so huge either, even if it is dramatic.
Or the thoughts themselves are absurd and chaotic, but nobody dares to say to the Donald if something is genuinely a terrible counterproductive idea.
What could you say about the plan of Canada becoming the 51st state of the US? Is it just a plan implemented chaotically? No, it's totally absurd and ludicrous plan. Canadians don't want that. What else would there be than the solution that Putin had for Ukraine? To think it's just a jab at Trudeau won't fly.
Yet nobody is willing to say this to the President, so he can always ramble about it if asked about it. At first we thought it was just brilliant marketing of simple slogans like "Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it". We are used to have "election rhetoric" and promises that aren't kept. But Trump did ask and pleaded the Mexican president to do it and pay at least something. Hence Trump really means what he says.
It should be obvious after the "Day of Liberation" now. He isn't playing some 4D Chess some people think he is doing. The tariffs were not a negotiating tactic, just like he didn't write the "Art of the Deal". No American politician has ever been so straight forward in telling what he wants. He truly wants trade barriers to grow domestic production because international trade is bad. He wants the territory of the US to be larger.
We make a mistake when we think Trump isn't for real and isn't meaning what he says.
How, though? Hes been empowered by the popular vote to do what hes doing. The Republican voters still approve his actions overall. His campaign speeches were almost entirely negative, about how the country has been overrun by criminals and the economy a shambles, with the sinister authoritarian Project 2025 in the background, which is practically a blueprint for dictatorship. Hes a classical demagogue, who harnesses popular resentment to overturn the established order. They have been known since ancient times. So a large minority voted Trump in to do what he said he would do. When the s***t really hits the fan, the economy tanks, epidemics start to rage due to Kennedys utter incompetence, the international order falls to pieces, then MAGA faithful might turn. But it might be too late to restore the catastrophes wrought by this man.
I read that essay at your behest. It clarifies a lot of some people's thinking: Engineering social change.
I did not ask you to read it.
You keep bringing it up.
Not to you.
Why not?
These current moves vis-á-vis the global economy are quite fundamental in nature.
The fact that the US is choosing economic pain for greater economic independence and to curb foreign economies implies to me that they are preparing for major conflict.
Blog here;
https://nixons.substack.com/p/the-end-of-the-economic-world-as?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=false
No, (although it might be a maybe), Im observing an economic malaise in Western countries and suggesting a remedy, based on a removal of the cause.
I'm curious about the logic here. "We" have high wages, environmental and safety standards, etc, and that means we cannot compete on equal terms with people who are poor and do not have these things, and this is unfair on "us"? Not the poor people who make all this stuff for us?
I think it is bad for a number of reasons. One of them is them is that depresses wages for the working man in the surplus-countries, and thus everywhere because it's a world economy. This isn't about poor countries only btw, the same has happened with German wages for example because it's a surplus-country. Reduced standards, enviromental and quality, is also bad in itself... It created a system where companies can shop over the whole world for the most favourble conditions and so puts goverments in a position of competition to lower standards.
And maybe the more important reason is that I think it is simply unsustainable as a system, because it relies on the US increasing its debt to buy up the surplus.... and you can only do that up to a certain point.
The tariffs and the return of "industrial policy" that differed radically from the neo-liberal orthodoxy that had dominated the GOP for decades were discussed throughout the campaign. You can find all sorts of articles on this from before Trump was elected, and he had rhetoric focused on the trade deficit in his speeches on a regular basis.
It's certainly true that when voters pick a candidate they are rarely selecting on a single issue, but it's hardly a move that has come out of left field. Both polling and my person experience living in an area that went hard for Trump suggest that the most common attitude for supporters is that they are willing to "try it out" and suffer some "short term pain for long term gain."
Second, it's perhaps dysfunctional that major policy choices are made wholly by presidents in this way. That's an outgrowth of decades of dysfunction in Congress, which can no longer govern. But if this move makes Trump "dictatorial," then what of Biden's decision to unilaterally increase net migration rates four-fold without any action from Congress largely through choosing not to enforce standing US laws?
This is not something Biden campaigned on, probably because actually [I]increasing[/I] (as opposed to maintaining) net migration is extremely unpopular, polling on average on par with Kamala Harris's performance in rural Southern counties. Yet, despite COVID restrictions keeping migration low during the first half of his term, he managed to oversee a net migration figure significantly higher than the high levels under George W. Bush's two terms(or Obama's two terms) in a little over half of a single term.
When liberal outlets said that surging migration rates were simply an inevitable consequence of the economy and pent up demand, were they "gaslighting" the public? I don't think so, although their description certainly had a lot of ideological bias. There was indeed pent up demand from the pandemic. Early in the pandemic, and the initial recovery, real wages for low-income Americans grew at the most rapid pace in almost half a century (after marked declines in the 80s and 90s). Wage growth for the bottom 40% was outpacing inflation, while those in the top 10% saw their real wages decline for the first time in ages. I think it's no coincidence that it was at this point that major outlets began screaming in alarm about inflation... and then switched to a steady narrative of "it's not that bad," once things returned to "normal," (i.e., with the top end of the income distribution seeing steady real growth above inflation again.) At any rate, obviously growth in the lower end of the wage distribution is going to attract more migration, that isn't wrong.
However, the commonly expressed notion that there was nothing that could be done short of some inhumane Korean border solution has been proven demonstrably false. The US was able to rapidly bring down illegal entry to the country in 2020 and 2025 through policy, as I think any honest account should have been able to acknowledge.
One side's "gaslighting" is just another's "political slant" or "political blinders." In 2020, there were 66 million people in the lowest income quintile. Most immigrants entering without legal status end up in this quintile and are competing with its members for wages. The net migration under Biden was equivalent to 15.6% of this entire population; it would be 7.8% growth if we look at the bottom two quintiles taken together.
If you look at bedrock economic assumptions and dominant orthodoxy, one assumption you are going to find that holds even stronger than "tariffs aren't that great" is "if you increase the labor supply 15.6%, it is going to put downwards pressure on wages."
For the past half century, we've had very poor wage growth for the lower 40%, phenomenal growth for the top 10%.
This radically reversed in 2020
The top lines are the poorest Americans in the second graph. Why did this occur? A number of reasons, but by far the most obvious is the "labor shortage." The supposed labor shortage occurred because of a massive cut off in migration (particularly the illegal immigrant that tends to funnel workers entirely into these lower quartiles), a mass retirement of Baby Boomers, and other pandemic related issues. This jump occurred despite all the supply chain shocks that one would expect to hit low wage workers hardest.
Yet if you ask liberal economists, who generally will acknowledge that illegal immigration tends to negatively impact poorer Americans (both their earnings, access to government services, and ability to unionize), they are often going to try to find other explanations here. I don't think this is gaslighting though, I think it's a combination of ideological blindness and self-censorship (self-censorship to the extent that one pays a penalty in the current climate for expressing heterodox beliefs, and this is particularly true on migration, where opposition is equated with racism).
I guess my summary point would be this:
A. Unilaterally raising tariffs, a power the President has, is no more "dictatorial" than unilaterally massively increasing net-migration by choosing not to enforce standing laws or precedent (indeed it seems less so).
B. Tariffs are still more popular than increasing net migration dramatically.
On at least this issue, the difference seems to be largely one of spin. If anything, there was more "gaslighting" in the former case as the Biden Administration didn't triumphantly announce radical changes in migration policy, but often went out of its way to deny that it was actually allowing substantial changes.
The great irony here is that, of the heterodox economists who have defended tariffs up to now, they are overwhelmingly liberals.
What I mean is, why arent anyone doing something when he breaks constitutional laws and regulations? Why arent anyone opposing and rallying the remaining mentally functioning republicans? If he continues with this he will at some point overstep so much it turns violent.
Point being, how far must he go before people start to oppose him? Or is the people just gonna sit around taking it. Wheres the million people protest march? The people who voted for him deserves the shit he pours on the nation, but so does the ones apathetic and ignorant.
Less in history sparked major outrage, but these times it seems people are so fucking addicted to their phones they never look up from the screen to make actual difference.
Im only focussing on this issue. The gaslighting is that Trump and his associates assured voters that their policy is economically coherent and that it would work. Just like Liz Truss did in the U.K. she remained in office as Prime Minister for 45 days, before the markets sent her packing.
The main criticism from economists today is not about incoherence. It's that it was rolled out haphazardly so as to maximize uncertainty.
I guess the question is whether there was a safer way to do it. Either way, we only have elections every 4 years, so we can't just vote him out.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Based on his first term , voters learned to take what Trump said seriously but not literally. Whatever he had been babbling about for 40 years concerning tariffs and reproducing 1950s industrial America, what he actually did in term 1 was to slap mild tariffs on China, and renegotiate Nafta by changing a few apostrophes and commas here and there. More importantly, he lowered taxes for wealthy corporations, tried to get rid of Obamacare and made other efforts to please the pro-business small government libertarians. These corporate types, who could care less about making things in America again and just wanted to free themselves from high taxes and Bidens regulatory crusade (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc) had every reason to believe Trumps second term would be a repeat of the first. I certainly thought it would be, and like many was stunned to find out that he actually took his half-assed 19th century mercantilism seriously and was willing got to go the distance with it (at least so far). His current all-out tariff war may not have been a surprise to North Carolina MAGA supporters, but it sure as hell was to many wealthy businesspeople who voted for him, and are now regretting it mightily.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
The reason he is getting no opposition from Congress is because they are terrified that if they do oppose him Trump will direct the wrath of his MAGA army on them. Unlike the first time around, MAGA and Trump together have made sure that Trump is surrounded by only yes-sayers in his second administration and in Congress. There is no one left to act as a check on his power, or to question his decisions.
This leads to a profoundly important issue concerning you, me and everyone else who cares about the future of this country as a democracy. Youre trying to make an equivalence between Trumps actions and the seemingly dictatorial overreach of Democratic leaders like Binden. If this were a normal president, I would agree with you. Such overreach can be found throughout the history of American government. One of the most egregious examples of this was the period surrounding World War I, where under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson severe restrictions of free speech were allowed to occur, with long imprisonment for those, such as Eugene Debbs and Emmas Goldman, who opposed the war. Even the Supreme Court sanctioned such restrictions.
But Timothy, it is absolutely vital to make a distinction between zealous executive overreach in the name of policies and principles that have wide popular support (even if that support is purely partisan) , and something quite different. In the first case, the overreach is motivated by, and continues to feed itself, through the aims of a community consensus. It is not just that the decision-making leader sees themselves as speaking on behalf of a we, they have no interest in usurping the authority of this we so as to concentrate itself in an I that tolerates no challenges to its sovereignty. Such a notion would be repugnant to most U.S. presidents, with the exception of Andrew Johnson , and I believe , Trump. Unlike some, I am not saying that Trumps desire for supreme power is motivated by purely selfish interests, such as greed or self-aggrandizement.
I think he truly believes he has a way to make America great again. But I think this is also the case with Victor Orban, Erdo?an, Putin and Maduro. What distinguishes the authoritarian from the kind of executive overreach you cite is a personality that needs to be the sole decision maker, and considers all dissent as disloyalty. They strive to replace a law-based system of government with that of edicts from one man at the top. If Trump were to be given absolutely free reign, he would use intimation and threats to weaken and then destroy the ability of law firms and judges to move against him, would cement a grip on academic institutions, media and other organizations which attempt to maintain independence from his control. To be successful at such attempts he cannot do all this by himself. He need the acquiescence of these institutions, their willingness to preemptively give up their independence to avoid his punishments. And it is not as though he is alone in his preference for despotism. An admiration for figures like Orban and an outright rejection of Enlightenment values runs through MAGA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/03/enlightenment-trump-far-right-europe/682086/
Could I be wrong about Trump? Sure. In fact I was reluctant to ascribe these extreme dispositions to him for a long time, perhaps partly out of denial. I just couldnt allow myself to imagine that a majority of Americans would elect as president someone who sees power as absolute one-man rule. But the last three months have convinced me. I suspect that you may never be convinced. I would like to say that it is enough for me that people like you oppose him for whatever reasons you come up with.
But if I am right about Trump, simply passively sitting back and waiting till the next election may not protect our democracy. I have no doubt now that, left to his own devices , this country would end up looking as repressive as Hungary. But this country has a more robust civic culture than Hungary, and as long as we all act to resist his attempts at intimidation and support independent institutions, we can avoid that fate.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is how:
https://contrarian.substack.com/p/15-ways-you-can-fight-for-democracy
I don't think Trump is an ideologue of any kind, but he has gathered people to him who actually do have a new political outlook involving authoritarianism of a kind the US has never had. There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance.
I think you're imagining that this is all Trump bumbling his way toward dictatorship. I think the people around him, like Vance, are not bumbling at all. They have clear reasons for driving the country toward dictatorship.
Poo pooing Trump's economic policy isn't going to change that, or the fact that people watched Trump encourage a mob to execute Mike Pence and they still elected him president. This is a new world we're entering. The old one is gone. The fact that AOC is emerging as the leader of the Democrats should confirm that for you.
:100: :up:
It's not incoherent. Ceteris paribus, slapping tariffs of imports will tend to reduce a country's trade deficit. Whether this is a worthy goal is another thing. However, it will tend to increase domestic production, particularly in a country with a huge trade deficit. This might very well be a benefit if the country is one in which the top 10% account for over half of all consumer spending, since the people taking jobs in new production and benefiting from increased domestic investment will tend to be part of the 90% who are not consuming most of the goods.
At any rate, it's not the worst timing. Apparently, there is a decent likelihood that the next decade will see a tumultuous shedding of white collar jobs due to AI (the looming crisis in academia as enrollment peaks and declines only adds to this) and this will lead to a rapid acceleration in the tendency of wealthy nations to have most of their income come from capital, not labor. Production is certainly liable to become more automated, but not in the sea change way that white color work might soon be getting reduced. So, there is a sort of impetus there for an increased focus on production as well.
Of course, something like a carbon tax (or something even broader on pollution) might have accomplished something similar in a more rational way.
If that is the banner they are sailing under, it is exquisitely anti-constitutional:
Quoting Land, The Dark Enlightenment
And since the people carrying out this agenda are sworn to defend the Constitution, it is treasonous.
Yea.
Many took the wrong lessons from Trump's first administration.
First time Trump came to office totally unprepared (as he didn't think he would win) and chose to his administration a lot of "ordinary" Republicans and people that weren't at all MAGA-people, starting from secretary of state Rex Tillerson or secretary of defense general Mattis, just to give two examples. Rex Tillerson might have dealt with a lot with Russians, but he naturally took his job as serving the US government. Generals like Mattis, Kelly, McMaster were basically from the same mold as the joint chiefs of staff in the military are made from. Hence you had "the adults in the room" that wouldn't go to attack the NATO alliance or cozy up with the Russians.
Now there is nothing like that at all. The current administration truly listens to what Trump wants and tries to fulfill his ideas. This is what people should start to understand here. Republicans are literally afraid of Trump and don't want to be seen as foes of the President. With other Presidents, the own party might have been quite critical and sometimes against the administration, but not now in MAGA-land.
Trump might have been following the stock market at first when it was going up, but now any fears he would have of the stock market going down doesn't matter. Because the stock market has plummeted. Just like Trump won't budge now when the US economic indicators turn negative and we can talk about a real recession. The reason is that Trump will likely believe that this is the "Detox"-period, the pain that has to be passed before the it comes better.
Trump can (and likely will) live inside his White House cocoon and not turn away from his beloved tariffs even if no investments are made in the US domestic sector, if the economy turns into a recession and even if all prices end up increasing and not only "the imports". This is why the US can continue make similar decisions like it did on "Liberation Day".
There are dozens of current lawsuits against Trumps executive actions. But legal cases take time, and Trump is a seasoned expert in throwing sand into the gears of lawsuits. Before the election, he managed to delay all of the actions against him until he was able to escape them altogether. I think real resistance is starting to manifest and is going to grow. There are multi-city demonstrations this weekend and meanwhile four Republicans joined a Democratic motion to limit Trumps ability to impose tarrifs. And if Trump drives the economy into recession, which looks highly likely, then there will come a huge backlash. But so much damage has already been done.
Quoting Joshs
Recently, four Republican senators pushed back against Trump by helping pass a resolution to block his tariffs on Canadian products. Perhaps Republican opposition to Trump's policies in Congress will emerge when they start feeling pressure from their constituents.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9end2ze9lo
Quoting Joshs
Perhaps something dramatically changed between November 4 and January 20. The concentration of power followed its own dynamics, in alliance with the creation of an imaginary and ideological counterpart, vigorously emphasizing the urgency and grandiosity of Trumps mission.It seems that Trump believes in his exclusive and grandiose role in fulfilling MAGAs promises.
Apparently, his current tariff actions go beyond the rhetoric of his campaign, and he recently shifted his interpretation of MAGA, pushing it beyond the boundaries of practical policies. Furthermore, Trump does not act alone. Members of his team seem confident in his latest policies, a shift from their previously more moderate positions. And it doesn't appear that they are motivated solely by fear and intimidation. On the contrary, it looks like that most of them share Trump's vision and genuinely believe in his mission.
He's an ideologue when it comes to trade. He's been singing about his love for tariffs for as long as Bernie has been going on about universal healthcare which is why none of what's happened thus far should come as a surprise to people. His belief that trade is a zero-sum game where the side who makes more cash is the "winner" is perhaps an idea from his childhood that he never admitted was wrong because according to him he's never wrong about anything.
Apart from that, the MAGA movement is mostly a vehicle for grifters like Musk, RFK Jr, and the Heritage Foundation to come in and enact their own personal agendas.
Anyway my use of the word incoherent was probably too nebulous, there is coherence in the message, but when it comes to implementing it in the real world, its unhinged. There may well be a way, a policy framework which can address the imbalances highlighted in this thread caused by globalisation etc. But this isnt it, this is a wrecking ball and now it emerges that this liberation wasnt about what people thought it was about, but rather it was about turning Trump into a demagogue bestride the world stage arm in arm with Putin.
Did these people vote for recession, destruction of the apparatus of state, the alienation of all their allies around the world. To make Russia great again. Contempt for the constitution and the rule of law. I could go on, but I dont remember this being on the ticket.
Yes, I agree on the direction of travel you describe here. Presumably youre suggesting some kind of UBI (universal basic income). The trouble with this is that people on the right of politics will never stomach such a thing. They believe that every cent and dime must be earnt with sweat and toil, or genius innovation. For such people UBI is tantamount to communism. Better to have people who cant earn a living some way to be poor, destitute. In the U.K. this is literally what they want a return to Victorian squalor.
All true. The fact remains that the two American political parties have switched roles. The Democrats are now the party of the status quo. Republicans have become the party of change. This isn't Trump's doing exclusively. It's been coming for a while.
What I'm saying is that however you assess Trump and his allies, you have to admit that they've shaken up the whole political domain. They have won in that regard. We aren't going back to the way things were. The Democratic party showed up as hollow and nothing more than tools of Wall St. No one has had the courage to question the almighty status of the financial sector in the name of the well-being of Main St. It's a lesson in the nature of human affairs that the person who finally did it is an amoral asshole.
Yes, but I'm wondering what the people are willing to do if he starts to control the departments of government to the extent that he gains essentially authoritarian power through removing institutions which are supposed to stop a president from abusing power and breaking the constitution and laws of government.
What I find far more interesting than nations falling into dictatorships is the psychology of people existing in a society that is right on the edge of something like that. There has been lots of failures in other nations to fight back against someone abusing their power. Just look at Turkey and Hungary, or even Russia to some extent (even though it never really truly got out of its fucked up state after the wall fell).
Trump is trying to do what they did, it's so obvious. And if he starts to control the system that's supposed to be a fail safe against abusers of power, then the only way for people to fight back is by some form of revolutionary actions. Doesn't mean straight violence, but rather a disruption of the nation, like stop going to work or sabotaging. And if Trump fights back against that, it would probably just spark even more hostility against him.
I actually think the only way to fight the populistic conspiracy theory people in government would be if such a failure of them against the people of the US happened. Because the problem is cultural, not really just Trump. There needs to be a backlash on a certain type of opinions and thinking that we see in the MAGA cult. In which people look down on them with far more aggression. Really making "being a MAGA follower" something no one wants to associate with. Make it shameful socially, an unwelcomed status because they stand for something that nearly destroyed the nation. An enemy of the nation. That no media or influencer will want to be associated with promoting or legitimizing. It's kind of like this already, but no more than people laughing at them. It needs to be branded radicalized thinking, just as we think of any other radicalized religious thinking that has a negative effect on society.
Quoting frank
Agreed.
Quoting frank
The amoral asshole was preferred by Wall St primarily because such a person wouldn't go after their interests. The establishment is more terrified of the far left than the far right and in a time where people yearn for change the far right ends up ascending. It's happened before in early 20th century Germany where the fear of communism partially led to the rise of Hitler.
Things aren't gonna go back because people don't want things to go back. It'll be up to the Democrats whether they accept that lesson or try to run another "restore the soul of America" type candidate.
He has, though. The tariffs aren't good for Wall St. because they need a trade deficit.
Are you talking about extension if the 2017 tax cuts?
Today's case in point: National Institutes of Health scientists:
[quote=Washington Post]Senior leaders across the Department of Health and Human Services were put on leave and countless other employees lost their jobs Tuesday as the Trump administration began a sweeping purge of the agencies that oversee government health programs.
Top officials at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration were put on administrative leave or offered reassignment to the Indian Health Service. Other employees began receiving layoff notices or learned they had lost their jobs when their entry badges no longer worked Tuesday morning. ...
At the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, some employees who were laid off were told to contact Anita Pinder, former director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights, with discrimination complaints. Pinder died last year. ...
At the National Institutes of Health, a nearly $48 billion biomedical research agency, at least five top leaders were put on leave. Among those offered reassignment were the infectious-disease institute director Jeanne Marrazzo, according to emails obtained by The Post and multiple people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. ...
At the Centre for Disease Control, senior leaders who oversee global health, infectious diseases, chronic disease, HIV, sexually transmitted disease, tuberculosis, outbreak forecasting and information technology were among officials notified that they would be reassigned to the Indian Health Service, according to one leader who was reassigned and other current and former agency employees.
CDC clobbered, the official said. The agency will not be able to function. Lets be honest. ...
Tuesdays layoffs continue weeks of tumult at U.S. health agencies, where large numbers of federal grants have been cut and hundreds of research projects paused or slated for cancellation. ...[/quote]
If anyone raises these cuts with the DOGE-MAGA Administration, the answer is always the same: these were useless bureaucratic positions which are wasting taxpayer funds, although in reality one suspects that they were culled purely on the basis of making up the numbers by DOGE interns with acccess to the personnel database
Another Post report notes that a promising line of cancer therapy has been impacted by the NIH cuts:
Spot on!
In many cases, he is breaking the law in order to fulfill his camaign promises/threats. Many think it's great to deport alleged gang members, and don't give a damn if it violates Constitutional due process.
Because he breaks it, innocents have been sent there. What the MAGA zealots think or not is irrelevant. Neonazis also like when laws are broken for something they think is right. But as a society, the majority would act when laws are broken. Democracy doesnt work when part of the population arent able to act on a rational experience of truth. When people operate within a concept of reality more akin to the fantasies of a cult. That is not democracy, and if people want to protect democracy, they need to stop viewing things like theres nothing that can be done because he was elected. Democracy is never just the election every 4 years, yet people believe theyre powerless in between.
Its the tolerance paradox. A tolerant society should not allow someone like Trump to be able to run in the first place. Especially not with the track record before this election.
I do not blame any of the racist, conspiracy idiots that gained power, they do what the do. I blame the apathetic other people who are so mentally lazy they never believed someone this incompetent and racist would be able to reach office even as hes already been in office one term.
Democracy doesnt work in the US. Any time a person whos clearly out to change or corrupt democracy gets into power through that democracy, that democracy is already dead.
Like, what the fuck is going on here? Really?
Quoting Christoffer
Big time stupid ( or as Paul Krugman calls him, a feces-flinging chaos monkey). And big-time dangerous. How did it come to this? Lots of people left behind by cultural and economic changes wanting to believe in a fantasy of a return to the days of abundant high-paying low skill industrial jobs. And a slimy used-car salesman who believes in that same fantasy uses his best skill, selling snake oil, to become the prophet of the deluded. But his own delusions of grandeur and need for absolute power will ultimately betray his own followers (and the billionaire tech-bro supplicants who hoped to get even richer by ass-kissing the King, but are now seeing substantial chunks of their fortunes wiped away in the carnage he is unleashing).
I've been advocating for improving society and politics past democracy for years now. What we see here is the perfect example of why I think representative democracy isn't working anymore. There's this fundamental belief that the will of the people ushers in the best leader for the job, but powerful people have learned to adapt to this, using targeted ads, manipulation and indoctrination to guide elections by will.
Society needs to move into politics that is not operating on marketing and campaigning. In which the majority vote by their needs and wants rather than on a candidate.
Society needs to move away from democracy into a "solution-based democracy" formed around solutions to problems in society rather than on fantasies about some leader solving things.
We do not have actual representatives for the people in politics. We have people using their power and influence to remain in power and play power games to get what THEY want, not what's good for the people.
The only politicians who actually care are in the fringes of society and politics, never getting promoted or put into the spotlight because the people at the top of any party has accumulated so much support around them that they essentially controls everything.
Only about 30% of Trump's voters are in the cult, but that was enough to overwhelm all other GOP candidates for the nomination. Beyond that, the problem is party loyalty. Only a handful of Republicans could bring themselves to vote against their party's candidate: a morally bankrupt criminal Republican is more acceptable than any Democrat. Independents were won over by 4-years of demonizing immigrants by the GOP, and by blaming the above average inflation on the incumbent party.
Quoting Relativist
Thats not party loyalty. The Republican party which existed for decades was destroyed by the MAGA populist movement, and many of its brightest lights either fled to the Democratic party or became independents. It is precisely because loyalty to the old Rebublican party dissolved that a former Democrat like Trump could become the new embodiment of the party. To the extent that a percentage of his voters were not MAGA populists, this was because they thought that when it came to running the economy he would govern like a free market, small government pro-business Republican, which is precisely what he did in his first term.
As Paul Krugman writes:
Perhaps not.
Just imagine how that "earned right" could and would be abused.
Universal suffrage and one man (or woman) and one vote, is quite simple to understand. Full-time employment? Military service? How about the old fashioned way for example Prussia had it: the amount of taxes you pay, the amount of votes you get. Would that be good? I don't think so. Requirements for voting other than being a citizen are difficult. With other requirements, you easily lose credibility and invite corruption.
I can think of a multitude of ways the system of voting requirements would be abused. Above all, there would be then the caste of those "not eligible" to vote. What would that do for the credibility of whole system? Now, in many US states felons lose their voting rights while incarcerated, and this isn't seen as problem. Even if the US has huge inmate population (while in my country also the prison inmates can vote). But something else?
This has the same problem as with Plato's society. There are no safety valves.
To assume that the system is thought to somehow work without a glitch is fatally and quite dangerously wrong. As if the "philosopher kings" making the decisions would be really chosen from the "most capable". Even the term aristocracy, which means that power is vested in a minority of those believed to be best qualified, and what aristocracy means in reality and has historically meant, shows us how the idea of "most capable" doesn't work. Not only Plato's ideas like raising children apart from their biological parents is unrealistic (and bad), it simply is bad when you have to make such assumptions for the society to work. That we would need better humans in the future for the system to work show that the idea is dangerous. A real life experiment close to Plato's system is the story of Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. Once Janissaries didn't have to be in celibacy and were allowed to have children, guess from whose children came the next generation of elite troops? Hint: not from orphans taken from Christian families and brought up only to serve the Sultan. Hence the corruption went so far that one Sultan in 1826 easily wiped away and killed the Janissaries with a new army copied from the West.
What's the answer then?
We just have to hope that people are reasonable. Yet there is a minority who would go with the radicals. For them the system doesn't work and they feel it's against them. Hence many will opt for radical options as if "anything would be better than this". And if they elect the "totally something else" option, it's bad thing.
How do they loose power and how are these people out who voted for them made a tiny fringe?
Only by failure.
Failure creates shame and guilt. At worst, fear of punishment could be added to that when the failure has been especially bad and deadly.
Just ask yourself, how many of all those that voted for Mussolini or Hitler continued after WW2 to enthusiastically support their former leaders and ideology? Hardly any. The fascists of Italy and the "Werewolves" continuing the fight for the Third Reich in Germany simply vanished. We can see this even in the rules of this forum.
The unfortunate reality is that once people with bad ideas are voted into power, the only way for them to lose their power and their support is after everybody has to seen how utterly bad the ideas were.
Top US admiral at NATO removed amid Trumps growing military firings
[sup] Noah Robertson · Military Times · Apr 7, 2025[/sup]
Not loyal to Trump, "wokeness", DEI efforts, ..., have become reasons for firings.
RFK Jr stands out in demonstrating that merit isn't a reason to be hired.
Musk wrote "the woke mind virus will die" (though not YEC).
I'm wondering if they've considered the slippery slope they've taken.
'Alarmed': Ousted DOJ lawyer testifies she received late night 'threat' from ex-employer
[sup] Sarah K Burris · Raw Story · Apr 7, 2025[/sup]
Activists on the weekend...
Angry protesters from New York to Alaska assail Trump and Musk in Hands Off! rallies
[sup] Dave Collins, Julie Carr, Fatima Hussein, Erik Verduzco, Nicholas Riccardi, Mark Thiessen · AP · Apr 5, 2025[/sup]
They had the Lincoln project. There's options for Republicans who want a 12-step program away from asslicking stupidity. They don't have to go Democrat, they can just... focus on a better candidate and not back down. But they're too comfortable being in the fringes of the Trump cult. But their children will remember and they will be despised by history.
That's also a good moral code to follow. How do you want to be remembered? Like an asshat who rolled out the carpet for the worst, or one who stood up against it and promoted the good? On the deathbed, will they think of all the suffering that was indirectly caused by being so bad at standing up something obviously bad?
People need to risk their jobs more for a better tomorrow. If enough people did it, we wouldn't have a problem and they would have their jobs anyway.
Quoting tim wood
Sure... and it doesn't function at all, so all of that is irrelevant and proves my point that this passive reaction to the disruption of what is supposed to protect the US democracy needs to be changed. The bad apples at the top won't change a winning concept for them, but the people should be enraged by how the constitution is treated, how the process of democracy is handled. Trump should be removed from office and it would be legally supported to do so. Some would say that this would be like Jan 6th but against Trump, but it's not as it's about how Trump disregards the basics of how the US democracy is supposed to work; or how people doesn't do their damn job in upholding those standards just granting him the keys to the kingdom.
Quoting tim wood
The robust laws have been changed tweaked or broken and no one cares. So what then? I don't think democracy works anymore, not in this track record. It's become too much of a demagogy, people too easily corrupted by the most minor push in a certain direction.
Basically, if the people are so broken down that their critical thinking isn't operating normally, then democracy is fundamentally dead. What then?
This is why I think democracy needs to evolve past what we think of as democracy today. There's a fundamental problem in having a representative democracy that operates as a popularity contest. That is NOT a democracy. If a true democracy can't be upheld, then it needs to evolve into something that removes the ability for grifters to exploit the public for their gain of power.
Quoting tim wood
I don't think that would work as it would exclude minorities who didn't have the chance to get an education, service or job in the same way as more privileged people.
That kind of problem really only needs a pretty basic solution. People can only vote if they can list down what the policies are for different candidates. They can do this on their own at home, but need to have everything correct when turning in their votes. This would remove everyone who's so intellectually challenged that they don't have the ability to know what is good or not and it would remove those who are too lazy to think. It would also promote people to actually research answers and not just get stuck in their own echo chambers. Exposing them to ideas the candidates and parties have that they wouldn't otherwise.
Just look at how many Trump voters who just adore Bernie Sanders when he actually has time to explain his viewpoints. These people love him but are too indoctrinated to find out what he stands for on their own. Demanding voters to find information is at least a minor way to improve the quality of an election and remove the most obvious idiots from turning in their vote.
Quoting tim wood
Yes. But there should be a nonpartisan part of the government that the president cannot rule over and that does not operate on popularity votes. Their entire purpose is to present an almost scientifically rigorous statistic on if a candidate is stable enough for being a democracy candidate. If they find anything that points to a candidate being unfit for office, they simply remove them from running. Their reasoning needs to be rationally argued, proved and reviewed, but the purpose being to review each party's candidate until there are candidates that are considered stable enough to handle presidency.
Quoting tim wood
Which is why I think any constitution in any nation needs to be able to be changed and modified in a way that is only able to be done through vast majority. Many other nations has constitutions that are changeable, but it's hard to do so. However, it opens up the possibility to modernize.
But the US views their constitution as a religious text. They stand with one hand on the constitution and the other on the bible. It's religious zealotry to it rather than treating it like a political text. This is the problem with the US; they don't treat politics as politics, they treat it as religion; which in turn makes their president a deity. This form of thinking is overall a form of cult based in Christianity, giving themselves the rights to act in accordance to God. It's basically outdated norms of treating politics and that's why the nation is so fucked up really. Other democracies of the world seems to function pretty much in the way its intended, because they don't operate on religious terminology and ideology.
The separation of state and church in the US is a joke.
While I embrace your sentiments, I think you give voters too much credit. Most voters spend 15 minutes a week paying attention to politics. Plus, the GOP spent 4 years spreading the Trump Gospel (the election was stolen; there was a deep state conspiracy to persecute him). Most people are unaware of the damning facts about Trump and also "know" the MSM lies about him. 1/6 is widely viewed as a tourist event that got out of hand, and that Ashley Babbit was a martyr.
In a facebook exchange with a facebook "friend" last year, I mentioned that 60-70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen. Not knowing this was a fact supported by multiple surveys over 4 years, he concluded from my comment that I was prejudiced against Republicans! And this guy was a "hold your nose" voter for Trump. Ignorance is rampant, and thrives in the GOP. Maybe you're right about the judgements their children will make,but not if Trumpism lives on - since he's ordered that only "patriotic" history be taught.
Populists are the product of a bankrupt system, which Trump critics are inadvertently defending if they fail to critique that system and don't come up with a better alternative.
Trumpsters can be stupid at the same time as Democrats failing to give a better alternative. What I see a failure of in most people discussing this subject is a failure to accept many angles to a problem as well as seemingly conflicting concepts.
And I've already said that the solution is for Democrats to go further left in their politics, because that would help people who won't get help from both Trump and the current liberal-centric Democrats. They just need to wrap it into an idiot-safe narrative so that the idiot voters can gather around slogans and marketing as they're not able to understand policies in themselves.
Lean further left, create a good narrative for marketing and campaigning, have a candidate who can speak to the working class without just trying to "play conservative".
Quoting Relativist
Not really, I'm mostly speaking of the ideal voter who cares. I've already mentioned that I don't think democracy works anymore in a nation like the US. It's too entrenched in demagogian systems, enabling demagogues to be more able to gain power than actual representative candidates.
Either the US needs to install better guardrails that blocks demagogues from gaining power, or the US could evolve into the solution-based democracy I suggested. in which no campaigning or marketing for parties take place and instead leaders are calculated forward based on what the people need and wants.
Ill posted a brief quote below to give a sense of the undercurrent of political violence were dealing with.
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Assassination-Culture-Brief.pdf
Given that human historys greatest atrocities are rooted in our ability to dehumanize people from other social, political, or cultural groups, a moral persons ears ought to ring around such rhetoric and behavior, in case its used to justify action.
But even on this humble forum, authors are promoting or are otherwise cheerleading for the ostracism of human beings on the basis of whom they voted for. Theyve made routine assumptions about the others mental states, their cognitive abilities, and how well the other has conformed to government education, and so on, in order to justify the treatment of human beings they now champion.
Though it isnt clear whether such rhetoric is evidence of a physical threat or simply a public act of catharsis, we can magnify this by the size of social media sites like Reddit or Bluesky and I suspect well find it isnt long until they take to the streets for violence, as theyve done with Tesla.
"For Fain, tariffs address a historic wrong. "We've sat here for the last 30 plus years, with the inception of [the North American Free Trade Agreement] back in 1993-94, and watched our manufacturing base in this country disappear," he said." --NPR link
Yep.
Reddit cracked down on violent speech a while back. They're overly strict about it now.
How is that in any way different from the way the establishment used to run things? :chin:
The question is not one of when were humans noncorrupt the answer here is never but, instead, that of whether corruption is increasing or else decreasing.
Primitive tribalism?
Considering you're coming at me with the standard "Everything's the other guys' fault!" spiel, maybe you should be checking your own lenses?
People aren't any stupider now than they've ever been. If we transition into a dictatorship, it will just be the latest of such events that history has produced over and over. See it as just another turning, in which you're just another guy, on just another spring day. Per Kierkegaard, this is a balm to a wounded heart.
Millions of Americans peacefully protested the other day in the Hands Off event. Also, Bernie and AOCs oligarchy tour is nonviolent.
The survey indicates that most people think murdering Trump is at least somewhat justified. Yikes. And that was before he nuked the global financial/trade system.
I wouldn't be surprised if all of this escalate to the point protests form riots. When people start to actually feel the pain, companies go out of business, unemployment skyrocketing... I wouldn't be surprised if people demand Trump to be removed by force, or attempt to do it themselves. Trump survived one attempt on his life and another was stopped, but when people actually start to suffer, I'm wondering where things are headed in that regard.
The problem is that Trump is just trying to strong man other nations into giving the US something, but I don't think Trump understand that many nations will just meet his tariffs and the US economy will dive. After a while, there might be a blooming trade among other nations of the world, leaving the US out while Trump demands that manufacture magically appear within the nation meeting the same price points of products as when trade and manufacture was part of the globalized economy.
None of the people in the white house seems to understand how the economy works. Someone noted that Apple should just build their phones within the US. They don't understand that the price will increase to a point where an iPhone costs like $3500-$4500.
It's remarkable that people with this level of incompetence sit at the highest positions of power believing their own bullshit so much they don't even get the necessary cognitive dissonance from reality hitting them like a sledge hammer. So many advisors, so many economists, the entire market crashing... none matters to these conspiracy nutjobs.
I really do start to think that things will turn violent. Money is the one thing that if people start to lose, they will turn to violence. In the US, without all the social security of a healthy nation, if people face the reality of actual poverty, they will strike back if they feel mistreated.
16% of total imports into the US are from China. Total imports are about 16% of the GDP.
Are you counting the entire production loop of how modern products are made? Is that just products themselves going into the nation to be sold to customers, or also the back and forth shipping of goods in the cycle of complex productions? Global trade is not just about a product being made and then shipped to be sold, it can be massive amounts of small parts going all around the world before becoming an actual product to be sold.
So what happens to US made products that rely on a complex web of international trade, primarily China? Just for the sake of producing a product. The end price accumulates all rising costs along the entire chain of production, not just the end price.
I think the question of how quickly the merchants are hit depends on the amount of front-loading that has been done. There have been a number of reports upon how Mexican products have been brought in well before the usual dropship algorithm. The anticipation of unknowns has caused many to guess what to import early since the election results came out.
It is hard to see too far into what Amazon, Walmart, etcetera have done. I do a lot of buying from Lenovo commercially as a part of my work. They clearly have a pile that is in country which is being priced differently from the stuff still in the works.
This sort of thing is difficult to find out about since each industry will want to make the best of what they have without blabbing about any advantage.
There's no way to turn China into the US's main trading partner even counting value-added transactions. BTW, moving parts in and out of the US was mentioned in the article I posted about the UAW. Is that where you came across that issue?
The road to Trump has been paved over long periods of time. American political corruption has been laid bare by Trump. We've had the best government money can buy for a very long time. Citizens United legalized bribery. Trump came after. Trump bragged about buying every republican candidate on the stage during an early Republican primary debate leading up to the 2016 Republican national convention. An uncontested/unopposed open public admission of bribery. Mind you, there was one candidate, of at least 8, who jokingly spoke up to the contrary...
...stating that, although he had not yet...
...he would be more than happy to accept some of his money, if Trump wanted to give him some.
Under the rug it went...
Some have been hoping for better than a half century for America's socioeconomic influence to wane. Some have that aim/goal. The motivations are varied. They are plentiful and often incommensurate due to the wide variance of both, the individual and the subjective particular circumstance(s) grounding their desires. Be all that as it may, certain facts are clear enough to be able to form some general true assessments.
Trump has personally befriended those who actively work against American best interest. He has publicly dismissed American intelligence services' opinion(s) in favor of foreign actors' concerning charges directly involving that actor. <-----Read that very carefully. Trump is turning/has turned toward adversaries and away from American intelligence and longtime allies.
Others are perfectly content with the kingdom of Trump.
Quoting NOS4A2
When I read this post, my first thought was not, Gee, what kind of violently disturbed person would seriously consider assassinating a political leader? It was What context of background assumptions would motivate someone to write this post? Let me explain. Lets say you were living in England in 1943 and a Cambridge University research institute released a report on assassination culture, with anti-Nazism figuring prominently. Would you be disturbed enough about such behavior to write a post (well pretend the internet existed then) about it, or would you empathize with such sentiment even if you were personally opposed to murder in general?
My question to you, then, is what kind of assessment would you have to make of a particular political leader in order to justify your empathetic response to the desire of others to assassinate them?
Ill make this more direct. I was born and raised in the U.S., and if you live in my country, I want to you to justify your motivation to me. Ill share mine first. I dont condone killing anybody, but here is my justification for being sympathetic to those who harbor the desire to see Trump wiped out.
In my lifetime, Ive seen presidents make decisions that many consider unconstitutional, or act in ways that constituted executive overrreach. Ive seen presidents claim to represent the country as a whole, but pursue sharply partisan goals that alienated half the population. Im a liberal democrat, but I never doubted that Ronald Reagan, the Bushes, and even Nixon, wielded their power not only for the sake of goals that went well beyond their own narrow self interest, but in principle were against the idea that having power meant eliminating all opposition to their will.
I have come to the realization that Donald Trump has a fundamentally different view of power than these presidents, and all previous presidents with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson. Trumps view of power is that only one man, himself, can be allowed to control the country. All sources of potentially dissenting opinion are to be viewed as disloyalty and must be squelched. This includes all independent institutions, such as the press, academia, government agencies, law firms and judges, and corporate ceos. He will initially be viewed by his base of supporters as acting on their behalf and under their control, but eventually their voices will be squelched as well.
The fact that this is his view of power doesnt mean that he can succeed in decimating the checks and balances of democracy. He needs the help and acquiescence of many others to accomplish this. But in order to make sure this does not happen, others must realize that Trump, if not challenged, will act to remake America in the direction of Netanyahus Israel, Orbans Hungary, and Putins Russia.
Having that realization doesnt mean encouraging assassination culture, but it requires taking seriously the unprecedented danger to American democracy that Trump represents. My impression is that your unsympathetic post about assassination culture reflects the fact that you are not convinced that Trump is an authoritarian personality.
Well put.
Quoting frank
That's just capitalism. Profit maximization. Capitalism has no care about patriotism/nationalism. What matters are cheaper labor / lower wages, competitiveness, less environmental regulations, less health + safety protection, buy lower / sell higher, profitable resources, etc. Marrying capitalism and patriotism/nationalism politically tends toward a more planned economy (like wartime economy :gasp: for a more extreme example), which will get many people's backs up.
Trumps strategy is to pressure other nations into negotiations that prioritize U.S. interests. You think that's what most people want?
A couple of years back, I read the excellent Chip Wars, by Chris Miller, about the development of the modern microchip industry. Several chapters are devoted to the 1970's and 80's when the big manufacturers (Intel and AMD mainly) were scouting locations for chip fabrication. They soon discovered that workers in South Korea, Hong Kong and other Asian locations were very hard working, diligent, and compliant. They were nothing like workers on US production lines, who constantly agitated about pay and conditions, and furthermore the Asian workforces worked for considerably less money. I imagine that pay rates have improved considerably in the intervening decades the overall wage basis is still enormously lower. Which is why these fantasies of having iPhones built in American factories are unreal. America designs these devices and creates great software and other IP. But the days US manufacture are long gone, trying to force it back into existence through tarriff barriers are fantasy.
Its true that what the U.S. takes from China in trade is 16% of the 16%. But this obscures the real impact of what Trump is doing here. Hes pushing China into a position of competing superpowers while shooting himself and his country in the foot and poking himself in the eye. Its akin to a Laurel and Hardy sketch, where Trump is both Laurel and Hardy and the rest of us are the audience, in hysterics of laughter. People can see through his charade now, which is why the markets are not too worried.
But regarding China, they will not see the funny side of this side show. They will realise that the West is sick, dysfunctional, with a soft underbelly of decadence, entitlement and idleness. Who cant now be trusted. China is a sleeping giant (a Godzilla), this is not a good time to wake him.
Trump has handed Putin a lifeline as well. This trade war will push Putin and China into a closer embrace. Just when Trump is poking all the U.S.s allies in the eye. Hes taking his (the U.S.s) eye off the ball in the global south. China and Russia will be aware of this, they will quickly step into the void in the global south.
If one imagines Putin as an evil mastermind seeking to destroy the west and profit off the chaos. One could not have come up with a better plan than to enable a character like Trump into the White House.
It doesn't have to be the main trading partner to have a significant impact on products and goods sold in the US.
Quoting creativesoul
The amount of "less" is too much. Most of their profit goes into R&D departments and cutting those is not happening as the recent products haven't made a splash commercially and they're in dire need of a "next big thing". They will probably "take less", but even doing so it will cost above $3000.
The irony of it all is that the main argument for these tariffs are to get production back into the US, but the production of smartphones isn't some industrial railway industry where you just make a big steel factory. The complexity of modern technology can't just be "brought home". There's no competence in building the parts required for it and there are no specialized factories.
This could mean that many of the largest manufacturers of tech will move OUT of the US in order to keep the complex chain of production required.
On the contrary, theres enormous anxiety in the US. Wall St is beside itself. Many very large businesses are highly integrated with supply chains that extend to China and numerous other countries, and all of the components they rely on are about to increase or even double in price, leading to both price increases for consumers and eroding margins for the producers.
Trump and Navarro are making the ridiculous excuse that trade deficits are an emergency when the only real emergency is having someone like Trump in the Oval Office, who doesnt understand what a trade deficit means. And they all should be concentrating on the real deficit, which is the US Budget deficit, that is forecast to grow enormously under Trumps presidency. The whole situation is totally backwards and upside down.
If a president uses emergency laws while there's no active emergency, isn't that illegal and an abuse of his power? Shouldn't that warrant to remove him from office? Wasn't this essentially how the South Korean president was removed, using emergency laws to initiate marshal law.
I dont deny that people are very worried.
The markets havent reacted as much as I was expecting, considering the size of the tariffs. It could be disbelief, or they expect Trump to reduce tariffs significantly through negotiation. Which is what Trump is claiming. Last night he said that he wants a free trade deal with China, that this is just an incentive for them to come to the table. I expect Trump to drop the tariffs dramatically when the economic consequences start to hit.
I heard a report this morning about a fire sale of U.S. government bonds. That the bond yield is up and that China hold a high proportion of these bonds. This is bad news for the U.S. and as you say there are serious economic consequences that will materialise should the tariffs remain.
Well, at least we're enjoying ourselves. :grin:
They still believe he will back down. However, Trump isn't operating on logic or for the nation, he only cares about himself. He is like Putin in this regard; if something that would remove the tariffs were to paint himself as "the good guy" and give him praise, then he will remove them. But so far, removing them now is a failure on his part and therefor he won't back down.
The market doesn't operate on current events, they operate on possible future scenarios. And right now the future is in extreme fluctuation. This is why the market crashed but haven't crashed more.
If Trump had been a stable mind who clearly had a plan, then I think the market would have crashed more on the certainty that all of this will happen.
But he's operating based on "Art of the deal". He's trying to get a leverage for dealing with other nations. But he is too stupid to understand that China won't back down. They can let their population economically suffer much harder without risking their political power, something that Trump cannot. The US economy will collapse before China does anything and then China will be in the lead of deals with the US.
Everyone who has the slightest understanding of world economics and the dynamics of politics in China and the US can see this. Trump doesn't have the cards, to use his own rhetoric.
Yes, exactly. China has already won the economic war.
As an aside, I saw an old clip of an interview with Trump in 2003, yesterday. Trump said that China has been ripping the U.S. off for years. Theyre eating our lunch he said in an angry voice and the interviewers repost was, they paid for your lunch. After which Trump told the interviewer that he was a very stupid economist and a very bad interviewer. But the interviewer was right and Trump had no idea of the truth of the matter and hes still labouring under the same misconception. I wonder how many people have told him who paid for his lunch over the intervening years and he ignored every single one of them.
Finally got around to working out a post on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), the US dollars role as global reserve currency, and trade deficits. These three are tightly linked, yet they somehow remain a mystery to Trump and the economist Ron Vara, also known as Peter Navarros sock puppet.
Trumps April 2, 2025 tariffs are yet another monument to his economic illiteracy. The idea, if you can call it that, is that because the US imports more than it exports, the country is somehow losing, and tariffs will solve everything. This is not just wrong. It is the kind of blunt, caveman logic that treats global finance like a rigged Monopoly game.
Here is what is actually happening. The US runs persistent trade deficits because global investors funnel capital into the country. They trust US institutions, they want American bonds, real estate and tech companies. They build factories here. That is Foreign Direct Investment, and it is part of a broader capital account surplus. When foreigners pour in money to acquire US assets, those dollars have to come from somewhere. They get them from selling things to the US. That is not an ideological position, it is basic accounting. The other side of that surplus is the current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit.
Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy.
So what happens when you slap tariffs on everything in sight? You do not fix the trade deficit. For the most part you will shuffle import sources. Maybe the US will import less from China and more from Vietnam. Maybe a handful of domestic producers benefit. But unless capital inflows decrease, the overall deficit remains. It might even worsen due to retaliation or inflationary effects. The idea that tariffs can cure a trade imbalance without touching capital flows is pure fantasy.
As warned by everyone tariffs increase costs for American consumers and businesses. They disrupt supply chains. They provoke retaliation from trade partners - just watch how US companies will be starved from rare earth metals resulting from China's export licensing requirements affecting samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. This in turn threatens electronics manufacturing, defence systems and clean energy technology.
Of course, capital flows may very well decrease but only as a result of a loss in trust in the US and its economy and that will fix the trade deficit. But at what cost? As capital begins to flow eslewhere, the capital account surplus will shrink and the trade deficit can not be financed, that puts downward pressure on the dollar which is likely to lead to inflation on top of the effect of tariffs. The trade deficit is "cured" in the worst possible way: falling imports, shrinking consumption and potentially a recession. The final step could well be the loss of the dollar as a serve currency.
The US losing that status for its currency will result in more expensive imports, cheaper exports, less capital inflows and therefore increased costs of financing debt. Considering the debt the US has, it is not clear how it can sustain its debt in such an event.
In the long run, this will at the very least stop the erosion of US industrial capacity but questions remain how much of an industry you can have while retaliatory tariffs and export licenses frustrate your supply chains. The problem here is the downsides are very predictable but the upsides are less apparent. An industrial rennaissance in the US is not likely when acquiring resources and goods to make industrial activities possible is made prohibitively expensive.
Long story short, Trump's brainfart masquerading as policy reflects a zero-sum mentality where surpluses are strength and deficits are weakness. That is simply wrong. The US runs a trade deficit because the world wants its assets. That is not a problem. It is a privilege. Killing that system with tariffs is not just dumb, it is destructive.
In my view, unless the US is willing to give up the dollars reserve currency status and slam the door on global investment, the trade deficit will continue.
So since this led us to this point, let's assume for a moment that this is the goal; getting rid of the dollar's reserve currency status. If that's what you'd want, we can think of the following reasons because the status:
I don't buy any of the last three points are a consideration but the first two could be. Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt?
In the end, everywhere I look, I only see inconsistencies, which means this has not been thought through. It creates exactly the circumstances to undermine US leadership and take advantage of it, which is entirely the opposite from what Trump claims he wants to accomplish. Here's a few ways countries can do it:
1. Undermine the dollar by creating alternatives to settle in non-USD currencies;
2. Countries less affected by low-tariffs are more likely to increase market share selling to the US than US manufacturing increasing;
3. China ets every room to present itself as a stable, cooperative partner whil the US fucks over its allies;
4. The immediate devaluing of US assets means we can acquire interests in them on the cheap;
5. Countries can challenge US leadership at global institutions thereby strengthening their onw legitimacy.
Countries that do understand the systemand most major ones donow have every incentive to:
Pfew. Done. Economics 101!
In my country, age is actually enough because for any adult citizen of the country voting is a Constitutional right. How severely handicapped a person is doesn't limit this at all.
Here's the real issue: there are many cases, where basically the court decides that someone is incapable of taking care of themselves and for their own protection, they are put under a guardian (I don't know what the legal terms in UK or US is for this), even in adulthood. Multitude of examples of this. Now of being under custody of a guardian/trustee (like a child), of course goes against human rights, like having the right to own property and decide oneself about it.
Yet it's a totally different issue if everybody has to show that they are able to own property. That there is like a driver's exam if you think of driving a car or a motorcycle, there's an obvious need to check one's abilities as one can do enormous damage with them. Yet we don't to have to get a permit or have an exam to buy a kitchen knife.
With your thinking, it would be similar to argue that in order for us to own property, we first have to show that we are capable of owning property, eligible to take care of that property. And only then do we have the right to own property. In my country the only limitation is that a person who has a guardian cannot be a candidate. But for example dementia etc doesn't limit the right to vote.
And I think that in truth, far more easier to have everybody to have the right to vote. Keep it simple.
Quoting tim wood
Look, this is simply a problem with all democracies. It does ask a lot from it's citizens. End of story. In my country the Parliament can change the Constitution, so basically there is no limitation on the laws they can make. They can decide that all naturally redhead women and witches and thus are a threat to the security of the nation, thus they have to be imprisoned.
We have only the common sense of the people as the true safety valve here.
Quoting NOS4A2
Assassination culture? Sorry, but sounds quite similar to the "rape culture" that suddenly had become so widespread when we had the "the woke" saying earlier.
After saying that, I think that the US is in deep trouble as it's losing it's ability to come together in any issue and on any occasion. This issue is really serious, actually. Americans are truly losing the so important social cohesion of coming together as a nation. Just for comparison, my country actually came together when the COVID-pandemic hit. And the people and the political parties came together in a dramatic way when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. It was Social-Democrat lead administrations both in Finland and Sweden that pushed for NATO membership, even if the left has been traditionally against NATO membership.
Yet in the US Covid seems to just have divided the country. Now the incoming recession and the stagflation is clearly the result of a political decision of the US President. We would not face this incoming global recession as we do now otherwise.
This just energizes the polarization onto a higher level. To think that everything imported from China has an over 100% tariff is going to immediately hurt. Breakups of supply chains can even happen.
The worst thing here is that I don't see any way of the tensions easing here.
We ought to assume that Trump is informed, and actually knows this. Therefore we can ask what is his real intention behind the use of tariffs.
Quoting Benkei
Trump is diabolical, but it's hard to jump to any conclusions about his intentions, other than the pure selfishness that he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life.
Quoting Benkei
That's the selfishness showing through. Selfishness is very whimsical and often displays as a sort of trial and error behaviour. I think we can look at the successes and failures which he had in applying tariffs in his last term in office for indications of his intentions. I believe the intent is as indicates, he believes it gives him leverage in the "art of the deal".
The selfish way of deal-making is to utilize one's power to inflict pain on the other, applying that force until the other gives you what you want. This selfish art of the "deal" is completely distinct from the friendly cooperation "deal", which is intended to be a "win-win" situation.
Ive just heard a respected economist explaining how if the bond markets run away the federal reserve will have no choice but to raise interest rates, which may lead to an inability to service U.S. debt and will drive inflation.
The easiest thing to do would be to devalue their own currencies relative to the dollar. Trump has already issued a warning to them not to do that. There aren't any countries whose trade with the US is large enough to make that option reasonable though.
This might be changing now. Saudi-Arabia's financial minister said already in 2023 that the Kingdom was open for selling oil in other currencies than the dollar. Note that the Saudi currency Rial, as the other currencies are pegged to the dollar.
A further question is if Trump would not simply pay China the treasuries it's holds. It's an incredible stupid idea, but note what Trump has earlier stated about this, even if then the issue was walked back:
Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. Of course it will take also itself a hit, but then if this is a security threat (which it is, actually), countries are totally fine with seeing their economies taking a hit. The people will understand.
We've already seen that imposing sanctions toward Russia (which I deem justified), has already made a lot of countries unsure about the international finance system as they fear they might also be put up with sanctions or excluded from the system. Now, if the US goes and attacks China by a selective default, that would have monumental effects. Yet perhaps Trump would like the dollar to cost less.
Quoting Benkei
Because I genuinely think that Trump believes in the false idea of trade being a bad thing, when the US has a trade deficit. He truly believes in tariffs having the effect of luring in manufacturing into the US. With a default, it might be that even the fringe thinkers like Peter Navarro see it as a bad idea. But who knows. It can be the next thing Trump does after this.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why do we ought to assume this? What could you give evidence for this. This doesn't seem like a bluff or only a negotiating tactic. If countries want to make deals, Trump might go with those, but he looks to be perfectly happy having the tariffs and truly assumes that the tariffs will lure manufacturing back to the US.
Basically in a democracy, this can be done if people really are OK with this. Far easier it is to think of this from the perspective of who can run for a political position in elections. The case of Marine Le Pen in France shows that this is a current issue.
As I noted the difference in voting rights between the US and Finland, Finnish prison inmates can vote, American inmates cannot. And both countries are basically OK with their laws on this. This basically goes back to differences in the idea of legal punishment, where in the US you have this history of punishing criminals, where the Nordic approach is much more liberal in also "helping" the felon to get out of crime, even if both countries do naturally detain criminals for the security of other people and the society. Trump's evictions of immigrants into prisons in El Salvador is the case point of punishment and threat of punishment being far more important in American politics.
As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues.
Quoting Punshhh
Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis? In such a crisis, panicked investors sell everything, even bonds, so instead of what usually happens during a downturn, that investors turn to bonds as a safe haven, lowering their yields, they are sold along with everything else and their yield jumps. In 2008 the Fed has to step in and provide liquidity.
As Paul Krugman explains:
I would empathize with those who wanted to assassinate Hitler, but not because he had a different view of power. But the only reason Id kill a politician is if he was trying to kill me or my family.
Hitler and the Nazis are all gone. The only swastikas I see these days are the ones carved into someones Tesla. And the overuse of false analogies such as these only reveal to me how far they have to reach to justify their acts.
The unprecedented danger are the reactionary forces willing to take it upon themselves to kill the peoples chosen representative, and all because they fear some future conditions that never seem to arrive. I do not empathize with this brand of madness.
Quoting tim wood
Are you suggesting hes playing 5-dimensional chess?(*facepalm*). The policy coming out of the White House is not the product of tightly coordinated strategy among Trump and his advisors. Trump is an incompetent who doesnt read history, economics or anything else for that matter. He only hears from his advisors what he wants to hear and ignores what he doesnt. No one in his circle of experts lasts for very long, especially if they dare to disagree with him. Notice how Bessant or Navarro or Hassert will say one thing about the reasons for the tariffs and Trump will immediately contradict them. One dangerous, autocratic idiot is running the show, and the role of his Cabinet is to try to sane-wash his idiocy.
I think he doesn't understand it. A political leader who thinks that enlarging the territory of the USA is a great idea at this time of age isn't the brightest one around, even if he can communicate so well with his base. People shouldn't themselves go down the rabbit hole and believe some deep conspiracy here.
Quoting tim wood
I think we are witnessing a story of a quite ignorant yet great populist orator with ardent followers, who is unfit for the positions he is in now. And power has simply gone to his head, because of the acolytes and the yes men around him, who follow every whim he makes.
Quoting Benkei
And when have existing laws have limited the actions of Trump? He already has the idea of ruling by executive decree and then fighting in courts, if it comes to that.
Quoting Benkei
If there is the ability to have sanctions, to freeze assets, why not this then? If there's no law specifically against it.
Now at this point this is just theoretical (thank God), but with Trump, these things can happen. In an economic crisis, the US President does have a lot power.
That was because $55 Trillion disappeared overnight. Trillion with a T. We're just experiencing uncertainty associated with a looming recession with possible stagflation. You're comparing a thunder storm to a hurricane.
Quoting NOS4A2
Do you believe that Victor Orban is a dictator? How about Putin? If so, tell me in detail what qualifies these men as autocratic rulers? What strategies and tactics did they use to gradually change a system with checks and balances into an autocracy? What signs would you look for in Trump to convince you that he thinks in similar ways about power as Orban and Putin?
Im not doing the comparing. Economists are.
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-cost-of-chaos-this-is-getting
14th amendment precludes it. It puts into question the validity of my claim compared to your claim either because of the identity of the holder or the type of instrument. But also, it would breach the terms of the issuance itself and therefore result in a contractual breach.
Quoting tim wood
Thats exactly what I and many economists who know Trumps advisors are suggesting. There are only a couple of issues Trump is interested in, and the rest he leaves up to others, like when he gave Jared Kushner carte blanche to do what he wanted in the Middle East. The one issue he has obsessed about since the 1980s is how the rest of the world has cheated and taken advantage of America. On this point he has been extremely consistent, and it is on this issue that he is manning his own boat. That Rose Garden tariff chart reflects his own discombobulated thinking about how to get revenge upon the worlds unfair treatment of the U.S., not that of Navarro or any of his other advisors. He likes to run his own show, so everyone else can coming crawling to him as the great dealmaker and shakedown artist.
When you read books about his first administration, they portray a very clear picture, which is repeated again and again.
First of all, every US administration looks to those inside it as chaotic, perhaps with the exception of the Eisenhower administration. This is because there is so much decision making going through the White House all the time. Yet some administration are more chaotic than others. And Trump belongs to the "more chaotic" ones. This is simply because of the man himself. To assume that Trump is a figurehead, then the question is whose figurehead is he? What is the real committee here? Trump holds power in the GOP. At least still.
Quoting Benkei
Thank's! Learn something new every day.
And naturally it would have a devastating effect even without the legal breaches. Trust in the US would be shaken, even if I'm of the opinion that the US could genuinely default some day and the present monetary system would be abandoned. Then the story about the trustworthiness would be change that US is credible, because it defaults only in few hundred years. And the lenders would come again, after licking their wounds. And if we call the going off the gold standard what it really was, a default, then the US does these defaults only in +50 years or so.
Quoting frank
Is that how you interpreted this?
Seems to me financial crisis and recession are two different things.
And that's exactly what happened today isn't it. Hedge funds selling their treasury bonds. It's absolutely wild. The VIX is up to 2008ish levels (50ish today vs 60sh peak in 2008).
Is it your theory that since Trump thinks in similar ways about power to Orban and Putinsomething that cannot be provenhe is a dictator like Orban and Putin? For me that doesnt follow.
Trump cannot become a dictator. All the checks and balances are working, and have continuously been invoked against his authority. Two impeachments, uncountable lawsuits, and so on. The only reason someone would seek to go around these checks, and choose assassination to depose the chosen representative of a majority of Americans, is because the checks and balances have checked them instead. Just take the knee.
The safety trade is being out of the dollar. Gold has been a great asset of safety.
And people are buying necessities before the prices start rising.
In 2008 the entire financial sector appeared to be in a state of collapse, so the Chairman of the Fed and the Secretary of the Treasury went to Congress to ask for money. Krugman knows very well that markets couldn't self-stabilize in 2008, the way they usually do.
Krugman is not saying we're back to 2008. He's saying he's concerned. If you want to go further and say we actually are experiencing a crisis of that magnitude, you'll have to explain why you think the markets can't recover on their own.
lol I am not a lawyer
(I would post the video, but these kinds of facts are now verboten).
Given that wealth inequality has been on the lips of progressives for who knows how long, if this plan bears fruit for the working class, will it change some minds here? Or is it anti-Trump all the way down?
It's going to take a while for people to realize that Trump's tariffs actually have the potential to help Main St. But NOS, you know he wants to be a king. It's a time honored strategy of dictators to give the people what they want as they're taking over. Are you going to be pro-Trump all the way down?
Quoting NOS4A2
And yesterday he told Trump to given clear objectives to investors about his ultimate intentions for the new tariffs or stock markets will keep spiralling down. You notice that it is Trumps intentions, not Bessents, that are behind the current tariff policy. Economists who know Bessent well say that his approach to tariffs is substantially different than Trumps, and he is frantically trying to avert an economic and political disaster by getting Trump to moderate his approach, and at the very least, to explain its endgoals coherently.
He's declaring war on Wall St. He's saying neoliberalism is over.
Quoting frank
Its not just Krugman whos concerned. And this is why markets may not be able to recover on their own:
EU targets Trumps red states with tariffs on US trucks, cigarettes and ice cream
[sup] Giovanna Coi, Paroma Soni, Camille Gijs · POLITICO · Apr 9, 2025[/sup]
Targeted towards Trump voters. Will it make a difference?
On a separate note, I don't think Trump cares so much about a topic or cause, as he cares about taking the task + asserting himself + stomping someone or making big waves + getting credits applause cheers. And he'll roll with it, tossing weight around as he sees fit. Hostile towards whoever has criticized him, regardless of reason. If so, then there's a chance he could be won over to whatever cause (well, not any cause). I suppose there could be something more meaningful to him. His relationship with Putin is odd, if not suspicious. (end unsolicited assessment :smile:)
Tariffs are going to make American government bonds less attractive. That's a long range factor. I'm a day trader and I'm watching the futures markets as we speak, and yes, there's low liquidity. It's so low I'm not touching it, which is the kind of sentiment that drives it even lower. Still, there was just a surge as stock market traders decided there were deals down in the valley that formed yesterday.
There will be FOMC meeting minutes at 2:00. Should be worth listening to.
The surge was because of the 90-day pause in tariffs.
I think he realized he fucked up, and that his advisor is even more stupid than he is. Maybe someone told him that the source of reasoning for why to install the tariffs comes from a crackpot who invented an expert for his book to look factual. That all of this is based on that non-existing person. And now that he knows this, he tries to back out in a way that doesn't paint him as a damn moron (more than usual).
:rofl: These fucking people.
Trump finally blinked.
But let's remember that now Trump has that trade war with China and still he has those tariffs with everybody at 10%. That 10% + China trade war will have an effect on the US economy.
It's not going to be the absolute disaster of a lifetime. Just your normal Trump disaster. :wink:
Yea, I figured that out eventually. :lol:
As long as his followers suffer economically, but the economy doesn't crash, that's all good. The only way to get rid of him in a normal democracy is to hope fewer supports him, and with how bad people have it economically, and that his followers are mostly the people who are close to the bottom, it doesn't take much to make them suffer from their own vote.
It is all a grift and power trip. Hilarious that Trumpys are falling over themselves trying to rationalize his absurd "plans".
That is completely guaranteed. A lot of these people are truly living precariously. Trump simultaneously, by imperial decree:
* Threw a wrecking ball at the US and global economy
* Instituted severe austerity onto what little safety net we have
* Guaranteed a dramatic resurgence of inflation.
* Threw hundreds of thousands of workers out on their asses.
A lot of them are on the margins, with a poor paying job, or not job at all. A lot of them are small business owners that struggle even during "good" times. Any one of these three events would push many over the edge. All four, at the same time? They will suffer enormously for this.
I'm not sure how this relates to what I said. Devaluing a currency doesn't make it more interesting to use as a reserve currency; stability does.
Quoting Joshs
The Fed had to step in to provide liquidity because the banks capital and liquidity ratios tanked due to their cross derivatives exposures of worthless MBS on each other in a market where interbank trust had totally evaporated. Secured lending (under GMRAs for instance) was the only way to get a loan for a while. US treasuries, along with other high rated government bonds were still considered a safe haven in 2008. Yields dropped because most investors were prepared to accept even a negative yield as long as they knew for certain their money was safe. Which is precisely why AAA-rated bonds had negative yield at some point, that's how much investors wanted them!
Quoting NOS4A2
You are not making any philosophical, political or economic point. Instead, you're just stirring the pot. Would be nice if you'd actually made an effort.
I just shared an extensive economic explanation how this doesn't help any Americans any time soon. If you want to help Main Street, there's myriad ways you can do this without being a communist about it or, in Trump's case, an idiot. Raising tariffs isn't going to help anyone and is more likely to hurt poorer people disproportionally because, well, they're poor and have no budget to absorb price hikes.
Meanwhile, companies in the US are faced with an immediate increase in costs for resources and machinery produced outside of the US. Shareholders and company owners, especially in the US, will just fire people to absorb the increase in cost and expect the remainder to pick up the slack. So you'll see a surge in unemployment, lower tax income through income tax, etc.
That the industrial capacity of the US has gone down is not only the consequence of its unique position having had a trade deficit for 40 years but also policy, where even critical industries or part of the vertical integration for that, has been outsourced (much like most of Western Europe as well). The idea of correcting this through tariffs without dealing with capital flows is idiotic, more so when the expectations is to reverse a process that took decades.
You hit someone in the face, you tell them not to hit back but they do any way because they won't be bullied and then they're the bad actor. Yeah, that makes total sense. And what allies exactly? He shafted Europe with Ukraine already so I'm not sure who he's talking about.
The best part, he's now negotiating from a position of weakness because he admits needing his allies and trade partners. What an insane loser.
EDIT: also I forget but obviously the EU raised retaliatory tariffs as well. So when do we get the 100% tariff?
The Trump administration might not care about the stock market, but the government does care a lot of the interest on the US debt!
Quoting Benkei
That isn't yet sure. And let's remember that the EU response was for the tariffs raised before Trump's "Liberation Day".
Eu moves a bit slowly.
Quoting ssu
Something to consider: Economists have pointed out that it isnt tariffs per se that are so damaging to markets and businesses. Tariffs have not historically led to recessions all by themselves, even Smoot-Hauley. Its the uncertainty associated with an on-again off again policy-making style dictated by the whims of one man. How can businesses plan if they dont know whether this latest announcement is a just a pause, or an elimination of reciprocal tariffs? How can markets and corporations trust that , whichever way Trump goes, hell stick to that plan? Why should they when he has already reversed himself multiple times? Such unpredictability is disastrous for the economy.
The real cause of the Great Depression was probably concentration of wealth. The trade war and the panic precipitated the collapse. Wealth is pretty concentrated right now, though.
I think the present moment is a test for how leftist you really are. If you're white-knuckling the volatility we've had so far, shaking your fist at stupid Trump, then you have a very conservative mindset. He's handing us an economic revolution. If you're a leftist, you're like: go Trump! Get those tariffs!
I'm not so sure they care about that either. The debt has worked wonderfully for the republicans, by playing the Two Santas game. Historically they use it as a cudgel during debt ceiling negotiations, and to deny any legislative win to the dems that actually costs anything. Now they have gone into overdrive, gutting all programs they don't like in the name of reducing "waste and fraud", with the crisis of the debt as the pretext for this urgency. Then, they gut taxes to the wealthy, in total disregard to the debt, while throwing a few breadcrumbs to the masses. They will keep playing this until the system collapses, and likely after.
Quoting frank
Absolute blithering nonsense. There is nothing remotely "leftist" about completely upending the economic order in order to institute a massively regressive tax on everyone. Which in turn will be used as a pretext for massive tax cuts for the rich. You seem to have the ignorant idea that being leftist merely for change of any sort. And that conservative means resisting change.
Are you saying you believe that Trump is producing an economic revolution? And that you believe this revolution he is hatching is a beneficial thing for America?
Read Mark Blyth's comments. He agrees with me and the president of the UAW. @ChatteringMonkey mentioned some of this earlier in the thread.
Quoting Mark Blyth
If you go back to his videos from the 80s you'll find he was always a big believer in tariffs. I think he genuinely thinks they can be used to replace income taxes like in the 19th century, so we'll probably continue to see him trying to touch the stove like he did the last 2 times.
Quoting Joshs
Indeed that's the biggest risk right now and will continue to be a big drag on the economy as long as Trump continues to float the idea. Personally I wouldn't want to be investing in this market right now, despite all the excitement going on with the pause (and the 100% tariff on Chinese goods that everyone is just ignoring right now).
Definitely, he's no better than any other believer who ignores actual research and knowledge. It's the main reason I am opposed all religions (though value the existential introspection they can help people with). Belief without anything else is never a path to anything but problems. And within politics, we separated the church and state for a reason, the US just didn't get the memo. Not only does it still operate on a religious belief similar to that of a king being appointed by God, the politicians operate on pure belief far more than on expertise, knowledge and wisdom.
We can probably count on one hand, no more, the number of people in US politics who performed their duties as representatives with wisdom, knowledge and listening to actual experts. It's rare in most nations, but more rare in the political halls of the US government. While authoritarian and broken states around the world either operate on authoritarian leaders urge for power, or they operate on being merely incompetent, the US is rather unique in that many politicians are actual idiots.
My jaw is on the floor most of the time when listening to politicians in the US. Seeing through the normal political jargon that any politician in the world keeps blabbering, there shines a void behind the words of a US politician and that's a deep lack of education, knowledge and wisdom.
You know, the memes of US tourists in other nations being absolute hollow heads to understand how to behave in another culture, that's how the rest of the world sees US politicians. Other nations has a few nutjobs, but the US government is so infested by them that it's a damn mystery the US has survived this long in the modern era of clown regimes.
:100: And trade policy is only one facet, albeit a highly visible one. There are numerous accounts of DOGE firing a workforce en masse only to realise that highly skilled and indispensable people have been let go (as in the case of the nuclear inspections agency) and then a frantic effort to contact and re-hire them. Everything seems to be ad hoc, made up on the run, according to the whim de jour. It was commented on that in the lead up to the so-called Liberation Day announcments, none of the trade advisors knew what the proposed tarriffs were to be. Likewise when the 90-day stay was announced - via social media! - Trump's main trade representative hadn't been informed and was in fact defending the Liberation Day tarriffs to the press when the announcement was made.
In short: chaotic governance, driven by whim, animus and 'gut instinct'. It will only ever be thus with Trump.
I think they have to care. At least at some point.
You see, the interest on the debt is already a higher spending issue on the budget than defense spending. At that, no DOGE or whoever can touch (even if they tried), because not meeting the interest payments is default.
The interest on the debt is on the average now 3,3% which is over 1% higher than five years ago. Just an additional 1% of interest and the whole debt thing is worse. Think if it would be double, 6,6% which is on the long run quite normal. That would basically double the expenses. And let's remember that we have come from literally from the lowest historical interest rates of all time and now the cycle is going up.
That's the way to deal with your partners, inflict as much pain as possible, in hopes that the partner will give you what you want to make you stop.
Eventually you will need a re-negotiation of the system where China carries more of the burden because they are the prime beneficiaries of it. Tariffs on their own probably won't do it, but it does create space for things that weren't possible previously.
The left, who were the original anti-globalists let's not forget, could see the opportunity of the moment if they weren't so preoccupied with fighting Trump. Or maybe they don't really want to change the system anymore, because they have effectively become the party of the elites who do still benefit from it, at the cost of Main Street.
Lets start with the premise: free trade is good for economies with excess production and trade surpluses. That is a misunderstanding of how trade works. Free trade isnt some rigged game that only benefits surplus countries. The US has run trade deficits for decades and still emerged as the most powerful economy on earth. That's not despite those deficits but in part because of the structure that allows them - namely FDI and the reserve currency status of the USD.
The US receives massive foreign capital inflows. Foreigners buy US Treasury bonds, stocks, real estate and invest in businesses. Those inflows keep interest rates low, fund domestic investment and support the dollars global role. In other words, the trade deficit is not some evidence of decline. It is the accounting counterpart of Americas central role in the global financial system. That is just how the balance of payments works.
You also claim that the US created the postwar global system because it used to run surpluses and that it should step away now that "the East" benefits more. But that ignores the actual historical logic behind the system. The US didnt create the global economic order to rack up trade surpluses. It created the order to prevent another world war, contain communism and entrench a rules-based system in which it would remain the institutional and financial center, regardless of whether it was exporting more goods than it imported. That strategy worked. The US became the issuer of the reserve currency, the seat of global capital and the main power in the world. Walking away from that now doesnt punish China. It vacates the field for them to take over as the second largest economy in the world .
You say China should carry more of the burden. Fair enough. But then what? Are we handing them the keys to the system because the US is tired of leading it? Tariffs arent creating space for anything coherent. Theyre just inflaming tensions and undermining trust in US stability. A real renegotiation of global institutions would require diplomatic capital and credibility; the very things a chaotic trade war destroys and Trump personally lacks.
Your swipe at the left is a convenient distraction that makes me wonder why it's even in there. Yes, parts of the left were historically anti-globalist, but that was in defense of labour standards, environmental protections and democratic oversight: not nationalist economic isolation. And as a leftist I'm STILL in favour of tariffs but to force other countries to produce at the same level of regulations as the EU does so we have a level playing field between local and foreign producers and costs of production aren't unfairly externalised unto poor people abroad and the environment there.
EDIT: to add, a consistent trade deficit is only possible because of offset by FDI. Without it, the deficit will have to balance out at some point and if this cannot be done through attracting FDI, it will correct through currency depreciation, reduction in consumption (skewed towards import), increase in national savings and lower investments. This can also happen in an uncontrolled manner through capital flight or a debt crisis.
No, I think it is quite right. Though, I look at it a bit from a more cynical perspective.
The US has one interest, and one interest only: power. The reason it made the dollar the reserve currency is because of power. The reason it championed an "international rules-based order" is because of power, and so forth.
When it runs a trade deficit, it means other nations - in the case of China, a peer competitor - relatively profit more, turning it into a dynamic that over the long-term cedes power to other countries by virtue of the fact that, even though on paper it is 'mutually beneficial', one side is profiting more than the other. In the Machiavellian terms Washington thinks in, that means losing.
It makes zero sense for the United States to uphold a system that has fed and continues to feed its main geopolitical rival China. The US started this policy way back when China was not seen as a major geopolitical threat. Times have changed.
Moreover, upholding the system is increasingly no longer an option. The United States is sitting on a giant bubble - waiting for the mother of all economic crises to hit - made worse still by the dollar's world reserve currency status being under pressure and probably being history somewhere in the next ten years.
The United States has two options: retreat to its island or go down with the ship.
Did the thread spiral down into the lounge again?
What follows in no way, shape or form addresses my comment and just reiterates economic nonsense. Countries with surpluses do not profit relatively more. It's like saying that the seller in a sale, profits more than the buyer. If my posts aren't clear enough for you I'd be happy to give you a reading list to clear up these economic misunderstandings.
Since the EU is behind on so many technological innovations and collaborations, this may be a golden opportunity to build bridges. Since the US was the largest competitor and they're beginning to alienate everyone, the EU could become a new superpower if playing the cards right.
And I rather have a superpower that's an alliance of diverse nations than a single nation as it's more robust against points of failure. It also incentivize nations to behave better to get closer to the EU as a true collaborator and ally, rather than having some toxic relationship with the US.
It would probably be the best course for the world really.
You're not getting my perspective at all.
They shouldn't be likened to buyers and sellers, but to economic and geopolitical rivals; enemies.
The United States has been facilitating China's export-oriented economy for decades, and China has benefitted greatly. You might call that a 'win-win', whereas a political realist might call that 'feeding the beast'.
Facilitating Chinas export-driven growth wasnt just charity. It was part of a strategy to integrate China into the rules-based order, stabilize global supply chains and secure cheap goods and capital inflows that benefited US consumers, corporations and investors. You can call that feeding the beast if you like, but it also fueled decades of low inflation and higher real incomes in the US (and the West).
If you want to unwind that relationship now, fine - but udnerstand the costs. This approach does not just cut off your enemy. It's cutting off your own economy from the financial and logistical circuits it has been built around for decades. Doing that without understanding how capital flows and trade balances interact is not realism. Its just self-harm with a flag on it.
Strategic rivalry doesn't mean throwing out your central position in the global economy. It means using it intelligently. Right now, China still needs dollar access, still needs external demand and still holds US Treasury debt. Thats leverage. You don't use that leverage by blowing up your own system.
If your argument is that the US needs a more self-reliant economy and less exposure to adversarial regimes, I agree. But dressing up a dumb tariff war as strategic realism just replaces one illusion with another.
The position of the US economy in the world now is nothing like is was after the world war, or the seventies. Comparatively its advantage has declined steadily over time. It is still the most powerful for now, but if the trend continues it won't be for much longer.
You might say that's fine because a rising tide raises all boats, and so everybody gets more wealthy. But that's not what actually happened. Real wages of workers in the West haven't grow much since the seventies, it's Western elites and Asia that has benefitted from the growth predominantly.
The other problem is geo-political as Tzeentch pointed out. If you only look at the economic aspect this trend might not be that worrying, but the issue is that offshoring your production does mean you lose military industrial capacity and you will eventually not be able to keep up with China. In shipbuilding for instance China flew right past the US in the past decade.
Quoting Benkei
Well I'm not arguing that it was the only reason, but it was a reason... the dominant power will not build a system that doesn't work for them economically. Historically it has generally been the well performing established economies that advocated for free trade, and the less competitive economies that tried to protect their emerging industries. And that is what China has done, it has created the system that could maximally benefit from what the West had set up, i.e. protectionism not mainly by tariffs maybe, but by heavy subsidizing of industrial policy initiatives and erecting barriers to their internal market.
Quoting Benkei
The issue is that China wouldn't necessarily want to fundamentally re-negotiate the system that was serving them reasonably well as it was. By threatening to plunge the entire thing into chaos you would think it will make them more amenable for talks about real change. They have the most to lose because their economy relies to most on exports. And finding other markets to sell their products is easier said than done because there aren't that many markets like the US that can buy up their surplus.
I don't know what Trumps plan is, or if they even have a set plan... And it could easily backfire for the US. But I do think you will have to eventually do something to re-adjust the system to a world that has changed fundamentally (the share of world GDP of the US having declined as much). It seems to me they are just throwing stuff at the wall now to see what sticks.
They are trying something alright, admitting failure frankly is another matter.
Quoting Benkei
As a European myself I'm all in favour of those standards too, I like healthy food and and a clean environment. I would say the global system as it is now is a problem for that too because it typically encourages a race to the bottom. That's another reason a re-negotiation is in order. I'm thinking this probably won't happen under Trump, or at least not the way we would want it because he doesn't really care about these things, that's right. My swipe at the left is more an attempt at waking them from their dogmatic slumber. I think they should realize what moment we are in, and not waste the opportunity in little fights defending the status-quo against Trump... this is a transition period and so they should be working towards a real and new plan themselves.
This is the geopolitical power struggle of the modern age. Everything about this is political first, and various other things second, whether we like it or not.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, and it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that trading with enemies is potentially dangerous and the calculus becomes more complex than supply and demand.
Quoting Benkei
I'm not sure what emotional terms I would be talking in. I assume as a bottomline that whatever American politicians say are narratives meant to disguise the actual policy and sell it to the American people. I'm interested in figuring out what the actual policy is, and what it is meant to achieve.
Quoting Benkei
Sure, and there was a time that such perspectives made sense. Now times have changed, and it's not like a Machiavellian to get hung up on past friendships.
Quoting Benkei
This isn't so much about what I want, rather it's about how I believe great powers look at global affairs.
I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod.
That's a good analogy. To value the cash paid for the goods as higher than the value of the goods, is to say the seller got a good deal. Likewise, to value the goods higher than the cash is to say that the buyer got a good deal. General economic principles must be based in an equivalence which represents "fair trade". To make the general statement that cash is more valuable than goods is simply faulty economics because it negates the possibility of fair trade.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This statement is meaningless without a standard of real measurement. If one group of people is living in luxury while the other is living in poverty, it makes no sense to complain that the wages of those living in poverty rose while the wages of those living in luxury stayed the same.
And there has always been capitalist "elites". When the elites already have more money than they could ever possibly spend, therefore are free to do what they want, what does "benefitting the elites" even mean?
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. My claim is that real wages of workers haven't changed that much since the seventies... that is in terms of cost of living (wages compared to buying a house and food etc...) which is what really matters to them. And a further claim that is probably save to make, is that the gap in wealth between workers and elites in the West has only grown.
Statements like these just make me zone out. Who is "Washington"? What evidence do you have for it? The fact that there's no rhyme or reason to the tariff war any way you cut it means nobody competent is in control and not some secret cabal pulling Trump's strings.
The existence of a political elite that holds a lot of sway behind the curtains isn't really all that controversial among political thinkers, though some ascribe more power to them than others.
Calling the people at the top dummies is a little naive, in my opinion. It's much more likely that you simply don't understand what's going on, because the political elite have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed.
Oh, I'm very interested in understanding the rabbit hole you hide in so I can drag you out of it and find some common ground out in the light of reason.
Why Americas Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment (Porter, 2018)
Why Washington Doesn't Debate Grand Strategy (Friedman & Logan, 2016)
You can download the PDF to the full article.
Quoting frank
Frank, I dont know how you personally define political conservatism and leftism, but I believe there is much confusion over who exactly they apply to, depending on what country youre in, what you do for a living, and so many other factors. From my perspective, it is far more helpful and clarifying to define conservativism and leftism from a philosophical vantage.The left and the right seem to have arrived at a kind of consensus that progressivism is grounded philosophically in thinking that can be traced back to German Idealism, and especially Hegel. The various strands of progressivism that include Marxism, wokism, Critical Race Theory and intersectionality, Liberation Theology, Neo and Post-Marxism ( Habermas , Adorno) and Postmodernism (Foucault, Deleuze) all emanate from these philosophical sources. The conceptual scaffolding of post-Hegelianism is the glue that holds together the newer thinking about gender, race, class, and ethics in general , as well as progressive critiques of neo-liberalism and how such political tools as tariffs may fit into such critiques.
So where does Trump fit into this picture of leftism? He doesnt. Trumps thinking is profoundly conservative. To understand the philosophical sources for Trumps view of the world, the glue that holds together his approach to economics, politics and social issues, one must go back 400 to 500 years. Trump is a pre-Enlightenment figure who rejects Enlightenment values (more precisely, he doesnt understand them). I would even say his approach is theocratic. And he is not alone in this thinking. A strain of anti-democratic thought runs through MAGA. Check out Curtis Yarvin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
David Brooks and Bret Stephens are among many Conservatives ( George Will, David Frum, etc) who have abandoned the Republican party because of its shift to the anti-Enlightenment , autocratic-theocratic right. I highly recommend Brooks recent piece for the Atlantic, I Should Have Seen This Coming.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/05/trumpism-maga-populism-power-pursuit/682116/
I dont know whether the president of the UAW is a leftist or conservative from a philosophical point of view, but keep in mind that political leftism in the U.S. used to be associated with pro-labor urban blue-collar workers loyal to the democratic party. The large majority of those voters are now Trump supporters, because their philosophical worldview was never progressive, but conservative. Being pro-labor and pro-tariff today isnt enough to warrant the label leftist. One must dig beneath the surface and examine what tariffs mean to someone who advocates them, how and for what purposes they intend to implement them. Both conservatives and progressives embrace tariffs in general. The ways in which they differ is a function of how the differences between a conservative and progressive philosophical worldview translate into how and why tariffs are integrated with trade and investment.
For all I know, you and Shawn Fain may be sympathetic to anti-Enlightenment thinking. The other possibility is that both of you are making a colossal and dangerous mistake, confusing Trumps profoundly backward-looking worldview for a forward-looking progressivism (economic revolution), and as a result hitching your wagon to one of the biggest dangers to American democracy this country has ever seen.
It is only at the most superficial level that Trumps tariff plan resembles any kind of progressive tariff proposal. At a deeper level, Trumps tariff goals are antithetical to everything progressivism stands for. Even Mark Blythe acknowledges that Trump may not be a good model to follow on tariffs:
Every word you write supporting Trump contributes in a small way to the risk that our democratic system may unravel. We progressives know that our only chance of warding off the damage Trump may do to the country and the world is to convince those like you who mistakenly believe Trumps ideas are can somehow be aligned with legitimate attempts by thoughtful economists and politicians to solve issues like offshoring that nothing he aims to do is in any way compatible with progressive aims.
Frank, please dont be an unwitting accomplice to discarding the values I always believed this country stood for.
Both articles point towards a foreign policy elite that spans both sides of the aisle. A 'deep state', if you will. Stephen Walt, Mearsheimer, etc. - they'll all say the same thing.
Who or what exactly comprises this 'deep state' is a more murky topic, but not necessarily all that relevant.
The bottomline is that the manoeuvre room of a US president is limited, and large swings in policy are unlikely to originate from the US president and his administration alone.
It's a bit ironic really that when something happens that you cannot rationally explain, it must be because they are stupid. Does it ever occur that you might be the one who is not seeing the full picture? A bit like how Ukraine did not see the full picture prior to jumping into bed with Uncle Sam.
Quoting Benkei
Of course nobody is controlling Trump behind the scenes. Elon Muaks tech mafia mistakenly thought they could do so, and Wall Street thought they had him in their back pocket, but when you put an autocrat in charge he will eventually give you the middle finger. Just ask Putins oligarchs.
Believe me I am aware of this. You might be under the misapprehension that the Republicans in this country are actual public servants working for the public good. Maybe from outside the country, despite Trump, it is hard to perceive how bad it really is. Not only do they not give a shit about the debt (despite endless bloviation to the contrary), they thrive off it. The goal is to redirect as much of the non-military budget to their wealthy donors as tax cuts. That is all. The debt is a tool to that end. Even before Trump the debt was likely to fall into a death spiral. Studies have shown that, without the Bush and Trump I tax cuts, revenue would have been better than neutral. THEY DO NOT CARE.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
And no they will likely never default. Instead, they will debase the currency to meet the debt. In fact they have been floating this idea for years now.
Quoting Joshs
Deleuze would agree with Nick Land regarding accelerationism. Land was a Marxist, and Land became anti-Enlightenment. Land influenced Vance, who will probably be our next president. There is a little trail from Marx to where we are now. Leftism became a hollowed out corpse. I told you man, read Dark Enlightenment.
I think right now you're kind of frozen by the realization that we might be watching the end of democracy in the US. I understand that. I have the Gettysburg Address memorized and through my life I have repeated it to myself. It's been a touchstone for me no matter what the US was going through. I love the ideals behind the US. So I also became frozen when I read about Vance and started to understand what was happening.
The only thing that could stop it is if some black swan appears out of the Democratic domain and takes the presidency away from Vance. Otherwise, I think through Trump's administration they're going to be filling vacancies with loyalists.
So I wasn't analyzing Trump's ideology when I said what's happening should be welcome to a leftist. I was suggesting we just look at the possibilities that come into existence with those tariffs. As @ChatteringMonkey mentioned, it's going to be hard to see that while fully armored up to fight Trump.
If it would be this way, then colonies of European empires would have enjoyed an absolutely great economic time, because they had huge trade surpluses. They exported huge amounts of resources, but usually got far less imports manufactured items from their colonial masters. That some poor country exports a lot to the US compared to the few imports from the US (as the country is poor), doesn't make it so that the poor country is stealing from the US (as Trump thinks).
Quoting Benkei
Exactly. And this is the part that many Americans do not understand. How important to all of this is the role of the dollar and just why it is so.
Note the difference when some country exports stuff to Sri Lanka and to the US. In Sri Lanka, the exporter gets Sri Lankan rupees, which he mainly can use either inside the country, or then exchange into a currency his preference. From the US he gets dollars, which he can also use in the US or he can use for example to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.
Let's assume that the governments of Sri Lanka and the US both spend recklessly and have huge deficits and basically print more money. Who do you think of the foreigners that export to these countries get a bit nervous about this? The one's holding lot of Sri Lankan rupees or the one's holding US dollars? In fact, for Sri Lanka it's foreign currency reserves that the central bank has are important, because Sri Lanka is a poor country. The US on the other hand is the largest economy and it's dollar is the reserve currency.
Quoting Benkei
It worked so well that Nixon could take the US dollar off the gold standard and the credibility of the US dollar didn't collapse. Oil was sold in dollars as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States had pegged their currencies to the dollar... because of the alliances/security guarantees the US had with them (called Twin Pillars back then).
Now, of course, Trump is making his best effort to do away with these alliances that have been crucial for the US.
Quoting frank
No, Deleuze would not agree with Land about accelerationism. Land hadnt the vaguest idea what the essence of Deleuze's philosophy was. I read The Dark Enlightenment, and it, like the New Right in general, is the very antithesis of Deleuzianism. There is nothing hollowed out about the philosophical underpinnings of leftism, expect for those who were never capable of understanding its concepts in the first place. This is easy to demonstrate.
The New Right is just traditionalism dressed up in the garb of cool-kid hipsterism. To them leftism is group-think, because they dont have what it takes intellectually to join the group.
Quoting frank
Im not frozen. I have full confidence that progressive America will not only survive , but continue to thrive and grow. The reason for Trump in the first place is the growing dominance of progressive voices in Americana culture, overwhelmingly so in the cities and universities. Nothing Trump does will change that. He is holding onto a thin political majority at the moment, but the damage he is doing to the economy will peel away those non-MAGA voters he counted on to win the election. Tyrants always end up pushing things too far and causing their own downfall. Trumps stupidity has already begun to alienate the financial community and many in the business
community.
Debasing the currency is just one way to default. So is hyperinflation too. And the actual policy that has been talking about is high inflation, not hyper inflation (as that simply means that the belief in the currency has evaporated). Few years with 20% inflation make wonders on the debt!
Anyway, I think it's more about being short sighted and hoping that the crisis won't come now. After all, the system that went off the gold standard in 1971 has continued to this day. So why not 10 years more?
Friedman & Logan's point is that there's no real debate because of consensus around US primacy, the Blob doesn't typically engage in first-principles questioning, they don't debate what the strategy should be but focus on how to execute it; it's institutional inertia.
Patrick Porter argues purusing primacy isn't inherently rational or constantly reassessed but instituionalised. It's reinforced by beliefs, norms and habit of the Blob which creates the Overton window if you will of legtimate policy. Even if global conditions suggest alternatives (at least in his view) the continuity of primacy prevails. That is not a secret cabal but power married to ideology and bureacracy. He demonstrates this with Clinton and Trump's previous administration. It's institutional inertia.
Both articles are a critique of foreign policy establishment's resistance to change and doesn't support Trump being managed by anyone.
It does support my point that if the Blob is resistant to change, it's entirely unlikely they are now masterminding this wild departure from the status quo. Trump's erratic moves all contradict the Blob preferences with respect to NATO, Russia and trade.
The absence of logic and coherence in Trump's foreign policy suggests no one competent or unified is currently in control. If they're so fucking smart as you seem to suggest because there's some hidden goal we simpletons can't fathom, then they'd understand their economics. And no matter how smart they are, that still does not make basic economic facts dissappear. The same facts that perfectly predict how this will affect US economic power negatively.
Nobody is in control.
Doge meanwhile is dismantling key agencies and cutting funding that obviously undermine the Blob.
Nobody is in control.
Trump is an idiot and does not have any trust among foreign leaders so he can't get anything done either.
Nobody is in control.
https://www.nordea.com/en/news/mar-a-lago-accord-explained-a-new-era-for-the-dollar
Well, you may be right. We'll see.
I also never used words like "cabal" or claimed that Trump was being "managed." Those are assertions you made up yourself.
Here are quotes that support my previous assertions (1. continuous hawkish, primacy-based foreign policy, 2. bipartisan support among the elites):
Both articles discuss also several presidencies, including Trump 1, as a showcase for how the Blob limits the power of US presidents, as I also argued.
It's rather sad you still seem hellbent on invalidating my views when the articles state literally what I've been saying here. That's why I've stopped bothering to share sources - people here aren't able to deal with information that conflicts with their own views and it's just not worth my time and effort.
I had hoped, after all your grandstanding about the quality of discussion and locking of a thread, you might've approach things differently, but alas.
In addition to general communication, Internet social media seems to be an emerging secondary (perhaps toward primary) means of making news available; many major sources have verified presence. It's an evolving ecosystem. It's also poisoned by dis/mal/misinformation and other noise; that's a real problem with no easy, immediate solution.
Quoting Christoffer
This idea has been discussed. Most conclude
that Trump isnt following the plan.
You were implying control, called them deep state, etc. So yes, my eyes. Glazed. Still do. There's clearly nobody at the wheel.
Would you say leftism is closer to Hegel than to labor unions?
I know, but his inner circle are a bunch of conspiracy theorists and idiots like Kennedy. What normal people think about Miran's plan is not relevant to what Trump and his inner circle believes.
Because they are morons. Just look at the run through of how they came up with the tariff calculations. They essentially have a hand drawn blueprint to build a house and none of them has ever hold a hammer, that's how they're executing the plan.
I actually wrote my answer before reading that segment so yes, exactly like that... except Miran didn't provide a blueprint of Taj Mahal, but a shopping mall with a roof that won't hold the coming winter snow.
Quoting Joshs
So it doesn't matter if he isn't following the plan. People who've met Trump says that he acts all nice nice and shit in the room with them, but that he is totally clueless about most things overall. He has gathered loyalists around him and they all try to act out complex policies and orders on his behalf. They're the most incompetent cabal that's ever been.
Just because "there's a plan" doesn't mean anything is going well according to it, or that the plan was good to begin with, it just means that was the reasoning behind all of it.
If anything it hints as to when the dumpster fire might end as a failure to succeed with the end goal of the plan would be the reason to retreat from it. If the people doesn't demand Trump's blood, then the plan will surely be abandoned at some point.
In the end it doesn't change the fact that there are actual morons running the US. People usually say politicians are idiots, but that's mostly because they're failing something. This time... they are actual morons.
Youd have to talk to the individuals in the unions, but in general Id say that blue-collar unions will be dominated by social conservatives. Probably a bit different for teachers unions.
Ocasio-Cortez: Colleagues should probably disclose recent stock purchases now
[sup] Filip Timotija · The Hill · Apr 10, 2025[/sup]
Could just be "Trumps loose lips and sticky fingers" I suppose. Insider trading is still illegal.
We have a very different conception of leftism. I think for you, it's more of an academic thing. I say this because you said the strength you see in it is philosophical. I gather you see it as something that only people with specialized knowledge understand.
To me, it's about a response to the way that people end up being nothing more than machines in a liberal world. There's something deathly about liberalism. The Left is about finding a way back from that, while hopefully keeping some of the awesomeness that liberalism created.
As for conservatism, did you see the people carrying signs saying "Hands Off"? That is the very essence of conservatism: to maintain the status quo, to hold on to what we know works. Our species is alive and well in this moment because of our conservative side, that preserves traditions and hands them on to the next generation.
I remember you predicting that of all the wars that Trump is lusting to have, a war with Panama was the second likeliest one. Given that the US and Panama recently partnered to secure the canal and deter China, with a special nod to Panamas sovereignty, Im curious if your fears abated or if they still remain.
Bolds added. So, here is a former senior official, being sanctioned by the White House, for telling the truth! How long until fines are introduced by the MAGA Administration for 'disseminating false information about the 2020 election', 'false information' being that the election was won by Joseph R. Biden. And all of this, under the banner of so-called 'free speech', which in MAGA world, means adherence to Trump's lies.
More on this topic.
Of all the many outrages that Trump is visiting on the nation, this must be among the worst.
Quoting Wayfarer
Absolutely. And one of the most chilling things Ive ever heard are these comments from Miles Taylor, who , along with Krebs , was singled out by Trump for investigation, in his case for writing a book about his experience serving in Trumps first administration. In this short interview before the election, he warns the American public that the second Trump administration would be structured like Germanys third reich. Im horrified to admit that, while I have always despised Trump, a year ago I would have considered that forecast a bit over the top. Now I know that Taylors prediction was spot on.
Quoting NOS4A2
How about your fears? Do you fear that we now have our first dictator as president? Do you not find this EO terrifying:
Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods Presidential Memoranda
April 9, 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-associated-with-an-egregious-leaker-and-disseminator-of-falsehoods/
Thom Hartmann is certainly afraid:
Quoting frank
Tell me , Frank. Why does this sound like it could have come directly out of a New Right manifesto? Have you been dipping into Yarvin and Land?
Maybe the law no longer matters in the US.
Not really when Trump is in power. Nothing will come of it even if there was insider trading in the White House he'll just pardon them.
This is clearly what has happened in the U.K. Although in the U.K. there is an added class issue, whereby the privileged classes have been fending off the left ever since voter reform gave the vote to all people in 1918. So one can see where this effort developed over the last century and turned toxic.
There is a clear timeline where one can identify when the Tory party(the right) took the populist pill for this reason and then the Brexit saga and the demise of the Tory party followed.
That returns to my questions... what should the public do about it. Or rather, how far will the US let Trump go before doing something?
If he's aiming to create a true dictatorship, changing institutions to the point he has absolute power, then why does the US population tolerate it? Why do people talk about this like it's ok because he was democratically elected? A democratically elected candidate who turns to demolish the democracy that created him, should be removed by force. Any notion that such action would be anti-democratic is simply delusional and ignorant of the problem with the tolerance paradox.
The US has the ability to stop this, but if he continues, and it gets worse, and people's rights are further being suppressed, they might not be able to. The whole point with comparisons to the third reich is to stop it before it happens. How many fantasies are there in fiction about stopping Hitler before he gained absolute power?
Even if Trump wouldn't go that far, the tendencies, the push to gather loyalists around him, to get rid of critics, to have power over institutions that should govern him, removing people in society and sending them away, are all showing a trend that shouldn't be tolerated in the US.
He's already crossed so many lines that agencies and the people should remove Trump and his loyalists. Brand them as a dangerous political fringe group and force republicans to get their shit together and exile any such people from their party.
Witnessing all of this from the outside, it's like that scene in the movie "Civil War" in which the journalists enter a small town where the owner of a store behaves ignorant of what is going on: "Oh, we don't really follow the news... there's so much negativity" is the gist of it.
When is it time to wake up for real? Less talk more action so to speak.
Man, didn't know you were such an asshole.
There are people who have been trying to stop Trump since the first day of his calamitous rule. But as hes won a democratic vote, theres no obvious way to do it. Had he been convicted after either of his impeachments, it would have stopped him (damn you, McConnell!) Had the Supreme Court found that Article 19 or whatever it was disqualified him (which seemed obvious to everyone else) that might have stopped him. As it is, hes been voted in, and the only apparent remedy is that hes voted out, although whether he irredeemably damages the constitutional order in the meanwhile remains a possibility
//read Paul Krugman on the tarriffs//.
I read both articles and directly addressed your line of thought and how it's not supported by those articles. You seem to redefine interest as if I have to agree with a badly argued position. I don't agree for the reasons stated. My interest in your position was evident when I spend my valuable time trying to make sense of it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
This is what you asked evidence for, and that's what I gave. The sources provide a direct answer to your question, as I have underlined.
It's fine if you disagree, but you can disagree without all the phoney shit where you have to pretend there isn't an academic basis for the ideas I'm proposing, and without strawmans about cabals and what not.
If the other side surrenders or caves in, there's not going to be a war. And what I've been talking about is that Trump lusts territory for the US. The old colonial way...
Panama seems to be attempting to hold back Trump, which now seems to be blocking the building of permanent bases. And it should be noted that prior to Trump's annexation plans, Panama was open to joint-operations to patrol the lawless Panamanian - Colombian border. But Hegseth's visit to Panama just shows how hell bent Trump is to enlargen the territory of the US and the administration tries to sooth his desires.
The reality is that if Panama would oppose US actions, nobody in the World would care much about it. Just look at yourself: does the media interview Panamanians about what they think about Trump's actions? Greenlanders were talked to, but not Panamanians. The World is totally used to the US being a bully in it's backyard.
(A demonstrator stood over a burning poster with images of Hegseth, Trump, and Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino, during a protest against Hegseth's visit to Panama.)
The real question if the US truly goes forward with taking back the Canal Zone. Far more unlikely is annexing all of Panama. Here likely the White House will try to behave like "the adult in the room" and try to limit the most delusional ideas of Trump. I guess Panama, just like Denmark and Greenland, try to just stay low and have Trump going off at others and forgetting his most delusional ideas.
And let's see if we get the drone war against the Mexican Cartels or US strikes on Iran. All what you wanted so much when voting for Trump.
First, how can we know that Trump didn't work to oppose all of that behind the scenes? Second, it still shows the guardrails aren't working.
If he continues down the path of actual fascism, then it doesn't matter what the democratic process is as he has then dismantled it. Will people then still continue arguing that "he was elected" and "he wasn't voted out"?
My question is, at what point would people act outside of the normal procedurs to get rid of him? At what step, action or behavior from Trump and his followers, would the people say enough is enough and simply remove him by force.
Because we are witnessing something that could be at the very edge of a hostile takeover of power in the US. An installation of actual governmentally based true fascism. So I'm wondering, what would it take for people to act at the latest to stop something like that?
Or should it have been done already, by any notion of such behavior? Should a democracy tolerate things escalating to the very edge before taking actions to defend it? Or should it defend it sooner?
The Constitution allows the president to become a temporary dictator during a war. For instance, Lincoln freed the slaves with war power. He suspended habeas corpus and put people in jail for criticizing the government.
If Trump does that (and doesn't end up with a bullet in his head), the problem is that Congress would likely go along with it. That's what's unusual about this situation. People watched Trump try to derail an election and elected him again. This is what a lot of Americans want. There would likely be riots that people like @Joshs would attend, but riots don't do anything.
In other words, the fact that Vance is waiting to become president and we know he favors authoritarianism, means that the Democrats would have to morph into a political dynamo to counter the drift toward dictatorship. Could that happen? I guess. I doubt it.
No way, I love it. I remember this guy attempting to subvert the duly-elected president from the inside, and being rather public about it. Instead of resigning, like an adult, he wrote gossipy articles and leaked information for his friends in the beltway and among the resistance racket, which was lucrative at the time. It was pure deep-state dinner theater and he should have lost his security clearance years ago.
But why are you afraid?
It doesnt look like your prediction panned out, much like the one you made about the collapse of the FBI. It appears that the opposite is the case: a deal, a partnership, with the United States acknowledging Panamanian sovereignty. That could all still collapse and fall apart into war and annexation, but so far nothing like it.
Next up, cartels and Iran. Both of these will need to occur to get you back in the green. I read you often and enjoy your efforts, but Im still trying to assess whether Im being given insight or fear-mongering.
Quoting NOS4A2
I dont know you, and havent followed most of your previous comments on politics, so I dont know what your political perspective is in general. There has been much written about the New Right, which is a big tent including Peter Thiel, J.D.Vance, Curtis Yarvin, Blake Masters, Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk. Some of them, like Musk, Thiel and Mark Andreesen, are enamored of the technocracy movement which believes in government by a technocratic elite. Others (Yarvin) are in favor of something more like a monarchical leadership. A. inner of them have high respect for Victor Orban? What do you think of him, and where you do stand with respect to these figures and this movement? Is there one among them who is a kind of guiding light for you? You certainly dont sound like someone who considers the Reagan or Bush neo-liberal free market vision to be an inspiration for you.
In this case I think the effectiveness would be in the legacy of the protests. Trump has already shown a penchant for using force against protestors. Some people would likely die in the clash.
Quoting frank
I wonder how many died of the 1 million who demonstrated in Puerto Rico? Ill bet some would have thought it was worth it.
Quoting frank
I watched him try and derail an election, too. And yet I wasnt convinced that he is a full-blown dictator until a few months ago. If it took me that long to figure it out, you can imagine that it will take even longer for those non -authoritarian types who voted for him reluctantly to come to that conclusion. We just had no precedent in this country for an all-out authoritarian takeover of the highest office. We havent learned how to read the signs. I would even give the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesnt want an Orban or Putin-like figure running our country. But he only sees scattered pieces of the puzzle and they dont add up to tyranny for him. Instead, they can be brushed off as the aggressive power-plays of politics as usual.
Which is probably why Trump uses "emergency laws" for stuff that's not in emergency. He essentially invents some emergency out of thin air and then do whatever he wants.
Quoting frank
Not really, if Trump installs loyalists all around and threaten the careers of people, he can intimidate the congress to just follow what he wants. This is how fascist dictators comes into power from a democracy. Lazy and cowards who drop down kissing his ass because they risk losing their position of power or career. Republicans are full of these kinds of fuckers.
Quoting frank
Depends on the scale. If the US stands on the brink of actual dictatorship and fascism, I would hope millions of people take those fuckers down before its too late.
Quoting frank
If so, then bullet to the head. Seriously, political violence is not a thing that should exist in democracies. But if democracy is dismantled and a nation is transformed into a proper dictatorship, then operation Valkyrie the way out of it. Preferably with success.
I mean, this is the core of my question. When will the people of the US do something? Like,at what point of a transition over to authoritarianism and a dictatorship is it appropriate to take action? And how do one know if it is going in that direction for certain?
We have the side of respecting democracy and protecting it even when someone we don't like has the power. And then we have nazi Germany. At what point in between do we know that "now is the time for another type of action to prevent nazi Germany"?
In my opinion, the time for action is already here. Trump has gone too far so many times that he should be dragged out of office and the nation initiates a re-election. It's better to do that now rather than risking it going so far that it's either too late or violence gets too real.
Exactly what is the negative aspect of doing a re-election demanding republicans to put forth a more proper candidate?
Quoting Christoffer
Have you been attending the 50501 protests? Theres another one planned for next Saturday. I think youll find that they will grow significantly in size over the course of the year. https://www.fiftyfifty.one/
This is what we need to do here:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/854197/1-million-people-could-take-part-puerto-rico-protests
My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country. Go Joshs. Do that protest! Quote some Hegel to them. That'll leave them befuddled.
Quoting Joshs
Eh, he's 78. He's going to be too tired to be a dictator in 4 years. Fortunately he's all we have to pay attention to. Nobody else. :roll:
https://apple.news/AdbjSJ7ijQ9S8SBvkbyN3SQ
That about sums up this past week, where the great businessman and grand negotiator managed to negotiate his way into trillions of lost dollars.
Reminds me of the Alcohol is the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems joke. In this case, the alcohol is Trump maybe Trump Vodka, for example, which went belly up.
Anyway as the casino-bankrupting Trump sinks the economy and once again reduces the United States to a laughingstock, while accomplishing nothing beyond more efficiently distributing wealth to the .001%, I wonder two things: (1) when will China be the worlds sole superpower? Looking more like a decade or two, tops.
And (2): given this was all totally predictable, just how stupid is the American electorate? Perhaps its a sign of resignation, a suicide wish. A degenerated culture. Cant blamed them, I guess theyve been systematically reduced to slaves over the years. Still, its worth pondering
And what do you plan on doing? Anything? What would
you do if you were a university president threatened with loss of grant money, or a news service or law firm threatened with loss of access? Would you fight back or acquiesce?
I remember when I first discovered that one of the things the 1% does with their money is control the public conversation to reinforce their position. I was so shocked I was ready for the revolution then. I remember wanting to be part of a firing squad.
Give me a revolution and I'll salute it.
Quoting frank
Im not interested in a revolution. Im interested in protecting people in my community that I care about. And you didnt answer my question:
What would you do if you were a university president threatened with loss of grant money, or a news service or law firm threatened with loss of access? Would you fight back or acquiesce?
I have been for a while now. I was born at the wrong time. And you sir are no leftist.
Quoting Joshs
Fight back how? Through the courts? Or standing in the middle of the street with a freaking sign in my hands?
* Crashed the stock market
* Crashed the bond market
* Crashed the dollar
* Alienated all of our allies (except Russia)
* United the entire world against us (except Russia)
And these are just the immediate effects of his malignant imbecility. Longer term, we can expect surging inflation, factory closures, exploding debt, recession at minumum.
I hope all the Trumpies are happy!
We haven't been even three months in on a four year term, and here you are eagerly trying to declare Trump a success and declaring my views to be wrong...because nothing of them has happened in less than three months. Let's just look at what at least a couple years give us under Trump. Let's just enjoy all the winning Americans will be through then.
Besides, let's just look at the forecast you have made:
(2 months ago)
Quoting NOS4A2
Does he want zero tariffs? EU would be open to them. Trump isn't at all interested. He wants tariffs and domestic manufacturing. Trade is bad. But as I said, it's just been few months...
Let's see just what happens to this forecast of yours.
And are you walking around in Canada with your Maga hat on, @NOS4A2?
https://swedenherald.com/article/feels-like-a-replay-comparing-trump-to-duterte
I also just saw a new video by "Then & Now" on YouTube which goes into detail the parallels between populists of the past and populists right now. And made the argument that we should talk about these times for what they are and not just call it "fascist". That the era we live in is truly populistic, in the same way we've seen populists in history rise and fall, but today, at a much greater scale.
The augmentation of populists through the use of social media has skyrocket their rise in society and formed a new global political behavior. The authoritarianism we see is fundamentally populistic rather than fascist. This form of populism will probably stay with us for long, as long as social media helps rallying these movements in the corners of democracies.
We will never be able to dismantle it because it's an inherent consequence of democratic societies. But in our social media age, it has risen to become a far more influential percentage of power within a democratic government.
And since the US operates on a bipartisan system, if populists gain power in one of the parties, they have a much greater chance to fully overtake the government, and to do it fast.
It all depends on how willing the people are to let this happen. If the Democrats are unable to muster an opposition fast, they can't be turned to for a solution. And so it's up to the people to govern and save democracy in the US from the risk of this backslide escalating.
In what way? I'm not sure, but million people marches and demonstrations outside the White House would certainly be the first step. To put a pressure on the powers on a scale rarely seen and not easily ignored. On top of that, making sure to help any investigative journalists getting access to evidence of Trump abusing his power, rigging the markets, connections to other authoritarian leaders of the world etc.
As we've seen in the protests so far, they can gain in strength. And the pressure cooker is on, people are starting to wake up to what Trump is doing and I think the wind blows in the right direction at the moment.
I just hope the momentum is there to course correct this blunder of giving Trump the keys to the kingdom before things get harder to do so.
It's a good and interesting parallel.
I visited Philippines when I was 16 with my parents who were on a work trip there. We stayed in a nice skyscraper hotel in Makati in the business district of Manila. Few months later there was a military coup attempt and the visitors of the hotel were taken hostage by the rebelling military forces for a while. The coup failed and the hostages were released.
That was what Philipines was like in the 1980's after the ouster of the dictator Marcos, when Philippines was under the shaky times of Corazon Aquino. This just shows what kind of democracy the Philippines is. However now Duterte is now under custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet on the other hand, Bongbong Marcos, the son of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, is the current president. Democracy has survived, sort of, in the Philippines. Can we say that the Philippines is a democracy? Yes, perhaps not the most well functioning example of a justice state, but still.
Perhaps this is the most likely outcome of the Trump era: the US won't face authoritarianism like a dictatorship of Mussolini or Hitler, but a situation where the institutions of the Republic continue... sort of. Yet by any measurement of just how democratic the US is will simply plunge.
I cant say I have any guiding lights and dont silo myself into any particular brand of this or that political philosophy. I like to know what others think so my readings have spanned the entire spectrum and I am comfortable gleaning insights from all of them. My political perspective is always changing but I tend towards anarchy and individualism; and if I had to put a label on it, the only one I would wear comfortably is individualist.
What is your perspective in general?
All that being said, I havent read anything of the figures youve mentioned save for some of Elons X posts. I dont know Orban, have never seen him speak, nor have I read anything hes written. All I know is that, according to some, Im supposed to fear him because his name is often evoked with some frightening words.
I have declared zero successes, to be sure, nor have I made any predictions of future events. Thats a fools game, yet it is absolutely pertinent to the lucrative anti-Trump racket.
The racket goes like this: predict a future Trump calamity, like a depression or nuclear war or fascist takeover. When it never arrives, promote oneself and ones own failed prophesies as part of the efforts that helped stop it. Rinse, repeat.
What about the inverse situation, if one makes a correct prediction? If for example, someone correctly predicts Trump's assassination, would that person be accused of aiding and abetting, or even conspiring? A correct prediction is very suspicious looking.
NOS is conflating prediction with the identification of risks, or a trajectory. So that the person identifying the risk can be accused of failing to predict correctly, when the prediction does not come true. Leaving the ground open for accusations of political bias, activism, intellectual weakness etc etc.
Such approaches are often accompanied by a bullish approach where the person (in NOSs) position does what they are accusing their interlocutors of doing, but handwaves away any attempts to point it out.
Seems to be a theme on the right at the moment. Accusing their opponents of what they are doing themselves.
Teslas next I suppose.
Had to laugh;
The funny thing about this joke is that it is true;
Domestically - removed the vote from lots of married women. Deporting critics of Israel. Removed the right to due process. Ignored a unanimous supreme court order.
Newsom jumps into economic damage control
[sup] Dustin Gardiner, Blake Jones · POLITICO · Apr 7, 2025[/sup]
Hmm...
Military contractors pitch unprecedented prison plan for detained immigrants
[sup] Dasha Burns, Myah Ward · POLITICO · Apr 11, 2025[/sup]
Apart from the vague familiarity with...other things, wouldn't this run into legal troubles?
They're going to have a labor crisis in a few months and all the immigrant stuff should subside. For a while.
You have made, perhaps unintentionally, predictions of the future.
Quoting NOS4A2
You don't have to be the advocate here for Trump, and I think it just blinds you from noticing for example what I say, because you assume the juxtaposition of people being either supporters of Trump or the haters of Trump.
What I'm worried about is that I don't see any kind of way for the polarization that is happening in the US to end. And that's not just because of the Trump supporters, it takes two opposing camps for polarization to happen. I really don't see a way how these two camps would come closer to each other.
And that the two biggest economies stop trading with each other will cause a huge difficulties for the global economy. It doesn't make much sense. Now Trump can easily turn this back: he above all, can make a total 180 degree turn and we'll say it's the famous 4D chess.
So the idea that Elon Musk has purposed would be a great idea. I myself would think that a free trade area of USMCA + UK + EU would be a great idea. The way things are now looks like the possibility of a global recession is quite real, even if things can still change.
And I if I'm wrong, then great! That's wonderful news.
China Deals a Blow to Donald Trump's F-47 Combat Jet Dream
[sup] Brendan Cole · Newsweek · Apr 7, 2025[/sup]
US scrambles as China cuts off key minerals for fighter jets
[sup] Boyko Nikolov · BulgarianMilitary · Apr 11, 2025[/sup]
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, the point I raised was what you said in the first paragraph above. You think the Blob is still in control. So they must be controlling Trump or they aren't in control. In fact, that Trump is a lightning rod, suggests his incompentence is even strategically used. A useful idiot if you will.
Quoting Tzeentch
You called them "deep state", which yes I translated as "cabal", because they are not "deep state" but a result of structural circumstances. The fact you are looking for "who or what" comprises it, further underlines you are cherry picking from the articles as both articles explicitly point to structure. Porter points to habit. Friedman identifies group thinking, donor-driven incentives, political insulation and an operational mindset on how instead of why. All structural aspects and none of it supports the view of a "deep state".
You are making a translation of the article into something bordering conspiracy which I take issue with as unsupported in those very articles.
What Porter and Friedman are describing is more akin to an emerging property of structure, shared ideology and behaviour, then an elite, deep state or cabal, or whatever term you want to give to it. Even if the end result is named the "foreign policy elite", it's incorrect to understand it in other terms than structural. It's analoguous to try and figure out "who or what" is behind systemic injustice. It's the wrong interpretation.
Returning to the original point of your belief the Blob is still in control. While the Blob may constrain the execution of some of Trump's plans, they aren't in control, given the sheer idiocy of policy in the past months. In fact, I think statements of the Blob being "in control" are inherently confused, since it has no agency. It appears concerted when it is merely emergent from the establishment.
I suspect the only plan Trump has is grift on a scale we've never seen before. Create market swings that Trump causes and will benefit from. Everything else, his stance on foreign policy, trade etc. is how a conman misdirects attention from what's really going on. What the dismantling of democratic institutions has to do with it, I have no clue. But that too is clearly at odds with the Blob, since it undermines trust in the US and therefore its economic primacy.
The articles outline my broader view of what comprises 'Washington', and how it functions. (After all, that's what you asked a source for!) E.g., the president's influence is limited, and long-term US foreign policy ('grand strategy') is largely determined by a political elite class that functions along completely different lines than the democratic process.
Quoting Benkei
It's you who tries to warp that into talk of cabals, because probably the idea that states function along other lines than the democratic deeply conflicts with your worldview, and the way you cope is by writing me off as a 'conspiracy theorist'.
I've already given you the quotes in which both articles describe in detail what the elite class is comprised of, and it is clearly not strictly structural (though obviously, a considerable part is structural), by virtue of the simple fact that parts of the foreign policy elite have public panel discussions in which they openly discuss their ideas, the well-known power of lobbies, etc. - even single lobbies, for example AIPAC.
Quoting Benkei
That much remains to be seen.
Only focusing on the short-term makes one miss the bigger picture, and if the various Trump threads attest to anything it's TPF's complete obsession with Trump's daily ramblings, or whatever Trump's political opponents vomit out at the same frequency.
In terms of geopolitics, a few months is insignificant. Even a single presidency is insignificant, as Trump 1 proves; back then people were exhibiting the same mass hysteria and nothing ended up happening.
Quoting Benkei
The US dumpstered its international credibility under Biden, due to its complicity in the Gaza genocide and its cynical dealings in Ukraine - both accumulations of decades of questionable US involvement. The only part of the world that continues to pretend the US maintains any credibility is the West itself, whose ties to the US are completely different in nature and not based on credibility at all.
As I have suggested before, Trump is being used, inadvertently or no, as a lightning rod to project all of America's problems on. When Trump is gone, "America is saved!" and the deeper causes for America's problems (which undoubtedly involve 'the Blob') will remain unexamined.
Moreover, unpopular but necessary actions, such as throwing Ukraine under the bus and re-establishing normal relations with Russia, can conveniently be blamed on 'madman Trump'.
I'll believe it's all the result of wanton incompetence when the American empire is definitively resting on the garbage heap of history.
It has nothing to do with Trump.
With or without him, the United States is morally bankrupt, utterly and completely. It doesn't need supposed threats of Trumpian fascism to turn into a mass murder machine. It already is one - has been for decades.
As for the blob, every state has a blob. The words state and blob could be interchangeable and still be describing the same thing.
I'm quite clearly not. I'm explaining that the nexus for raising the term "cabal" stemmed from your use of "deep state", which I've argued against from the get-go. If we agree about it, then we can stop it, right?
Quoting Tzeentch
As I said, doing this, is cherry picking what the articles are about. They aren't about specific groups of people but structural aspects of decision making processes resulting in a myopic approach to foreign policy. Lobby activities are but a part of it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I've rather clearly set out how Trump's policies regarding the tariff war undermine US primacy. If the Blob is in favour of US primacy then it's not in control because it's allowing actions that grossly undermine that primacy. The idea that there's some sort of 4D-chess going on doesn't make economic facts dissappear.
This tells me little though. We were talking about control by the Blob of Trump. I'm still taking issue with that position as there's no argument for it and it's not supported by those articles because we have a clear deviation of the doctrine of primacy. If your point is that this is all smoke and mirrors, you need to do more than raise the possibility or there's nothing to engage with.
How would it work? What is the underlying grand plan that they allow Trump to threaten to leave NATO (alienating allies), start trade wars (alienating allies) and throwing Ukraine under the bus (alienating allies)? At what point is this going to turn in favour of the US primacy doctrine? What possible mechanism will do this?
The days of US primacy are obviously definitively over. The system has become multipolar and the US is having to shift its strategy accordingly.
The US empire is wildly overextended, leaving it no room to divert its resources towards China which is the only peer competitor in the system, and thus the most important.
In other words, the US is already in the process of cutting its losses to create a situation from which it can counteract China sustainably. It is weighing which interests to keep afloat, and which to cut off.
That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. That's why Trump is trying to cut a deal with Iran - Israel cannot win a war on its own, and the US is too weak to bail it out. etc.
My main point here being: this easily fits into the changing global security and power structure, and thus there is little indication that 'the Blob' has lost control.
Most of the hysteria focuses around the idea that 'real damage' is being done. That's the image the media likes to project. But in reality markets will recover and Trump's rhetoric means nothing over the long-term, as Trump 1 already showed.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's over, therefore burn all your bridges? Even in a multipolar world a country is presumably stronger with allies than without.
Quoting Tzeentch
Threatening to leave NATO certainly will increase EU spending on military equipment. We'll just not be spending it on US material. Starting trade wars immediately affects both economic performance of the US but also its ability to produce military equipment due to its reliance on rare earth metals. Ukraine support is and was a fraction of what the EU provides and they can certainly stop such economic aid altogether but it doesn't make sense to alienate allies while doing so or to stop intelligence sharing. I mean, if the US would just say, we think China is the bigger threat and the EU needs to resolve Ukraine that's a different story than trying to blackmail Ukraine in surrender and giving a way half of the country to Russia and calling it "peace".
Altogether, if it is intended to pivot to China and diminish the overextension, making everything wildly more expensive and difficult does not help.That's not cutting your losses, that's shooting yourself in the foot.
Quoting Tzeentch
Where have you read this and when was it that the US had ties with Russia with the goal to counterbalance China? I'm not familiar with it and nothing turns up searching for it.
That the EU will not engage in a power struggle in the Pacific is most likely correct, assuming no NATO member is attacked. But that Russia is going to turn its back on China any time soon is, in my view, a pipe dream. Both countries are autocratic, both countries oppose US power and China is Russia's most important trading partners.
Meanwhile, even if you want to improve ties with Russia, it's not clear why that needs to be at the expensive of NATO or existing alliances. And certainly the tariff wars still don't make sense (if you want to target China, just do so).
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, no, I don't see it. Apparently you consider certain things self evident but there are different and much smarter ways to go about it then what has happened now, which suggests the Blob is not in control and since Trump isn't smart enough, he isn't in control either. It's a regular clusterfuck.
Well, it's been fun while it lasted.
Influence isn't free, and NATO and project Ukraine cost resources to maintain; resources the US can no longer spare.
What the "trade war" is about, it is too early to tell. It could be mainly about decoupling US and Chinese markets, to avoid having to take that pain when real conflicts start appearing. It may be about something else, like the US wanting to become less dependent on foreign markets altogether, foreseeing perhaps global turmoil.
Quoting Benkei
The articles are somewhat older, from a time where primacy may still have been considered a feasible outcome. Modern developments have put that illusion to rest. Primacy is still the endgoal, mind you, but the US has lost it and will need to reclaim it.
Quoting Benkei
I don't think the US is definitively burning bridges. Trump said some words - that's it.
But to the extent that they are, they're burning bridges which are no longer useful - cutting off those parts of the US empire that will not be instrumental going into the future.
Quoting Benkei
If the Americans have to give up Europe to get Russia back on their side (something which the Russians were very interested in prior to 2014), they will. They need Russia to counterbalance China.
That is one bridge the Americans may have definitively burned, though. I think that's what recent diplomatic efforts are meant to find out.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, what I meant to say was that they used China to counterbalance the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Right now it would be the other way around - using Russia to counterbalance China.
Quoting Benkei
The Europeans are committed to Ukraine, it seems, and have been resisting an ugly peace from being signed in favor of extending the war. So the reason is quite is obvious.
If the Europeans voluntarily start kowtowing before Washington again, then surely there is no reason to cut them off. But if they get uppity...
Quoting Benkei
Let's hear it!
This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity.
And if the US would be serious about China, it would try to tighten the alliances it has in the Pacific, not start trade wars with it's allies. (Because yes, putting up 10% tariffs and threatening higher ones in 90 days is to start a trade war with others too.)
Why Trump wants to cut the alliances and alienate the friends of the US and then grovel in front of the Russians who view him as an useful idiot is beyond me. Russia knows clearly well how weak and capricious Trump is how easily the US can change it's policies after Trump. Yet it seems that many are eagerly enthusiastic about these developments when the US is clearly shooting itself in the foot.
Well, there's a discussion now in Germany about acquiring nuclear weapons. That isn't likely, but what is likely that the nuclear deterrence of Europe will be discussed a lot. France naturally has long time talked about strategic autonomy. Before it was a French pipe dream, now it's a serious alternative.
[quote=NY Times]Mr. Bukele, who has positioned himself as a key ally to Mr. Trump, in part by opening his countrys prisons to deportees, sat next to the president and a group of cabinet officials who struck a combative tone over the case, which has reached the Supreme Court.
Of course Im not going to do it, Mr. Bukele said when reporters asked if he was willing to help return the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father of three who was deported last month. The Trump administration has acknowledged that his deportation was the result of an administrative error.
The message from the meeting was clear: Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Bukele had any intention of returning Mr. Abrego Garcia, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that he should come back to the United States. The case has come to symbolize Mr. Trumps defiance of the courts and his willingness to deport people without due process.[/quote]
So this is the test case. Trump is basically challenging the Supreme Court's order: 'you gonna make me?!?'
Testing what? If Trump can follow normal practice of power under the constitution of the US, or if the guardrails of US democracy actually works?
If Trump doesn't comply, then marshals should drag his fat ass out of office to face the consequences.
There's so much BS going on that all the previous crimes and shenanigans of previous presidents seem rather innocent and unremarkable.
Why isn't the guardrails even stronger? There should be a non-tolerance against stuff like this. Immediate cancellation of presidential power. Any other nation with proper political structures would remove someone like Trump in an instance and declare immediate re-election.
I really don't understand what's so hard here. Is the US too corrupt, too stupid, or too incompetent? Or all at once? Maybe it's just too fundamentalist as a Christian nation, viewing the leader as a divine figure and untouchable. It's rather pathetic actually.
He's testing whether he can defy the Supreme Court and not be held to account. The Supreme Court are hardly going to issue an arrest warrant for POTUS.
Quoting Christoffer
All three, going on appearances.
Here's a gift link WaPo OP from 13th April
No he isn't. The SCOTUS said "facilitate" the return. They left out "effectuate."
You guys keep crying wolf. When the wolf shows up, you'll have nothing to say to mark the occasion.
The Government is now arguing that Judge Xinis has no right to decide foreign policy issues - but there is no foreign policy issue at stake. At stake, are the human rights of an individual who has been wrongly imprisoned in a draconian jail outside US jurisdiction. The next hearing before Judge Xinis is Tuesday 15th April. This is part of an emerging pattern of defiance and deprecation of judges in matters pertaining to the illegal arrests and deportations.
Nice correction. Well done.
I sense this will be a major conflict, as, after all, Harvard is one of the, if not the, most important intellectual centre of American culture. Trump's attempt to throttle it an egregious violation of First Amendment principles. (Funny how 'free speech' only counts for those who express the right views, isn't it?)
At stake, are the human right of an individual who has been wrongly imprisoned in a draconian jail outside US jurisdiction... at the request of the Trump administration who his paying the Salvadoran government to keep him incarcerated.
This is the guy behind all these machinations. One of the world's most dangerous men at this point in time.
No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to.
And what's gonna stop him?
I agree under current circumstances it seems far-fetched, but geopolitics is a game of the long-term, and it's strictly business.
Russia has tried since 1991 to align itself with the West; they thought that was the winning strategy. In 2014 this stopped because the Ukraine conflict created an unbridgable gap.
That conflict is now coming to end, and it's a legitimate question whether the Russian-Chinese alliance will hold, and whether it will hold in the long-term. Or whether a normalization between Russia and the West will cause a drift back to the pre-2014 status quo.
Personally, I don't think the Russians will be as interested in close ties with the West as they were in 1991, simply because China was a developing nation back then, whereas today it is increasingly the center of global affairs together with other Asian countries like India.
But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. A Russia-China alliance, accompanied by support from Iran, India and several Central Asian nations, unite 2/3rds of Eurasia - essentially a fail condition for the American empire, which can only flourish if the rest of the world remains divided.
Is that Godzilla in your bio pic?
Trump is like King Kong rattling his cage, looking for weakness. Remember in the movie, theres a time when he rattles the cage and it opens and out he comes. The guard rails have been removed and you can see people running around, screaming.
What people like Wayfarer are doing is pointing out that hes rattling his cage, vigorously. If theres a chance that his cage door can be flung open, oughtnt we prepare ourselves rather than ignore it and run around in circles, screaming, when it happens.
Also there is the issue of what damage hes doing and reputations hes trashing. The U.S. is a laughing stock.
I find the presupposition that it is realistic to ween Russia from the Chinese teet a pipe dream.
Quoting Tzeentch
For starters, they can stop doing all the stupid shit I'm calling out as stupid.
People probably thought the same thing about splitting the Soviet Union and Maoist China.
To discount the idea completely is simply short-sighted. But I do agree that under today's circumstances I don't find it likely.
Over the long-term, US strategy will be with virtual certainty to try and use Russia to balance both Europe and China. It's a question of when that option becomes feasible again.
The real geopolitics is between the U.S., China and Europe. Which is now being won hands down by China, while the U.S. keeps repeated shooting herself in the foot and Europe is now stepping more onto the world stage. The pragmatism of Europe will balance well with the pragmatism of China and could potentially introduce some stability. Countries like the U.S. and India are too gung-ho at this stage which will push the EU and China closer together.
For the U.S. to remain relevant on the world stage she needs to work with China and Europe to reach stability and pragmatism and restore the global order that was being forged via the UN. This is not a good time due to pandemics and climate change to break the world order.
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf
In the clause "government and leadership reform" DOE requires a restructuring of governance to reduce the influence of individuals "more committed to activism than scholarship". Seems to me a perfectly acceptable position to be an activist and scholar so this is a blunt instrument to create consequences to exercising your first amendment rights. At a minimum it would have a chilling effect on free speech. Unconstitutional.
While the government can impose conditions on funding, exercising such power is not unlimited. The broad and intrusive nature of the demands in the letter to a private organisation probably exceed the scope of authority.
I don't think there's an obligation under regular law to report criminal behaviour but this letter requires Harvard to report "conduct violations" of foreign students to Homeland Security and the State Department. That's... not troubling at all. Especially considering what the current government's idea is of anti-semitism.
Comments like these give me the heeby-jeebies with the implied assumptions underlying it. We do not need pragmatism, we need a revolution away from the current world order and that will be messy. I think the instinct of all the right wing nutjobs is correct and that the times were already destablising and they are accelerating it in the hopes of coming out on top. The alternative, more democratic, more equitable world order cannot be ushered in with China at the helm or in cooperation with them; only Europe can currently hope to offer it together with young democracies.
From a geographical perspective it is, for instance, ridiculous China has more influence in Africa than the EU. Not that I want us to influence Africa but we certainly should partner with them and create very close ties with fundamentally democratic societies. We need to come together across ideological lines thereby reducing Chinese influence with Mauritius, Cape Verde, Botswana, South Africa, Fhana, Seychelles and Namibia and offer them trading terms that would be enviable for other countries to want to start political reforms.
Tariffs and import duties should be ideologically driven. We should be telling autocratic countries what to do, we should let democratic countries find their way on their own but with the clear support of a peer with like-minded political outlook on geopolitical stability and what the world ought to be like.
Finally, the current world order does nothing to stop pandemics or climate change or indeed to prioritise human beings over "the economy". It's historic track record has been terrible.
Im suggesting moves towards a stabilisation of the situation. global cooperation over pandemic response and climate change are just about holding together at the moment. This could easily reach the point where these things break down and they need to be stabilised, strengthened and restored, to enable our civilisation to ride the storm and fend off the next collapse, or fracturing of civilisation.
This is a bit short-sighted.
Geopolitics is all about the long-term, and thus about potential. Looking at the world as it is right now and assuming it will always be that way is not geopolitics.
Europe has the population and GDP to rival the US and China, but right now it is not even a great power, mainly due to their own ineptitude and voluntary vassalage to the United States. The post-Cold War European structure is so categorically defunct that it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all.
War in Europe seems an impossibility today, but if European nations fail to unite it's a virtual guarantee over the long run. The problem for them is that the main political structure, the European Union, is a complete disaster and will not facilitate unity unless it is completely restructured.
Russia on the other hand is a great power, albeit the smallest of the three by quite a distance. Russia is the largest country on earth, rich in natural resources and is located on one of the most geopolitically important stretches of land on the planet:
Russia is, and will be for the foreseeable future, in prime position to connect and/or unite (parts of) the 'World Island', which is the most important geographical area on the planet due to the concentration of population and natural resources.
America's principal strategy to maintain primacy has been to keep the World Island divided.
Obviously, Russia took a big hit from the Cold War, but despite its post-Cold War weakness, it managed to stay relevant because it retained its geopolitical knowhow. It plays a weak hand, but it plays it well.
Europe came out of the Cold War strong, but threw any and all geopolitical knowhow out of the window and made itself completely irrelevant in geopolitical terms. The European Union is a joke internationally, and while nations like France, Great Britain and Germany maintained some composure, none of them seem to realize that on their own they're completely irrelevant as well.
Because Europe lacks the geopolitical insight and political structure to fight for its own interests, the only question is who gets to exploit it. Currently, that is still the United States.
All of this is to say, the China-Russia alliance is by far the most important geopolitical development of the post-Cold War geopolitical structure.
Without Russia on its side, China has no guarantee it will maintain access to foreign markets in the case of a conflict with the United States, which will undoubtedly involve a general naval blockade.
Iran and Central-Asia are important for the same reason, and Pakistan and Bangladesh are critical links in connecting China and India overland. It is no coincidence that the United States has been deeply involved in this region since the end of World War 2.
The reason why people are discounting it is because they aren't short sighted. In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China.
Quoting Punshhh
That's not a problem for Americans. Most Americans have no idea how the US appears to other countries, and don't care. They're just sort of oblivious.
It could very well be.
The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.
As I've outlined before in this thread, due to the way US politics works I am inclined to lean towards the latter. Presidents simply don't have that much power, as the Obama and Trump 1 administrations attest to. I might change my mind if I see the US becoming fundamentally unsecure on a geopolitical level, but for now the US is safe and secure on its island.
The days of a US-led global order are simply behind us, and even the hawkish US foreign policy elite will have to contend with that reality. Therefore radical shifts in US foreign policy are to be expected.
Quoting Mr Bee
Not now, but if Trump achieves normalization with Russia and we are 10 years down the line, who is to say?
Russia and China used to have very serious differences which disallowed them from forming a unified bloc against the West during the Cold War. After the Cold War, the Russians put a lot of effort in aligning themselves to the West, clearly preferring the West over China.
So again, it's not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance. Not to mention, the international system is very unpredictable at the moment, and it's impossible to tell how countries' relations will develop if another great crisis hits; a conflict in the Pacific, for example.
Perhaps good ties with Russia won't split the alliance, but it might keep the Russians from taking China's side militarily.
I would disagree here.
The window where Russia would have truly aligned itself to the West has long been shut. I think that time ended during the Kosovo war. The rift happened already in the Yeltsin years. And it was was totally evident with the Russo-Georgian war in 2008. I've always said that for Russia align to the West, we would have needed truly larger than life leaders both in Washington and in Moscow. When the leader of the FSB and his KGB friends got into power, the window was totally shut. But there was in the 1990's a firm belief that this could happen. I remember a German military attache saying that it might be a possibility that Russia would join NATO. I myself and other Finns (then Finland non-aligned) were dumbfounded by the remark.
The West has simply fooled itself to think that Russia would align itself with the West and wouldn't see the West as an adversary, thus all the "reboots" of the US-Russo relations done by Bush and Obama (and of course, by Trump). This has been a disastrous mistake, just like when the West thought that China (and the Chinese Communist Party) would somehow change.
Quoting Tzeentch
This is Trumpian or Russophile daydreaming, as if the relations between Europe and Russia would normalize. Russia is an existential threat for too many European countries. If Putin is ousted and Russia finally has it's revolution and the Russian's discard the disastrous attempts to retake their Empire, then those relations could improve. Even if that would happen, who knows, still likely many would be wary about a Pro-Western Russia. There would be the threat of a Putinist takeover.
And this is actually the real damage that is now happening to US - Western relations: even if the Trump administration sooner or later ends, there's still this feeling that Americans can choose a nativist-isolationist leader again, who is as hostile to the West as Trump is now.
Quoting Tzeentch
Those countries that have now sent troops and "volunteers" to fight alongside Russian troops in Ukraine show very clearly which are the countries that are the true allies of Russia.
That alliance is the Anti-American alliance, now clearly formed and visible. It's just the hallucinations of the crazy people to think that somehow now Russia would want closer ties with the US. What it only wants is to drive a wedge between the US and it's allies, and Trump here is the best thing ever that has happened to Putin.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, this attempt is another form of self-mutilation, shoot oneself in the foot, just as is the crazy idea of declaring sky high tariffs against the whole World and then think it would create prosperity as domestic manufacturing would increase. Just look how long it took for Trump to blink and postpone the tariffs for 90 days. This is similar nonsense, that only a moron can do.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's likely the reality, with the execption of India, which has and will go it's own way. Just remember that China has as an close ally Pakistan, not India. And China and India have tensions along there border. Yet in the debate club called BRICS both China and India can happily coexist.
This is just assisted by Trump trying to destroy every alliance the US has with other countries... perhaps with the exception of the US-Israeli alliance.
The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise.
Somehow the "madman Trump" option with the "US foreign policy elite" being limited to "Trump acolytes in his administration" seems to be a satisfying answer here.
Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it.
Are you ignoring that all nations are reshaping their trades right at this moment? And the fact that the economical consequences will not be seen or felt until at least in the next quarter. How the market reacts is irrelevant since it's just operating on trying to predict the future. The real consequences takes some time.
We've already been here once before, hysteria and all. No idea why this time it would be fundamentally different.
The anti-Trump trumpeteers have a vested interest in spreading alarmism and framing every mouse fart as the end of days. That's the main thing we're seeing happen. What, if anything, corresponds to truth remains entirely to be seen.
Thats 19th century nonsense. At the time it was formulated the greatest nation was Great Britain, an upstart from a little island in rim world.
Anyway, your repeated attempts to paint Russia as great are unconvincing. And your venom for Europe reminds me of Neomac.
If you had to put your sentiments about the present situation in a nutshell, what would you point to as your main concern? Is it:
1. US withdrawal from NATO and the UN
2. Economic instability from tariffs
3. A concern about the spread of far right policies, including increased authoritarianism
Or what? I don't think I've ever seen you angry before, and you seem to be. Why exactly?
https://archive.ph/o0h9T
Why does Hague think Trump expected China to back down? Based on everything Trump has said, I would assume he expected them to do exactly what they did.
Russia is a complete disaster and should be completely restructured. :smile:
Russia's leaderships insistence on imperialism is the cause of the bleeding the country is now going through. How different would it have been if Russia would simply have admitted that the era of the Russian Empire, that it kept alive by the Soviet tyranny, is over. It should have taken a truly critical look not only at the Marxism-Leninism, but the Tzarist imperialism before that. Yet it never understood how to behave in a post-colonial world. It didn't create and uphold CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, like the British did with their Commonwealth. It didn't even opt for the French model. No, Putin who see the collapse of the Soviet Union as the biggest tragedy of the Century went on a mission reconquer the pieces of the Empire. And not even in the way of neo-colonialism, but 19th Century imperialism of annexing territories and deeming large countries like Ukraine being artificial constructs.
Just look what on the map is the heartland in it's center: Kazakhstan, Mongolia and former Dzungaria, now China and being the northern part of Xinjiang.
A more remote and desolate place you cannot find. This idea, stupid as it is, forgets the most important geopolitical reality that is simply based on physics: for millennia it has been possible to move far more stuff by water than over land. That's why a connection to the sea is so important, so crucial. That's why major cities and urban areas have a large and usually long river going through them. The Kazakhstan-Mongolia-Xinjiang is the total opposite of this... and hence this has been a quite backward area for human development, even if the Silk road did give us places like Samarkand. Unfortunately for Russia many of the largest rivers that actually are navigable flow to the Arctic Sea. Now if a river starting from Urals would stream to the Baltic Sea, or heck, to the Atlantic, World history and Russian history would be totally different.
In fact, the United States, shows just how much nice geography has fallen to the northern part of the Continent. The US has access to the two largest oceans that are it's moats and it's connections to the World. It has rivers like the Mississippi that venture deep inland and navigable (unlike the Congo, for example). Hence in the map "Periphery Islands" are not the periphery. It is the "heartland" in that Russophile map from Mackinder's Heartland Theory.
Mackinder came up with his theory in the start of the 1900's. He argued against British view on the importance of Sea routes and naval power as " traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland".
Well, even if there is now the attempts from China to create a new Silk Road, even today 120 years from Mackinder's ideas the physics still prevails and sea transport trumps land transport in efficiency.
So heartland, my ass.
Hopefully this wasn't considered flaming. :halo:
Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" and geopolitics is about "potential" instead of well, grounded in fact. If it's not true in 3 years, we must wait 5, if it's not true then it must be 10, but maybe in 20. Not very convincing. To put it differently, if my dad had a vagina he would've been my mother.
If it is geopolitical strategy, you need to be able to formulate the strategy. If weening Russia from China's teet is the goal, you should be able to set out several policy initiatives that make sense to reach it. Give me that and I can start entertaining the notion.
Quoting Mr Bee
And this just puts succintly what is going on. Nothing the US has done in the past week suggests the existence of a grand geopolitical master plan.
Maybe once climate change sets in that area will become a center of civilization. The peripheral islands will be the Americana zone.
The point is that nobody seems to have any idea what is happening, including apparently the president himself. How can there be some sort of secret elite plan going on?
Actually I'm pretty happy with all the chaos. It's great to see people getting what they voted for.
:up:
Ah yes, the hope of the Northern Passage! And great uninhabited real estate, just once the Arctic Sea climate is similar to the Mediterranean, you can plant palm trees to give shade. :cool:
(Beautiful Northern Norway and Lofoten Islands with their pristine beaches!)
Quoting frank
Until that happens, enjoy the decadence.
:razz:
I missed that. Do you know when Trump mentioned it?
Quoting Punshhh
That makes sense.
He said this 6 days ago:
Speaking at a Republican Party dinner in Washington, Trump acknowledged the 104% rate for China "sounds ridiculous" but insisted that Beijing wanted to "make a deal" to avoid it.
But here, he's not saying that the point of the tariffs was to make a deal with China. He's saying that China wants to end the trade war. I honestly don't think he has framed the latest tariffs as a method of extortion. I think he truly wants to shut down imports. But I learn something new everyday. :cool:
How?
I'm seeing daily stuff everywhere on how he oversteps all over the place, but nothing is happening. How many months of this before the riots begin?
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that the real pain will come after the next quarter. Then people will feel it and the companies earnings will show it. Basically, it's gonna get calmer for a while and then a big collective "what the f...!?" from everyone who didn't understand how tariffs work.
Now if we are talking about the geopolitical situation right now. Its simple in my view. China is becoming the new dominant superpower and the U.S. is turning in on herself having lost that status. The rest is just the pieces falling as they fall around that new reality.
Once that reality is accepted by the world, then we can go back to that. China, U.S. and the EU cooperating and providing global stability.
And a few days later he exempted IT products from the China tariffs. A very stable genius.
I wasn't suggesting as much. But only a fool would assume there isn't one.
The plan is at most grift and at least anchoring in negotiations. Other than that, there's nothing sensible to find there.
Yes, I thought thats what had happened, but it did focus my mind though, and I came out with a response that surprised myself. And Im sticking to it now.
On the contrary, I am actively hypothesizing possible reasons for the things we see, while the rest of the forum cannot seem to produce anything beyond "it's stupid".
In the military there is a common axiom that says you must always be prepared for at least two scenarios: the enemy's most likely course of action, and the enemy's most dangerous course of action.
And this translates well into conducting geopolitics.
Imagine where Ukraine would be, had they taken into consideration what the United States' most dangerous course of action could be.
Instead they assumed surface-level appearances told the whole story, and now they are being hung out to dry while their country is being wrecked - something which people have said would happen years in advance, and this forum would undoubtedly dismiss as "reading too much into it".
(translation: Trump takes huge risk with trade war, but is able to win it)
Trumps escalerende handelsoorlog in vijf scenarios: impact op de Nederlandse economie (en breder)
(translation: Trump's escalating trade war in five scenarios: impact on the Dutch economy (and broader))
Oh boy... TPF looking mighty silly once again. Ya'll gotta stop basing your opinions on regurgitating below-average media slop.
I've not seen a working hypothesis from you and how what is happening now supports getting to your theorised end goals. As I said, I expect policy ideas or something tangible. So far, you're not giving much other than restating in various ways it's a long game. I take it that you now subscribe to the theory of the USA pursuing a team USA and team China and wanting to increase US production to ? But there's an inherent contradiction there, when you're undermining trust, you are not creating a team USA. Which actually there already is but we see clear dismantling of it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Read: I disagree with what others say, here's something that does agree with my view. People like you are searching for meaning where there is none. It's the same when interpreting books, where readers read things in it that the author never intended. Trump is stupid as exemplified in almost everything he does from the way he treats other people, his inability to speak coherently, a modicum of honesty, the number of convictions, etc. etc. What he has, is power, and as a result does not have to bear the consequences of his stupidity.
To the article then. While the article delves into the effects of trade policies and protectionist measures, it does not address how FDI interacts with trade deficits or the broader balance of payments. This omission is notable, as FDI plays a significant role in financing current account deficits and influencing long-term economic dynamics.?
By not considering FDI, the article overlooks a critical component of the international financial system that can affect the sustainability of trade deficits and the overall economic impact of trade policies. Incorporating FDI into the analysis would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential consequences of escalating trade conflicts. What will not hold true in the article with continued strong FDI in the US is:
1. it's trade deficit will remain. If FDI into the US stays robust, the US can continue running a trade deficit without economic collapse or adjustment pressure. The article assumes escalating tariffs are aimed at reducing the trade deficit, but doesnt account for the fact that persistent FDI neutralizes that pressure.
2. FDI helps reinforce the dollar as a global reserve currency. If that status isn't under threat, financial flows into the US may actually increase during trade instability, contradicting any suggestion of a weakening US position due to its deficit.
3. If companies continue to invest in the US despite the trade war (perhaps to produce inside tariff walls), this blunts the long-term negative impact of trade disruptions and may even partially localize value chains rather than destroy them. This would temporarily increase FDI.
4. Strong FDI inflows into the US reflect continued confidence in American institutions and markets, even amid trade tensions. With sustained FDI inflows the macro-economic risks are much lower.
The article is economics only and only considers it from that angle and it ignores that the US could've used diplomacy in relation to its allies to reach more or less the same goal. So there's no explanation for why do exactly this to reach that.
Finally, and probably the worse part of the analysis is that it does not question whether the proposed end goal is feasible. Because it is again, a party of contradictions. The end-goal assumes the US can "out-export" China or reassert global dominance. The structural conditions do not allow it.
1. Demographic scale favours China. The US would need to leverage automation, innovation and high-value exports to compete because it cannot on volume cost alone. Meanwhile China continues to climb the value chain so US will be confronted with diminishing returns trying to stay ahead.
2. Rebuilding the industrial base in the US requires massive investment, time and political consensus and except for time, they don't have it.
3. As the last few decades have shown, being a dominant exporter is not the only measure of power. Being the reserve currency, having the most liquid and trusted capital markets, leading tech companies, military reach and cultural and soft power are involved as well. Focusing on trade only misunderstands the kind of power the US already holds (but is relinquishing in its aggressive trade policies).
4. If FDI does decline it will result in lower growth, weaker dollar, austerity or inflation and loss of global influence. It's not strategic at all.
The problem is, as I've explained before, that to reduce the trade deficit you must reduce FDI. To reduce FDI global trust in the USA must diminish. But at the same time trust is essential if you want to lead a global alliance of "team USA". It's contradictory crap as usual with Trump.
Next time you want to call everybody here "silly", you might start by being more critical of what you read.
I've given you plenty of suggestions. You're just refusing to read them, apparently.
Quoting Benkei
I don't feel one way or the other about the article. But it's clear to me that the situation is scarcely as cut and dry as you pretended.
Your argumentation means nothing to me if at the end of the day all you're doing is calling the White House stupid.
Who do I trust? Benkei, who thinks the governing body of the world's most powerful nation is stupid, or the people who put in an effort to understand what's actually going on?
No, I haven't seen any suggestions beyond the "pivot to China" which in and of itself means nothing. I've asked you for policies; I got nothing. If people criticise your teet-weening point on Russia, it's "no, it's a long game". When I just decisively explained there's no long game through trade wars, I get, well, nothing.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's not about trust. Maybe try to read my post and understand the actual arguments in it and just perhaps, maybe, learn a thing or two about economics?
Quoting Tzeentch
Why? What's it to you I call them stupid? I call them stupid for very clear reasons, reasons I have regularly articulated founded on arguments. Arguments you have not addressed.
Quoting Tzeentch
You should. I've given you three very good reasons not to like it.
If you reduce my argument as such, there should be no problem with me reducing your argument to "The White House is stupid".
Well, Benkei, experts seem to disagree. And I think it is vastly more likely that you are wrong, than the White House being stupid.
Maybe you should contact the NOS and give them your take.
As a longtime observer of American shenanigans, I can tell you that the first step is always to look on the surface. Look at what the president actually says. If you look too deeply, you'll miss it. There is no deep state.
Yes, the deep state narrative is a conspiracy theory. Such disinformation should not be taken seriously in any discussion.
H.R.1526 - NORRA of 2025
[sup] Darrell Issa · US Congress · Feb 24, 2025[/sup]
To me, it looks like more power concentration.
ACLU Responds to House Passage of H.R. 1526, Limiting Courts Ability to Rein in Abuses of Power
[sup] Mike Zamore · American Civil Liberties Union · Apr 9, 2025[/sup]
Is Team Trump, or someone in his vicinity, setting up (prerequisites for) authoritarianism, or is there nothing to worry about here?
Having different branches of government, with their own power, is more democratic.
(as an aside, Season 6 of The Handmaid's Tale has started :wink:)
Racist anti-Trump prosecutor Letitia James appears to be in hot water for possible mortgage fraud and for living in Virginia while serving as AG for New York, which would mean her AG office is vacant according to New York law. The Trump administration hit her with a federal criminal referral yesterday.
https://www.newsweek.com/letitia-james-attorney-general-new-york-residence-2060152
Its great seeing people get what they deserve.
When should society worry? After it's been installed or before it is installed or before even the risk of it?
I would argue that there shouldn't even be a risk for it. That even moving in that direction should be treated as a disqualification of the duty of office.
His administration want desperately to frame it as a negotiation tactic. That it was planned all a long to happen like this.
Perhaps Trump wants the trade balance to be just positive for the US, but in the end 145% tariffs are basically a trade embargo. But this was what he has wanted since the 1980's: tariffs! And just to put into context that this "retreat" is still that is in place now is far more bigger than Smoot-Hawley tariffs were, here's Paul Krugman and just how bad the situation is.
And are nations lining up to "kiss his ass", as Trump publicly put it, to get better deals? I don't think so. I think they will just wait for the pain to get in from the China trade war and the high 10% tariffs. The effects of policy usually can be seen in six to twelve months, but I guess now three months will do.
Yet we shouldn't forget just why Trump did his famous 180 degrees and call his Tariff-the-World program off for 90 days. It was the bond market. By Trump words, it was "qeesy", yet it seems this was a full panic. Everybody in Trump realm is denying this, but it's obvious what happened and it was the events in the treasury market.
The most alarming issue is that many in Trumpworld would like to see the dollar having a lower value. The argument would be that this would improve the competitiveness of American manufacturing. Here lies are threat. The dollar isn't just your average currency, it's one pillar that makes the US to be so prosperous in the first place. And if it considerably loses value, the reserve currency role is threatened. If US treasuries isn't the place markets go for the safety trade, then it puts the US in a bad situation. Usually when the stock market plunges, the safety trade is treasuries. This time it wasn't. That is very telling.
And let's see how bad that Trump stagflation will be.
It's been noted (by the reddit crowd) that tariffs can't bring in revenue and simultaneously increase incentives to manufacture in the US. Those are the two things the administration identified as the goals of the tariffs. If some entity wants to negotiate better access to the American market, they can, but that doesn't really work as a goal of the tariffs. From the US's point of view, it doesn't matter how an entity is paying for access, with tariffs or by smooching Trump's butt. They're still paying more than they were.
What do you mean "down"?
Of course there is. The US is corrupt down to the bone. The "deep state" is, for example, whoever is paying off your politicians to start and market wars that nobody asked for.
If lobbies have the power to push the United States to war with entire regions of the world (eg. the US response to 9/11), then how does that not fit the idea of an elite class that has gigantic political influence that circumvents and/or manipulates the democratic process?
Well, if tariffs give incentives to domestic manufacture, then Americans wouldn't buy imported good, so how would then tariffs bring tax revenue? And if the tariff revenues are so large that they can for example help in balancing the budget, I don't think that then Americans will have any domestic alternative for the imported goods. Hawaii cannot produce your coffee, for example.
So I think that this isn't just a reddit crowd, this is just common sense.
Besides, if everything that is imported is for Americans will be at least 10% higher, how would that help the economy, where the American consumer already has doubts about the future?
Anyway, I think that Trump's tariff stupidity and clear disregard at all trade agreements simply creates distrust towards the US. This might start with tariffs, but end in a debt crisis and a dollar crisis.
Yea. Americans will just pay more for coffee. We're going to have that coffee though. We can't function without it.
Quoting ssu
Yes, but they're like economics professors, so a tad more reliable than average.
Quoting ssu
The point wasn't to help the economy. Do you remember what Trump actually said the point of the tariffs was?
It does seem to be an element of the market that protectionist policies keep colliding with. None of the "balance of trade" talk performed so far by the Administration incorporates that as a factor.
Meanwhile Orbán is enacting... crackdown on non-government/foreign-funded organizations and media, so alleged threat to sovereignty can be (ab)used to silence critics; loss of Hungarian citizenship if they have other citizenship as well and allegedly undermine sovereignty; state of emergency can be declared indefinitely from the current maximum of 180 days; additional moves against trans-genders and homosexuals.
Room for corruption up, democracy and civil liberties down, political imposition against whatever cultural trend gets them fired up today, ...
Retardation pandemic?
I was reading about stagflation, its sort of like having long Covid.
From Wiki;
Now Trump has introduced a supply shock. A sudden end of imports from China and a little from all the other countries facing tariffs. Also he is introducing a labour shortage by sending Latinos back. Both of these are inflationary because demand is not being met.
He intends to increase U.S. production of those products in short supply, which will be expensive, produce more expensive goods and produce another labour shortage. Again both inflationary.
And tariffs are naturally inflationary, as the tariff itself is an increase in cost
So I think I can confidently predict that there will be strong inflationary pressures.
To counter this Trump will need to dampen growth in the areas he wants growth to increase in. Or increase the workforce to reduce wage increase pressures. Both of which work in opposition to what he wants to do. Because, to dampen growth will cause stagnation in the economy and he is ideologically opposed to importing cheap labour.
So hes going to fail to increase domestic production of the restricted goods (there will be some exceptions), hes going to cause shortages of lots of consumables, raw materials and minerals. Causing inflation which will be very difficult to stop, while not improving the income of U.S. workers, not growing the economy, which will stagnate and making everyone feel a lot poorer.
A classic case of stagflation, which will be very difficult to break out of.
Not to mention people all around the world boycotting U.S. goods and other countries imposing counter tariffs on U.S. exports.
I cant see any good news in there apart from those few exceptions where there will be some growth in U.S. production.
You can't have stagflation and a labor shortage at the same time. What could happen is an inflationary recession, where the US economy contracts due to poor consumer confidence and supply chain issues. That would be terrible, especially for the generation whose start in life was impacted by the pandemic. All we'll need is a serious war after that, and we will have another "silent generation" (a generation that could never catch a break).
Arturo Suárez Trejo, 33, a musician, was snatched off the street in Raleigh, North Carolina, by ICE, and became one of the 238 Venezuelans deported to a hellhole prison in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, previously only ever used to imprison citizens of countries with which the US was at war, on the pretext of being a criminal gang member. There is no record either in the US or any other country of any crimes committed by Suárez, but regardless, Kristi Noem, Trump's Homeland Security Secretary, said he and the others swept up in the arrest should should stay there for the rest of their lives". They're now out of American jurisdiction and subject to the mercies (or should we say whims) of Trump's fellow dictator, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, who was cordially hosted by Trump in the Oval Office earlier this week.
This arrest and deportation is the one that has is subject to an injunction heard by one Judge Boasberg of the Washington Federal Court, and the one that looks likely to provide the constitutional crisis that has long been forecast, when the Trump administration begins to openly defy the judiciary.
A NY Times investigation into the 238 detainees found that 32 had committed crimes of various kinds, two dozen more lower-level misdemeanours - but scant evidence of the actual gang membership which provided the pretext for their arrest and deportation, with no right of appeal or any process for them to appeal their fate. (One was said to have been arrested because of a tattoo which looked like those attributed to the gang in question.)
So let's all spare a thought for Arturo Suárez Trejo, who's quest for the American dream has delivered he and his compatriots into a dystopian nightmare.
What's wrong with South American economies?
Take a picture what the coffees cost now in your local coffee shop and compare it to the prices same time in 2026. Take also a measurement of the coffee cup that is medium or large. Now, do you think the price and the cup size will stay the same until April 2026?
Quoting frank
I thought the reason was to have domestic manufacturing come back to the US and the US "not to be ripped off by foreigners". (Whatever that second thing means)
Quoting frank
Notice that every recession starts from high point of last economic boom years. Large scale unemployment is the issue that comes later. Just look where unemployment was in 1929 and 1930. It was well under 5%, and times with full employment, which means a huge labour shortage:
Took years back then to rise to 25% unemployment.
Let's remember that changes in the economic cycle take time. So we cannot be certain what will happen. Only many months into a recession we will understand how bad it will be.
It will cost 10% more.
Quoting ssu
So helping the economy wasn't the point.
Quoting ssu
Yes. You still can't have stagflation with a labor shortage. That doesn't make any sense.
Want to bet on that? Perhaps one virtual coffee? Especially something like coffee can be tricky. :chin:
Quoting frank
Yes. When one doesn't understand the basic reasons why the US has had a long standing trade deficit and when one thinks that "Trade is bad", then your actions likely won't help the economy. Especially when you have around you only sycophants and nobody to limit your harmful ideas.
Quoting frank
In general, of course some special fields can still have a labor shortage, but that is because of a mismatch between the existing labor force and what labor is needed.
I think your assessments are based more on sentiment than on facts.
The thing about stagflation, is it is different in different circumstances. Also an inflationary recession is like stagflation, only with a contracting economy. It might contract and then stagnate.
Im not convinced that a labour shortage cant happen while an economy is stagnating. In the circumstances Im referring to the shortage (a limited shortage in certain areas) is happening alongside a so called stimulation of the economy (the purpose of introducing tariffs). So the stimulation will fail due to a labour shortage. Hence a stagnating situation.
By definition, unemployment is high during stagflation. It's very rare. As I'm sure you read, it baffled economists when it happened in the 1970s. They ended up re-engineering parts of the standard economic view to accommodate it.
Quoting Punshhh
Correct, but there wouldn't be a labor shortage during a recession, which by definition includes high unemployment.
Quoting Punshhh
Ok. I'm not familiar with any cases where a limited labor shortage has any significant impact on the economy.
"Instant karma's gonna get you ..." :victory:
Now there are no facts on how much one coffee will be next year.
:grin:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/nyregion/trump-letitia-james-mortgage-fraud.html
Until she's charged nobody cares.
I care. The investigation is the punishment in American jurisprudence. It can bankrupt people.
I did not know that. Why would it bankrupt somebody?
That's bullshit. It was formulated as a letter, not as a topic for discussion. Unless perhaps, they use AI to write up their discussion topics.
Imagine that, thy could even use AI to discuss their discussion topics, and decide which letters to send out. No wonder Musk quit the team, he saw his worst nightmare coming true, he was being replaced by AI. Next step, the AIs would be producing offspring for him.
Likely is bullshit.
But the stupidity of the administration should never be underestimated as this administration has severe difficulties in communication in general:
Good that the wife, the brother and former colleagues on Fox got the launch times of those air strikes too. Hey, some of us just have being a reporter in our blood! We have to spread the good news.
On another topic, the vexed question of illegal deportations of immigrants also continues to fester.
I've often mused in the past that one of the major problems with unauthorised immigration, is that when a subject arrives in, say, the United States, they are automatically granted certain rights, not on the basis of being citizens, but because they're humans. Among those rights are habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So returning them to countries which don't recognise human rights is a violation of their rights! It's a kind of osmosis.
This is a highly inconvenient truth, as far as Trump is concerned. He's right in saying that the process of giving all these unauthorised arrivals their due is highly impractical and he's saying that completely over-riding their constitutional rights is, therefore, justified. That is what is at issue. i think this will be the arena in which the impending constitutional crisis in the form of defiance of the Courts will manifest.
I think you've nailed this being hte crux of how there could even be an actual 'crisis' of government. Trump is correct, and if they were all criminals, that's a rock/hard place issue. But, given the incompetence with which the policies are carried out currently, I'm unsure where I land. I don't think anyone should have rights simply by arriving (illegally) in the country. But I also think all of what's going on rn is insane, in practice if not in theory.
But they do! Thats the whole point. Its the same in Australia. It also precipitated a political crisis about ten - fifteen years ago when boats kept arriving, mainly via Indonesia, with asylum seekers from many different countries. Once theyre in Australian jurisdiction, then they do have rights, even if theyve arrived without any authorisation. Australia developed a pretty draconian exclusion policy and started to incarcerate arrivals in offshore detention in New Guinea and Nauru where many languished for years before ultimately being re-settled. The situation is not so intense now, but then, Australia is an island. But the same kinds of problems are occurring in crossings of the English Channel. Thats what I meant by osmosis - once they arrive in a country where human rights are recognised, they cant be returned to one that doesnt recognise them, as its a human rights violation.
In the US, there is an over-arching need to be seen to be deporting millions of people, and ICE is unable to meet its targets by legitimate means. So it seems that ICE is just pulling out files of individuals and stamping them VIOLENT CRIMINAL - FOR DEPORTATION, and then going and picking them up, bundling them onto planes and out of US jurisdiction. Its a blatant violation of the constitutional rights of even non-US citizens, which is the grounds on which it has been challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court issued an emergency stay the other day ordering these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act to be stopped pending further consideration.
Of course there are many legitimate grounds for deporting illegally-arrived migrants, but Trump, and especially Stephen Millier, are explicitly xenophobic in their attitude. I expect this is going to continue to be a major source of conflict. Trumps administration is literally disappearing undesireables to draconian prisons without trial. Like Stalin might have.
They're being in the country, for one. Something Crockett seems to not know is a crime.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes. A dark chapter.
Quoting Wayfarer
Hmm. Until Trump, the single thing about immigration i was made aware of through media etc.. as an 'American' tenet, was 'Take on everyone, from everywhere, all the time" and that deporting people was reprehensible, unless a "true criminal" (what that meant, I dont know.. Murder, fraud and rape I assume). But Obama was roughly speaking, anti-immigration. So it struck me as weird.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, it pretty much does.
That can't be assumed. A subject might arrive illegally seeking refuge from threat of death or starvation. That's why they have to be assessed. Agree that border policy was a major weakness of the previous administration, but abnegation of the Constitution is not a remedy.
I think it should be assumed. Otherwise, prevarication and 'be nice' ends up where you/we/they are.
What I find here really showing how Hegseth is crumbling is the following issue, which just shows that he is totally incapable of handling such a position that he is in now:
The notable fact is that Ullyot is one of the Hegseth-guys that came in with the new administration. And it's been those in the MAGA-team that have now been fired from the Pentagon. So now Hegseth is battling out with his own people.
So guess we will see how this goes...
Quoting Wayfarer
It is already manifesting itself with these issues. And Trump doesn't make it less tense by hinting that US citizens could be sent to foreign prisons like in El Salvador. After all, they want El Salvador to build more prisons.
I somewhere read that there are now less people deported than under Biden, because people obviously aren't so eagerly trying to get into the US. But this is one of those facts I tried to state earlier before Trump came to power: in order to truly deport millions of people you truly have to have people with huge organizational skills to create a huge process which does include the legal system firing on all cylinders. That would be a huge complex thing to orchestrate. Trump is not that kind of organizer, and neither are his lackeys. We already saw his abilities in the way he failed to "build the Wall". So then it's these "photo-op" deportations to El Salvador that are made in response.
It's all a bit ad hoc, all not really thought well, but more of actions improvised on the spot. That is the way how a Trump administration works.
And btw for @NOS4A2, about Kash Patel and the FBI, well, I think in the long run I'm not going to be so wrong... assuming that the director of the FBI matters to the FBI. Of course the actual result of his tenure can be seen and read about only afterwards.
But I guess Kash is having himself a great time going to UFC matches and wants the UFC to get involved in the physical training of FBI agents.
At least it isn't Vince McMahon and the WWF-entertainment, seen below in a mock fight with Donald Trump.
Yep, the FBIs collapse is immanent. Any day now.
These things are quite subtle in many ways. Just as were the issues when FBI looked for moles in CIA, while actually the worst traitor was in the FBI.
It's something you can see only later. Same thing actually with a lot of institutions in the US too.
There's a story today about a Venezualan immigrant, Ricardo Prada Vásquez, (whether documented or not, it doesn't say) who mistakenly crossed the bridge from Detroit into Canada whilst on a food-delivery run. Trying to come back into the US he was stopped at the border and taken into custody. 'On March 15, he told a friend in Chicago that he was among a number of detainees housed in Texas who expected to be repatriated to Venezuela. That evening, the Trump administration flew three planes carrying Venezuelan migrants from the Texas facility to El Salvador, where they have been ever since, locked up in a maximum-security prison and denied contact with the outside world. But Mr. Prada has not been heard from or seen. He is not on a list of 238 people who were deported to El Salvador that day. He does not appear in the photos and videos released by the authorities of shackled men with shaved heads.' Nobody now knows where he is. To all intents and purposes, he's dissappeared, like people do in Russia and China and Iran. But not, until now, in the USA.
If people cared about this, they would now drag Trump out of the White House into the Hague court. As always, we cant really blame the bad people doing bad shit, thats consistent. I will continue to blame the apathetic, pathetic, lazy and mind numbed public who just continues with their lives without a care in their bones.
Its the banality of evil and the evil of the ordinary mans ignorance that I absolutely despise. No one cares until they see the gun barrels pointed at themselves.
This is why I hate the public more than politicians, at least they are consistent. The people, however, are disgusting in their ignorance and apathy.
Havent we already been here? Hes even been judged guilty before. Its close to being true what he said about shooting someone and getting away with it. Until I see the laws and regulations actually remove him for real, I will consider the laws of the US to be irrelevant, because they doesnt seem to apply. Even if something were under investigation, there would have been a freezing of his power until investigators are done. Otherwise he could actually do whatever he wants until the slow bureaucracy finds him unfit for office.
In any other nation, even the notion of crimes or breaking the laws would put the president in temporary isolation from power. The US is both corrupt and utterly broken to its core in a way that makes me question if its even possible for it to fight back against this abuse of power.
It seems that it is rather built on the idea of trust that there wont be someone like Trump at the top, but that theres actually no regulations and laws preventing demagogues from taking power. So theres no department or part of the government whos actually able to prevent an authoritarian figure to take power.
Now that the system is being tested, are people sure it will work to protect democracy? Or have the US been naive in their trust in the system to the point of being blind to the risks?
Many are :pray: for exactly that.
and what happens if it fails? What will the lazy, apathetic public do then?
Quoting Pamela Bondi · Apr 22, 2025
By the way, Biden is Catholic, Trump is not exactly Christian.
The mentioned cases pale in comparison to Team Trump's goings and doings.
It's been argued that these efforts are attempts at a (forced) cultural revolution.
Good grief. Someone will still try to justify that clown though. (I can't help but wonder if someone is whispering things in his ears.)
We should be letting even more people in. The entire issue was invented by Republicans for political gain. Much like the national debt, trans in sports, voting fraud, etc.
If someone decided tomorrow that jaywalking was ruining the country, in six months half the country would be agreeing with it and the other half reacting against it.
There's a problem with illegal immigration. It's immoral to turn a blind eye to people entering illegally so we can use them like helots. We have ten million people living in the shadows, terrified to go to the cops, just begging to be exploited by criminals and business.
So make it easier to come. Then people wouldnt be illegal.
In his attempts to strong arm the EU over Brexit, he prorogued parliament and sent a government representative to lie to the Queen. The intention was to shut out parliament while he acted under executive powers. Fortunately the Supreme Court was able to stop him.
Doesn't Trump have anything better to do?
On the other hand, maybe he should leave everything else alone.
Quoting source
... unless I'm just seeing faces in the clouds. I'll go back to watching Disney now.
This is mostly the handiwork of Stephen Miller, Trumps Secretary for Xenophobia.
Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.
Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Irans ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.
The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the countrys nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html
So much winning.
Perhaps.
I think that as long as Trump is mired in his stupid tariffs and nothing happens in the Middle East, he won't take the initiative. Trade war with China is already a big issue.
Yet one third (or half of operational) B-2s are forward deployed still in Diego Garcia.
In fact was positive is his view in energy policy of the importance of base load and then alternative production. Many politicians go for the trendy and politically correct view of alternative energy can give everything. But then Bessent is just one man who tries to influence just what Trump actually does.
And another totally is what the Trump administration will end up doing.
Man arrested in theft of DHS chief Kristi Noem's purse is in the U.S. illegally, official says
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/man-believed-stolen-dhs-chief-kristi-noems-purse-custody-rcna203176
Given that Bidens immigration surge was the largest in US history, and 60% of all that was illegal immigration, Americans are enduring the effects of an odd phenomenon we find common among Trumps opponents, virtue signalling into disaster.
Its a form of virtue signalling, but the effects of that act of virtue signalling are often catastrophic, or even deadly. Its like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. In this case, it was that Biden and his 2020 campaign team were so offended by Trumps immigration policies during his first term, that they swung the door wide open, ruining the lives not only of Americans, but the illegals that made the journey holding firm to Bidens promises, which of course he finally reneged in order to win the election of 2024. Now everyone must deal with the conditions he created.
Most Democrats (87%) agree with the first statement, while most Republicans (81%) agree with the second statement.
Among Americans who voted for Trump and regret their decision, 55% agree that Trump is a dangerous dictator; agreement that Trump is a dangerous dictator is even higher among non-voters who regret their decision not to vote (68%).
Nearly eight in ten Americans (78%) disagree with the statement When decisions by Congress or the Supreme Court hold our country back, the president should be able to ignore them, compared with only 18% who agree; Republicans are more than three times as likely as Democrats to agree (28% vs. 9%).
Musks work (or 'frolic') with the Department of Government Efficiency is very unpopular, as most Americans are concerned about his access to citizens private data and a majority think his efforts at combatting waste and fraud are harmful.
Just 38% of Americans approve of the job Musk is doing within the federal government though his work is most approved by Republicans (78%) and Americans who watch Fox News (83%) or far-right TV news sources (90%).
Most Americans oppose allowing Musk to access private data about American citizens at federal government agencies such as the IRS or the Social Security Administration (68% vs. 28%).
The consequences of the tariffs are starting to show. The coming weeks will be interesting to witness how the public reacts to everything. Cargo ports are showing empty lots and ships are registered to not even begin the journey to the US.
If the sentiment for his presidency is low now, just imagine what will happen if the regular Trumpster begin to use their braincells to connect the dots between Trump's tariffs and the price of the product they hold in their hands... if they are even able to find a product to hold in their hand to begin with.
But of course! Dear Leader can literally do no wrong - whenever anything wrong happens, it's always someone else. Like with the poll numbers. Pollster is wrong! Should be fired! But those pollsters are showing that - astounding as it seems - increasing numbers are actually starting to question whether Trump is, indeed, always right. And it's all downhill from here - when current stock is exhausted and the tarriffs really begin rippling through.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypw7pn9q3o.amp
Why is it an idiotic decision? On the face of it, it seems favourable to the US. In fact, there's now (unfortunately) a framework under which Ukraine can more easily sell off part of its interest in exchange for continued support each time it's threatened to be taken away. Renewed support from the US will also deflate European will to improve military cooperation, making it unlikely that it will be an independent power in a future multipolar world, thereby ensuring the US only has to compete with China, with the EU condemned in a role of continued support for the US. Before the century is over, the EU will provide the US the same cover as we currently do for Israel.
The Ukraine war is not over, there could be many twists and turns.
There is now an opportunity for Europe to collaborate with Ukraine in low cost battlefield defence technology. Leaving the U.S. behind with its over priced stock.
That conclusion is rather premature.
It will depend on a lot of factors, the most important of which is whether Trumpism will continue after Trump's presidency.
If it doesn't, I can assure you Europe's Transatlantic clique will be back for more of Uncle Sam's grease. Things will return to 'business as usual' in the blink of an eye, just like they did after Trump's first presidency.
Because its an excuse to continue the war, to continue spending billions more lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin et al., and because it increases the chances of direct confrontation with Russia.
Quoting Punshhh
Were all rooting for him to finally get it Im sure.
I'm wondering... Will defunding Lockheed Martin entail less need for defense?
Defense lol
Yes, everything is defensive. So the gravy train will always be running.
As far as Ukraine goes, prolonging this conflict is awful. The US should fuck off.
No I didnt. Since everything is defensive, the gravy train wont stop. So the answer is no.
Perkins Coie was the firm associated with the lawyer who commissioned what became the scandalous and salacious Steele Report, that hit the airwaves just before the 2016 election. Trump has always been utterly furious about it - with some justification, I might add. Regardless, trying to effectively shutter the firm (and after the lawyer in question has long since left) was definitely overkill (as usual).
It is going to be followed by a US 60 Minutes feature about Trump's war on the legal profession.
With Sheinbaum in Mexico, the US is now surrounded by governments that cant stand Trump, and have alienated its overseas friends by interfering in the Germany election and slapping tariffs on everyone else. Not to mention pissing off the Danes with the unforced error of discussing annexing Greenland. You have a fairly weak but not friendly labor leader in the UK, and China willing to go to the mats (which apparently wasnt considered) over trade.
All while two wars are still raging and prices are still high, despite promises of all that being solved on day one, or very quickly.
Amazing what can be destroyed in only 3 months! I admire the pace.
Trump Proposes $1 Trillion Defense Budget for 2026
[sup] Greg Hadley · Air and Space Forces Magazine · May 2, 2025[/sup]
Trump's budget proposal would cut some discretionary spending, increase defense spending
[sup] Kathryn Watson · CBS · May 2, 2025[/sup]
Trump budget proposes $1 trillion for defense, slashes education, foreign aid, environment, health and public assistance
[sup] Tami Luhby, Ella Nilsen, Andrew Freedman, Samantha Delouya, Sarah Owermohle, Jennifer Hansler, Gabe Cohen · CNN · May 2, 2025[/sup]
"Attacks on education" (my wording) have been in multiple forms.
Populism Map (European Center for Populism Studies)
In this assessment, these share a score at the edge of "Full Democracy": the US, France, Croatia, Mongolia, South Korea.
My conclusion is based on two ruptures of conditions in the status of EU member states. Ruptures which cannot be reversed as the conditions which were broken were historic understandings adopted during a process of providing stability following the turmoil of the WW2. And the world has now moved on.
Firstly, the understanding the US would play a senior/caretaking role in providing this stability. Trump has clearly broken this commitment.
Secondly that European countries, primarily Germany would not re-arm following WW2 and would rely on the NATO alliance for security. Again Trump has clearly broken this commitment and Germany is now re-arming.
Both these genies cannot be put back in the bottle whatever happens in the US following Trumps last term in office.
Their words mean nothing.
Here's what factually happened so far under Trump:
- Trump said some things
- Trump imposed some tariffs
- Trump attempted to broker peace in Ukraine
None of this is irreversible, and one might even call it fairly insignificant.
People losing thier heads over some words the Orange Doofus said are dummies, and fundamentally misunderstand what geopolitics is about.
Your whole argument that European countries are lazy and just expect the US to carry the can all the time is false. It was a legacy of the post war settlement.
It is a legacy of the post-war settlement, and that doesn't change just because some politicians said some words.
In fact, I can think of few things that carry less weight than the words of western politicians.
If we get down to the actual actions taken, nothing irreversible happened to US-European relations, and commitments to defense spending are only relevant if they stick for the long run, which I can virtually guarantee won't happen unless Russia invades a NATO country, which it won't for obvious reasons.
You're taking all of the lip service too seriously, and you're being sold hot air.
Yeah, Im sure if Obama or Biden said 1/1000th of what Trumps said, this too would be your reaction.
Believe it or not, when youre president, words actually matter.
And no, the president's words don't matter. The only thing that matters is what group of impoverished people US bombs are dropping on.
As if you could call yourself out of the game. If people just watch, others will play at their place. On the other side, if you want to play, you must swallow all the shit that comes with it. Even when you do not deserve it.
Quoting Tzeentch
In other words, your non-partisan views, are politically irrelevant. You are loathing your own irrelevance.
The action of conducting secret negotiations with Russia concerning European land, interests and security from which European representatives where excluded.
Apart from what Trump has said. He has single-handedly put the commitments and trust in the NATO alliance at risk of collapse. His actions have destroyed a hard won commitment to its values.
It doesnt take a lot to destroy trust and once destroyed those who have lost it move on. Knowing that it takes time and commitment to restore it.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the New Media, Apr. 28, 2025 (The White House · 27m:52s)
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the New Media, Apr. 29, 2025 (The White House · 20m:55s)
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the New Media, Apr. 30, 2025 (The White House · 25m:19s)
Participants are Trump'ers.
Gross.
One commentator notes: "This is scripted, state-run media. How far we've fallen."
Eerie.
Quoting NY Times, Whos the Greatest Grifter of Them All
Well worth reading the rest of that article (via gift link supplied). The blatant corruption of the office of the Presidency is absolutely staggering. But then, in another article, we are invited to recall James Comer and the so-called House Oversight Committee, who spent the greater part of 2023-24 investigating the alleged corruption of the Biden family's connection to Hunter Biden's business interests. All of which blew up in Comer's face, as witness after witness repudiated the premisses of the investigation, with one being jailed for perjury and another fleeing the country. But, any interest in investigating Trump's flagrant conflicts of interest in his crypto ventures, or his sons peddling Trump Inc business interests all over the world? Not on your nellie!
Yes, but as I'm always wondering, does anyone give a shit about it? Is the corruption being stopped by enforcing the law? Where's the US marshals dragging him out of office? If the corruption isn't stopped and he can break whatever laws and regulations he wants, then there's definitely no democracy in the US. And if there's no democracy in the US, then what are the population opposing him waiting for to happen? For the storm to just calm on its own?
One of the readers comments on that article was, the people who could do anything about it - mainly, Congress - don't give a shit. There are plenty of others who do, but they can't do anything other than write articles or organise protests.
But the judiciary is holding the line, against repeated attempts to breach it. Many of his executive orders are held up in the courts. All is not lost, but it's dire, for sure.
Then the people should show the congress what they think about their apathy. Democracy isn't just an election every 4 years. If the people actually cared for real, there would be millions in DC protesting, but the people doesn't give a shit. The people in congress is only interested in maintaining their individual power and will act accordingly, but with enough pressure they may feel that they will maintain power if they back the people protesting and not the backs of those around them.
At least some bring up problems with the Trump administration for all to see:
Quoting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Testifies at Oversight Hearing · C-SPAN · May 6, 2025
They're liable. So the question is: what next? Is someone building a case or something? What to expect?
The US has already entered the sphere where many Latin American countries have been for a long time. Corruption will only be dealt with if there's a dramatic change in power relations. Just like in many Latin American countries or developing countries.
The US has now mediocre to weak institutions when it comes to check Presidential power. In a true democracy a tiny issue like putting foreign diplomats and leaders to check in Trump hotels when staying in Washington DC would have been considered corruption that could even have shaken the chair that the President sits on. Now it's just an example of how small and innocent the corruption was in the first administration.
Well, Trump is not a republican, he is his own thing and republicans seems too stupid to notice how he just chose them because they were most inclined to put him forward as a candidate. He's in it for himself, so policy and traditional ideals of the republicans doesn't matter at all. He is a dictator who's only unable to fully act as one because of the thin line that still protects the US from becoming a full autocracy. But if he were able to, he would make himself a king, he's already making AI images of himself as the pope. So being part of republicans doesn't mean following their traditions of ideals.
He's a child who wants attention and wants to be king. It's both fundamentally pathetic and terrifying.
Not opposing it at all, it's a great idea and has been a great idea for a long time. The further the gap becomes between low-income and rich people, the better it is to tax the rich. The laissez-faire ideal pushed by neoliberals is a capitalist utopian fantasy that the rich are good hearted people who put their money back into the economy... however, just as in any fucking part of history, the rich doesn't do this, they pool their income and wealth into dynasties and gain power, they do not infuse the economy or society with more wealth. The American dream is an ideal image that was built on extreme tax levels in order to kickstart society post-war. The way to actually transform a broken society to the better is with high taxes. But in a world where the difference between the rich and poor is as extreme as it is today, the logical way to improve society is to stop letting rich people pool their wealth away from society like some bloodsuckers squeezing out the last drops of lifeblood and actually tax them increasingly. If they oppose with the argument that they are investing with their money (lying), we can easily transform the tax laws so that private wealth is taxed (with stocks owned being earmarked for taxes whenever sold) and any capital gains within a company is required to be held within the company as investment either in or in a new company.
Society would look very different and the argument has never been to take people's hard earned money, it's an argument for how much money some people actually need. We already adjust the economy in a way that removes money from citizens in all kinds of different ways, so why would taxing the rich with higher taxes be any different? Why are people defending the rich but accepting regular folks getting their bank accounts drained?
Taxing the rich in today's society, globally, is a straight path to improving society overall. It's obvious and the only people opposing it is the rich, and their gullible idiot followers or people believing they will be rich one day, being fooled by their narratives.
Which is why theres no way it happens.
Murphy To Secretary Of Homeland Security Kristi Noem: Your Department Is Out Of Control
[sup] US Senate · May 8, 2025 · 6m:54s[/sup]
Yep, liable.
:) No hangings please
Noem and a couple of others have now made uncompromising comments in public indicating their liability/intent, and that should have consequences, especially when the indications are that they'll just continue if they don't get attention.
You're trying to sign your own death warrant. :confused:
Now Stephen Miller is calling this principle into question on the (dubious) grounds that undocumented immigrants represent an invasion, and habeas corpus doesnt apply in the case of an invading force. Trump has said a number of times of late that it would be impossible to bring each case of a couple of million undocumented immigrants to court, so this argument is making that claim explicit. Miller of course says the constitution is clear, which it is, in the case of an invading force. So it will depend on whether the judiciary agrees that undocumented arrivals constitute an invading force.
As is well known, if there is a time gap long enough between a Trump statement/tweet and how long it takes to make another tweet ( that is more than 5 minutes), the former can not be relied upon to be put into practice. So,don't get your hopes up.
'onest smile
A Trump appointed judge had problems with that and ruled against Trump in the Alien Enemies Act. I don't think SCOTUS is going to give this particular administration a lot of leeway, esp. when it comes to something like suspending habeas corpus.
A very telling discussion on the FBI in Congress, worth the few minutes to watch it. It's just hilarious. So this is the way things are going like this with the Trump childrenbooks author heading the FBI:
:smile:
Thats hilarious, especially since Congress has been late with their budget resolution for 30 of the past 49 fiscal years. So it looks like we have another instance of you making mountains out of democrat mole hills, using Congress as your bell-weather. Thats understandable, as any small instance that might cast shade on Kashs work needs to be magnified in order to support your theory that Patel is incompetent and the FBI will collapse. So here is your first piece of evidence, magnified as it is by congressional play-acting: a late budget request.
(It was a senate hearing, but same shit)
I already know that one of the biggest fears of Trumps opponents is that a reality TV host and his rag-tag band of Fox News employees, childrens book authors, and private business men will do a better job than their over-educated bureaucrats and life-long politicians. The more their past is mocked the better because it makes their victories all the more sweet.
Meanwhile, me waiting for a ssu prediction to come true:
The leads me to wonder: what the hell is every other leader in the world doing? No one else stepped in? Wheres the Davos crowd?
Even if at start Trump was clueless when asked about this, at least here Trump's administration and Rubio have done the right thing and responded how the US should respond.
After the terrorist attack India had to respond yet both sides didn't want an escalation to all out war (with both sides having nuclear weapons). Hence here the US acting as a third man was invaluable.
I give here one of the few positive marks for Trump's administration.
- - - - -
Yet one should note one thing here: two nuclear armed countries can come to blows, hence nuclear deterrence doesn't mean that sides wouldn't end up in a situation were limited military operations are launched.
Well, there's a myth that Caligula appointed his horse, Incitatus, to be a consul, because there were too many jackasses in the Roman senate. The reality is that he just said it likely to gain popularity. And I guess many Romans were happy with the thought. Not much has changed, I guess.
And actually you are wrong. If there are people that are accepted to be talented, they are then said to be "the adults in the room". Yep, you have people even in the second Trump administration that are called so. :wink:
Quoting NOS4A2
Lol. You will not see anything wrong with Kash Patel, never.
Retired police officer arrested over thought crime tweet
Pensioner held after Palestinian march post on social media, with Brexity books in his home scrutinised
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/?ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first
Another shortcut, cost saving exercise to make the Trump Admin look effective to the disinterested.
A possibility
Quoting NOS4A2
Shows a lack of friends, being left to skeletonize on a park bench.
An alt interpretation......just kidding
smile
As Bessent said in an interview today: "Neither side wants a decoupling of trade". Well, Trump think trade is bad, but anyway.
When nobody is limiting this moron's actions in the White House, then they are then limited by the markets and the real economy. Still, 10% tariffs and the 30% tariffs on Chinese goods do have some effect... not of an embargo, but still something. Can we still avoid the Trump recession? Let's hope we can do that.
And has ever corruption been so evident? With the Qatari gift of a luxury jet for Trump, never. And this was the person the Trumpists believed to root out corruption and "drain the swamp"! :lol:
After the presidency, the 400 million or so luxury jet goes to the Trump Presidential Library Association... not to be part of the US Presidential fleet.
You parroting gutter press again. Wont you ever learn.
:D I can picture him retiring to Sochi with a chuckle going "Fooled ya' all dumbasses".
It becomes just another tax now. Maybe that was the intent in the first place, but he hyped it up, to try and get some bonus effect.
The effects of the April 2nd announcement still haven't materialized yet so we don't know how bad it will get. I don't think we're out of the woods yet though given the existing tariffs and more importantly the uncertainty. I feel like the 10% global tariffs may be here to stay because no matter how much Trump backtracks, they always seems to remain.
Inciteful smile
Well, I think they are laughing about the many millions the family has made with the Trump and Melania coins and their pump and dump schemes:
But Americans wanted these grifters to be in power. To drain the swamp, as they promised. Well, the house of Trump is draining money for itself, that's for sure.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree. The 10% to 30% tariffs will just mean a little bit of inflation and acts as lifting the foot from the gas pedal for the economy. But the idea that will promote US manufacturing is delirious and an insane idea.
Quoting Mr Bee
The market desperately hopes that Trump backtracks allways and in the end makes deals that won't effect much. The long term impacts are different: they are huge and consequential. I think the dollar crisis that will end the current dollar reserve system and replace it with a likely multicurrency system has gotten years closer now.
That this crisis happens is sure, only the timing is not known. But when by all forecasts in the 2030 you would have all the US government income going into servicing the debt and mandatory programs, this course cannot prevail. How long it takes for the crisis to happen is unknown. Usually it takes far more years as people anticipate.
China's vast factory sector was already bearing the brunt of the tariffs. "The International Monetary Fund, Goldman Sachs and UBS all recently revised down their economic growth forecasts for China over 2025 and into 2026, citing the impact of U.S. tariffs - none of them expect the economy to hit Beijing's official growth target."
Discerning the state of China's economy is increasingly difficult because of the disappearance of Chinese economic data over the last couple of years. The last of that data indicates that China was already dealing with some difficulties.
Given that this data is still missing, and the Politburo has little to brag about, one can assume that it hasn't gotten much better over there. Recent strikes and protests and factory closures further indicate that it hasn't. The pivot to selling goods on social media further indicates it hasn't. And a recent liquidity injection indicates an opponent on the ropes.
So Trump "blinked"?
White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump
[sup] Jamie Raskin · Oversight Committee · Jan 4, 2024[/sup]
Later the legal system should also go after people like James Comer, all the Republican enablers of Trump. But a great document, have to read it all. It will be interesting to read the history books about Trump administration in the 2030's or 2040's.
Yet it's now laughable how the Trump crowd was against corruption and hated the Clinton's having a foundation and getting those speech fees etc. Especially the idea of American politicians getting money from the Arabs. But now... it's smart!
Just like with the Liberation Day tariffs against the World, indeed yes.
And anyway, it's Trump who started this and whom the Chinese can blame. If the two countries go after 90 days back to embargo mode, China can take it, just like Russia can the embargoes. Both aren't democracies. Both don't have an opposition that is telling what an absolute disaster their policies are (in case of Russia, that could be done easily). Both countries can convince their people that they are a target of an US lead attack. If you economy takes a hit for that, so be it.
It's the Americans who can get angry if they have severe stagflation or empty shells, because it's a consequence of White House policies.
Because people are biased and the majority of people cannot think outside those biases they have. If someone on the other side does something that their own camp judges immoral, then they will pour all their hate towards that person. But if they later do the same thing, then they will not think it's immoral, even when faced with the fact that they've shown this hypocrisy. It's biased behavior 101.
People who are able to act, think and see past their own biases are rare, like, 1-2 % of the population rare. The world rests on people's biases being somewhat moral, by good people in the lead (or at least good enough), but all it takes is a slight corruption of their thinking by bad actors to influence their biased thinking into becoming supporters of murderous, hateful, racist and criminal behavior.
This is why people are shit. Not just leaders and corrupt politicians, but the people, embodying the banality of evil.
Stagflation, eh? Inflation hit the lowest levels in 4 years last month. Is that a consequence of Whitehouse policies?
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/13/biden-book-wheelchair-2024-campaign-original-sin
Its pretty wild how Biden supporters were routinely lied to, and his health deterioration was covered up by the captured press for half of Bidens presidency. The lies only fell apart just last June. Why did everyone believe it for so long?
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/5/14/donald-trump-live-president-to-lift-syria-sanctions-heads-to-qatar-next
And I cant wait to see the flying palace gifted to the United States from Qatar. The meltdowns and peace in the Middle East is worth it.
Meanwhile, what are Euro leaders doing?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-15/un-aid-chief-urges-security-council-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza/105293790
You cannot be serious. This is basically a cease-fire on tariffs (at very high levels of 30%/10%) for 90 days. Trade agreement my ass!
Quoting NOS4A2
I wonder how this will happen.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, assuming if there would be the tariffs that Trump proposed on Liberation day. But wait, he just backtracks them every time, when the market gets restless.
Quoting NOS4A2
Of course, the new Griftforce 1 shows how cool corruption during this Trump era is. :lol:
So, recently Jeffrey Sachs gave this talk on an online talkshow in which he expressed what I thought to be a surprising amount of optimism and positivity about Trump's approach to foreign policy.
Sachs's points in summary:
- Trump pursues the right policy on Israel and Ukraine, namely peace.
- Trump's approach is effective.
- If successful, this could end 30 years of aggressive US(-Israeli) foreign policy, which would be historic.
Sachs is a person I regard as exceptionally well-informed and as having a moral character, so even though his take surprises me somewhat, I am forced to take it seriously.
Surely if Trump actually succeeds on either front, that would be nothing short of revolutionary. I used to be (and to a large degree still am) skeptical whether he will be, but there seems to be a glimmer of hope.
Any takes?
What? If Trump wants to stop these two wars all he has to do is freeze military aid to Isreal and threaten Putin with serious action on blocking oil and bank transactions and increasing military aid to Ukraine. He could end both wars in one day if he did that.
With regards to the course of action you propose, I think it is foolhardy.
Russia has been hit by probably the most extensive sanctions package ever, and it achieved nothing. Furthermore, increasing military aid to Ukraine probably will have the contrary effect, confirming to the Russians that a military victory in Ukraine is the only way they can achieve their goals.
Freezing military aid to Israel is another hot potatoe, considering the massive influence of the Israel lobby and the ramifications it may have for those who support pressuring Israel. This is why not a single US administration has managed to put meaningful pressure on Israel since ... Well, since ever?
Pam Bondi makes another claim on the Epstein files. Even Republicans are skeptical
[sup] David Catanese · Miami Herald via Yahoo News · May 7, 2025[/sup]
Pardon me, but isn't 'The Republican Party' the party of business, of free enterprise, of free-wheeling capitalism? So how anti-business is it to demand that a business reduce its margins, lest it embarass the President? I mean, Trump already refuses to admit what tarriffs are - namely, a tax on imports - but demanding that businesses bleed profit so as to meet his political aims, is about as anti-business as it gets.
We can predict the Republican congress will say nothing, as usual.
Trump finally meets his match
[sup] The Daily Show · May 16, 2025 · 1m[/sup]
Unprincipled? Hypocrisy? Unreliable?
Wait, what? I thought tariffs were paid by abusive countries. :joke:
I'm not sure even if he thought this way. Trump simply thinks that he's in good terms with Putin, so he would get the deal. Putin naturally won't budge.
Quoting Tzeentch
Basically Netanyahu is also an American politician, so well can he handle the US. For Trump there is no problem to back Israel and get money from the Gulf Arabs. He doesn't have to pick sides.
Maybe Finland could work on getting a Netanyahu for themselves.
Not a chance.
But typical for Israeli propaganda effort, somehow in the gay Eurovision song contest, Israel got more points from the publec than Sweden from Finland which had a Swedish-Finnish band playing a song about bathing in the Sauna, which was the new craze here and had gotten enormous enthusiasm in Finland. (In the contest you cannot vote for your own country) But nope, a song that in Finnish Spotify-list is played 72nd (Israel's Eurovision song) got more votes than the song that on the same Spotify-list is number 1, higher than the Finnish eurovision song (4th).
Seems that one country wants to show that actually Europeans love them a lot.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/21/senate-passes-no-tax-on-tips-bill
What a huge win for the American Democracy! Yeaahh! :grin: :up:
The whole process helps the economy too, because now the government has to rip off everything to make it the command center it ought to be.
And that is temporarily, because naturally the next POTUS has to have a new one... or continue to fly with the old one. :joke:
I wonder if when Queen Victoria gifted President Hayes the Resolute Desk the anti-Hayes crowd were chirping about it. Probably. But history has proven no one really cares in the long run.
But of course it isn't only the Qatari plane. It's all the crypto schemes that the Trump family is making. Just like the Pakistani crypto deal that Trump's children got with Pakistan... and then the US chose to intervene in the Pakistani-Indian crisis. Trump just loves when they kiss his ass and give money to him.
Earlier it was those pump and dump schemes with Melania coins. Or then you have little newsbits that don't make headlines, but surely would have made if it was Hunter Biden, not Eric Trump. (I remember you all so pumped about dealings of Hunter Biden.)
And btw, did Hayes, or his "Presidential library" keep the fucking desk afterwards? I think not. But what would you care.
Uh oh the Trump family is getting rich off of crypto? How dare they!
The Biden family hasnt produced a goddamn thing in their lives but a bunch of shell companies and empty promises. But where were you?
And I dont care because youve been crying wolf for almost 10 years now, and then everything goes on just fine. Hilarious how that works.
Ambush? Clearly youve been following the corporate press like a little lapdog. To me it was a much-needed exposure. Though the crosses were not graves, like Trump assumed, they in fact represented actual victims, and the exposure highlighted an issue that until now most have ignored, or actively dismissed. The man who put them there, his family brutally murdered, is happy people are learning about it. Youre the one who is not happy about it, perhaps because youre a monster who doesnt care about racial violence and terrorism; thats all.
The only thing consistent is that the US economy and international trade doesn't like uncertainty. And Trump will just give us far earlier the fiscal crisis / dollar crisis that would have happened otherwise later.
Quoting tim wood
NOS4A2 doesn't care where the pictures are actually from. Besides, Trump has used earlier this similar tactic in his campaign in 2016 with old video clips from a documentary about the Moroccan-Spanish border (from Melilla, if I remember correctly) to be as video footage from the US-Mexican border.
And how did Trump react then?
That South Africa is one of the most violent places doesn't matter, what matters is the idea that "the liberal fake mainstream media" isn't talking about whites being attacked by a black majority, but Trump is! That's what get's the Trump people so aroused so much, that they don't give a fuck if the so-called evidence is fabricated or not. That's only the liberal cry babies whining. Actual specifics, like from where pictures are from, don't matter, it's about embracing ones prejudices. Many of these Trump supporters like too the replacement theories also, so what better is there to talk about a genocide of the white population in South Africa?
Members of the SA government lead "kill the boer" chants in large stadiums, and there have been thousands of murders of white farmers. I've never been to the region, but that alone is terrifying.
"Genocide" apparently no longer holds any fixed meaning, either.
No one really cares about any of that, apparently, or actively dismisses it.
Whatever happened to the "I don't see colour!" bullshit you were peddling? Nice to see the white nationalist movement alive and well on this forum.
Boers are only 5% of the population. Even if only 1 in 6 killed are white, that's still 3x disproportionate.
No minority should be persecuted based on race. If SA had stadiums of white folks chanting "kill the blacks," it would be unfathomable. I want a government that does not prefer any one race. Double standards, unfortunately, exist.
You should try listening to victims stories. Theyre horrific, and I dont believe theyre lying because they happen to be white.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Excellent. Only 1% of total murder victims in South Africa are white.
White. Nationalists. Racist. Fucks. The both of you.
Your post is unhinged and unbecoming of a moderator.
So you condemn the Israeli government then?
have you apologized for spreading blood libels yet?
Actually it does.
If you would want an actual discussion about the subject, then the discussion should be more about Zimbabwe, not South Africa. But the history of former Rhodesia is quite different from South Africa, just as is the history of Namibia is also. And still, the term genocide wouldn't be appropriate.
Yet in the case of Zimbabwe, the idea that "liberal fake media" didn't report these issues simply is incorrect. In fact, events under the Mugabe regime were reported especially by the BBC, but also other media. Sanctions were put against Mugabe regime by EU and the US for human rights violations (and election fraud). The human rights violations were directed at the regime itself. Something like 3 million Zimbabweans left the country (of 16 million), so not all whites. At the most there were perhaps 250 000 - 300 000 whites, yet the white population started to decrease already in the 1970's and the trend has continued since 1980 with now there being perhaps less than 30 000.
And of course, news like the following don't make it to the echo chambers, just like that European countries have tightened their stances on migrants and refugees. Any positive news out of Africa doesn'ts sell:
The stories from survivors of attempted murder, rape, torture, and robbery are anecdotal evidence. Do you say that about all victims of crimes or just the ones that are politically inconvenient?
Ignorance is no excuse. The stories may be inconvenient for you, but if they continue I hope your conscience gets the better of you.
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2017/03/25/-bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-esc
I am reminded of the story which went around the world within a few hours, in outrage, of 40 beheaded babies.
I see now, so anyone who doesnt apologise for criticising Israel is an anti semite and of course, you are not critical of Israel committing genocide on a people they regard as animals.
Indeed it isn't. What's your excuse for peddling lies then if not ignorance of almost everything that matters?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Calling out white nationalists and racists is never unbecoming for anyone. Particularly a moderator.
Not at all. Just remember that it was South Africa that made the case against Israel of genocide against the Palestinians. That is why there's this large effort to tarnish the image of South Africa.
The discussion is about SA, though, not Zimbabwe. I'm not sure why you're deflecting to Zimbabwe.
We've talked about genocide before. Remember when you mentioned Bibi's mention of Amalek? Well, what would you think if you had stadiums of Israelis yelling "kill the Palestinian," led by major politicians? We see this in South Africa, but it's ignored because, as @NOS4A2 mentions, the victim group is politically inconvenient and thus undeserving of attention/sympathy.
Showing sympathy or concern for the group is only testimony to one's racism. :roll:
How many were actually killed?
Yes, but this whole conspiracy has been cooked up because the oppressed people in an apartheid state are now in charge. Fuelled by people sympathetic to an other apartheid state.
They claim a genocide (falsely), while denying the other genocide, which is actually happening before our eyes.
Since 1994, approximately 4,000, or around 130 per year.
Where did you find this info? I can't find it.
Here's one source from 2018:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-000476_EN.html
"In South Africa, white farmers have for years been exposed to an unprecedented wave of violence. Statistically, a farm is attacked every day in South Africa. South Africa has the worlds highest murder rate, but the murder rate among white South Africans is three times higher than the national average, while that of white farmers is six times higher. Often, the victims are tortured and ill-treated for hours before being killed.
Since the end of apartheid in 1994, up to 4 000 white farmers have been murdered. The police investigate these crimes only half-heartedly. The organisation Genocide Watch warns of the threat of genocide.
Against the backdrop of continuing violence against white South Africans, 1 500 demonstrators protested in Pretoria in November 2017 and submitted a petition to the South African government."
Also, since 2004, the Boers have been keeping track of their dead through roadside memorials. That number is around 3,000 since 2004, so around 150 per year. The murders are unsolved 95% of the time.
The homicide rate in S. Africa is 45 per 100,000. The homicide rate for whites specifically is 3.3 per 100,000.
The homicide rate for blacks in the Southeast during the 1950s was 45 per 100,000.
I don't think we could describe what's happening to whites in South Africa as a genocide. There's just a lot of violence, most of which does not affect whites.
SA doesn't sort homicide victims by race, so I don't think we're going to get objective statistics on this.
It's not just the murders. It's the fact that you have very influential and wealthy men/famous politicians leading genocidal chants like "kill the boer" in large stadiums, and land appropriations, among other things. There is an overt, large-scale glorification of racial violence coming from prominent figures.
I'm not claiming it's a full-blown genocide, but I'd agree that the situation is concerning.
Because the genocide angle is a right wing conspiracy theory and not real. As you say, its violence in general, and right wingers use the high crime rate and murder rates to construct the narrative of white genocide. Its within the same basis as replacement theory; white supremacy bullshit. This is how a population gets radicalized, with narratives that the people are too lazy to look up actual data on and too uneducated to understand that data. So they start with maybe theres something to this and then slowly shift in opinions.
:up:
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Find out the facts first.
Because in Zimbabwe there has been actions against white farmers by the government. Even there one cannot make the case for genocide. South Africa has high crime rate. Farms are in rural areas, where law enforcement isn't as close as in the suburbs. That's the reason. If you assume there's a covert government operation of killing white people in South Africa, there's got to be a lot more of evidence.
This is just the nonsense ramblings of Trump. But seems to have hit a sweet spot among some.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
BitconnectCarlos, they already do that!
So wtf are you talking about???
Do those ultranationalists represent all Jewish Israelis? No, but so doesn't some similar politician in South Africa who use hate speech.
What the South Africans do know when they see it is an apartheid system.
I agree. Yet the case of South Africa shows just how rare are politicians like Nelson Mandela and how easy it is for the populists to spread their hate in every country.
I fixed it for you.
Fixed that too.
A lot of nonsense narratives are floating about, often constructed deliberately to play on people's fears and emotions.
People hear something repeated a couple of times and stick with it, assuming it's true.
I'm sure we've all been guilty of that one way or another.
We have a poster who insists he doesn't see colour and has a whole shtick about the evils of affirmative action and whatnot but when it's whites allegedly being killed all of a sudden it's relevant they're white.
The other one defends Israeli-committed genocide round the clock and whines about a white genocide in SA that doesn't exist because what? He's tricked in being an asshole? Fuck that.
If this is some sort of arch crime, I don't really get it.
With our unnamed genocide apologist I see where you're coming from.
I will be the first to admit I've contradicted myself twice before breakfast but this is just ridiculous.
So DJT seems suddenly to have become aware of the fact that Putin is groundlessly and indiscriminately firing missiles and drones and killing Ukrainian citizens - three years after the invasion started. I would say 'better late than never', but you don't know what he's going to say next.
But it is. The whole genocide of whites is part of the replacement conspiracy theory and it's being used in propaganda by white supremacists all over the world. What facts are you looking for? I don't think there's anything confusing about this. The attacks on farmers are part of a general problem in the area, but white supremacists reframe it to be a genocide that is partially backed up by the government, all of which is untrue.
Quoting Wikipedia
Quoting ADL
Quoting BBC
Quoting SFS
Quoting Reuters
What more facts are you after? What else do you need to understand where this thing is leaning? I'd argue that whenever someone claims genocide, there has to be significant evidence for it, not against it. Because such a claim is extraordinary, and as such needs extraordinary evidence.
If you accept this narrative at face value and ask for evidence against it, then you are essentially just falling for this narrative rather than putting the claim under scrutiny. That the white genocide in South Africa is connected to the great replacement theory is a known fact by researchers of right wing extremism globally.
So I don't know what else you need? How is that connection "jumping to conclusions" when it has far more support than the opposite claim.
I don't want to get sidetracked and turn this into another discussion about Israel. We've discussed Israel enough.
"Kill the Boer" is a prominent chant in SA that ties back to the country's liberation from apartheid. It is part of that nation's narrative of birth. It's not just a few extremists, but a veritable part of their cultural heritage, dating back to the liberation struggle. It was banned in 2010 but permitted in 2022 , so it's clearly something the country has struggled to reconcile.
Regardless of country, it is terrifying when you have prominent politicians (Malema's party controls 10% of Congress) in mass rallies glorifying the murder of another ethnic group, especially where there are pre-existing ethnic tensions. We should have learned this from Rwanda, where the language used played a key role in dehumanization.
There are already around 140 racist laws in South Africa that explicitly favor the black population. Then there are the land reforms/seizures, which target Boers. The Boer farmer population has declined precipitously (50%?) over the past few decades.
I'm not saying it's genocide yet, but I'm glad Trump is calling it out rather than just ignoring it entirely when their President visits. He's also confronted Starmer. If the shoe were on the other foot and whites were imposing racist laws and seizing land from blacks and screaming genocidal chants at mass rallies, the world would be all over it (and rightfully so). Yet double standards define our times. It is seen as fine when an "oppressed" or formerly oppressed group behaves oppressively, and the politically correct thing is to look the other way and not blame them. To assign blame or even express concern is racist, and two-tier judgments are the sign of a good and enlightened person.
The white supremacist replacement thing is at least 100 years old. It was part of the motive for the Jim Crow laws. There actually has been violence against white farmers in S Africa. Rage against whites is understandable there. There's no need to deny it.
First, can you make a clear distinction between the general violence that also affects black people and that of violence based on racist motives? Second, if such a statistical difference is large enough, does it constitute genocide against white people?
By your logic, we should then call the higher level of violence against black people in the US to also be called a genocide. And seen as a lot of such violence in the US is also conducted by the police, you have an even worse situation of systemic racism causing the violence and deaths; it should then be called state sanctioned genocide of black people in the US.
Thats not a slippery slope, because you basically take the fact that white farmers have indeed been killed, but you ignore the general situation in the region and just repeat the white supremacy propaganda narrative that has been constructed around it. Why? And the comparison I did with the US also rests on a comparable situation that white people are being targeted more in South Africa than black people, which still isn't proven to be the case when looking at the actual statistics. So it's not really a comparable situation either; it actually makes even less of a case for white genocide happening since the situation statistically is worse for black people in the US.
So I dont really understand how you use the fact of violence against white people, without any context to it (the actual statistics of violence in the area), and conclude genocide? Thats not proof, thats a wildly skewed interpretation of the data, seemingly influenced by the conspiracy narratives thats been spread around online rather than forming a conclusion based on evidence.
This is the problem with these online conspiracy narratives in society, they seem to burrow into peoples minds so hard that the basic way people engage with news and information is to first believe the narrative and then ask others to prove against it, rather than demand evidence of the narratives claims first and be skeptical.
Basically, being skeptical today seems to be about buying into a narrative first as some form of substitute for actual skepticism, claiming the belief in that narrative is the skepticism. Instead of what skepticism is about, questioning narratives and demand evidence first, demanding rational thinking rather than biased thinking.
Ive not seen any evidence of white genocide, have you? On the contrary, Ive seen more evidence against it and more evidence that the idea of it happening in South Africa is a construct of white supremacists spreading these ideas into right wing politics. It was basically formed out of the apartheid era, an echo promoted by those who lost power when apartheid ended.
While it is probably true that racists and the dreaded far-right have adopted the issue due to the purported colors of the skins of those involved, it should not mean all the racists on the left of them must drop the issue or otherwise impugn anyone who talks of it. This can only further racialize and muddy the issue.
Trump bringing it to light only exasperates it further. His loose use of the word genocide sends the symbolic mind on a quibbling rampage. When Trump thought the images of crosses were graves, not realizing it was a monument, the media took him to task for this small discrepancy without mentioning that each cross represented the grave of a murdered and possibly tortured person. The ages of the victims ranged from two to eighty-seven, but anti-Trumpism forces people to use even the most heartbreaking of imagery as a ghoulish cudgel against their folk devil.
Conspiracy theory or not, there are people who live in fear and feel racially persecuted, as is evident by the stories. Large political parties are chanting for their murder. Cases are rarely solved. Police are slow or are otherwise under-funded. One of the advocacy groups for these farmers argue that many of the attacks are particularly brutal, involving rape and torture, suggesting a level of hatred or barbarism beyond just the petty crime it is often claimed to be. The memoir of a friend to the current president wrote that Ramiphosa said the ANCs 25-year pan for dealing with the whites would be like boiling a frog alive, which is done by raising the temperature very slowly. There are discrepancies between what people report, the data is old or missing or insufficient, and the government is corrupt or dysfunctional, leaving the check the data crowd looking really silly. All of this fosters fear, loss of trust, and propagates even more conspiracy theory.
On top of that crimes against members of other ethnicities across the country are met with even far less concern. Conditions for farm workers are often abysmal. Everyone, regardless of ethnicity, must fear crime and violence both in the cities and in rural areas, and any private owner of land is at risk having it expropriated for the public interest, or in other words, due to the whim of politicians.
All of these leads to only one conclusion, namely, the absolute failure of racist and collectivist governments in Africa, apartheid and beyond. Why they are defended is anyones guess.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/safrica2/Safarms7.htm
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/23/south-africa-farmworkers-dismal-dangerous-lives
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/southern-africa/south-africa/report-south-africa/
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2017/03/25/-bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-esc
https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/factsheets/factsheet-statistics-farm-attacks-and-murders-south-africa
https://www.artikels.afriforum.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Farm-attacks-and-murders-in-South-Africa-2023.pdf
https://irr.org.za/media/articles-authored-by-the-institute/the-anc-and-ramaphosas-1994-plan-for-the-whites-politicsweb-17-september-2017
I don't think there's a white genocide going on in S. Africa. I already said that. It's my experience with insidious violence that makes me just stop and listen when people are claiming that there's been race related violence.
I don't think you need to follow my lead, though. :razz:
"HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY THROUGH WARPED RADICAL LEFT MINDS, WHO ALLOWED 21,000,000 MILLION PEOPLE TO ILLEGALLY ENTER OUR COUNTRY, MANY OF THE BEING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTAO INSANE,THROUGH AN OPEN BORDER THAT ONLY AN INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT WOULD APPROVE, AND THROUGH JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDERERS, AND RAPE AGAIN, PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. HOPEFULLY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND OTHER GOOD AND COMPASSIONATE JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE LAND, WILL SAVE US FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE MONSTERS WHO WANT OUR COUNTRY TO GO TO HELL."
Do you think the pressure might be getting to him?
Nope. Looks like hes calling out your anti-American team on Memorial Day. I love that kind of stuff.
Fair enough, I was fundamentally objecting to the genocide claims since they are part of the great replacement narratives from white supremacists.
That there are cases of racist violence would be wild to argue against though. Especially since it's an understandable echo of the apartheid era. It takes time for a society to heal, especially one resting on so much violence in the first place.
But its the genocide angle that becomes problematic, because it's not what is happening and it's used by white supremacists around the world. They take advantage of singular cases of violence, point towards it and inflate it to support their great replacement narratives.
And when a president repeats these things, that's extremely problematic. Either he's too stupid to understand that he's been fed this narrative, or he's a white supremacist himself, which isn't far fetched. It's not something he would put on signs.
Of course, at the same time, this is a very crucial moment, which is associated, of course, with the emotional overload of everyone absolutely and with emotional reactions.
It's always easier to attack than defend, though; to charge with wrongdoing rather than rebut the charge.
They have literally done that today, at the wailing wall rather than a stadium. Its being broadcast on the world media. Theyre dancing and chanting with Ben-Gvir egging them on. Fully aware that theyre committing a genocide on their neighbours.
Its a reminder that human nature includes the potential for groups to kill and Iradicate other groups and feel morally justified in doing so. So it is incumbent upon world leaders to call it out where it happens and prevent it. There is one person, one world leader, alone who can stop this in one day and he is noticeably silent on the issue.
The video and the claims about it being a mass grave is a conspiracy theory propagated by the far right in the US and in other countries.
In reality, it was a protest following the murder of a white couple, the crosses were symbolic, there were no graves and the people there were the protesters. Trump is broadcasting false conspiracy theories from the White House.
I condemn anyone calling for the deaths of any ethnic group, whether Arabs or Boers. We all should. It's not acceptable in chants or songs.
Your metaphorical slogan about killing the Boers turned into a real killing of a farmer, by the admission of the killer.
https://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1999/9910/p991014a.htm
Look what youre forcing yourself to defend.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230922163307/https://afriforum.co.za/en/attackers-chant-kill-the-boer-kill-the-farmer-before-stabbing-female-victim-with-spear/
Also note that the farmers killed are predominantly not white. So there's that. Sigh.
Look, I understand it's a touchy issue for you, but the obvious reality that you indeed have these kinds of politicians in various countries, including Israel. And when there's an outright violent conflict and hatred among the different people, then the there is the real fear of a genocide.
Yet I think the larger and more probable fear is just ethnic cleansing which was very successful in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh. And all the Azeris had to do was to publicly deny it. Abstaining from widespread violence worked. Ethnic cleansing is a reality in our time. Now the talk of cleansing Gaza is totally normal as moving everybody away to other countries is openly discussed.
If that happens, I guess it would give a great example even to some extremist idiot in South Africa to then call for similar actions, even if the insane move would destroy the South African economy even more. Africa has seen it's examples of expulsions of minorities: Idi Amin giving 90 days for Asians (primarily Indians) to leave Uganda in 1972. Before that he had expelled the Kenyan minority.
Yet the undeniable fact is that there isn't a genocide going on against white people in South Africa. There isn't even a government lead ethnic cleansing program going on. South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the World. A country being one of the most violent in the World usually means that many people will emigrate from the country. What basically Trump has done perhaps can simply just increase the brain drain and pensioners moving to the US, if they can opt for that automatic refugee status.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
With the example of Zimbabwe, I tried to show you that this isn't the case. Partisan actors will think this way because they simply won't be interested in something that doesn't promote their cause. Put them aside and there's still the ability to get an objective view about events, even if you need to find it out yourself with a little work.
It's the alt-right lie that "this is what you are not told about... by the lying fake media". It's their gimmick.
Genocide under international law is strongly linked to the intent to commit it, which in the case of ethnic violence is almost par for the course.
When political parties start busying overtly genocidal slogans in a country with the history of South Africa, that is extremely worrying. Handwaving it under the banner of 'It's not yet genocide' is not the type of thing I would expect from rational people. In fact, it reminds me more of the type of apologetics the Israeli government and its supporters like to spin.
Have you then read the Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank?
Terms like genocide or fascist are hurled as negative adjectives, hence defining things correctly is important as is putting things into context. The accusation is "that there is a genocide underway" is quite different from "there is a clear threat of ethnic violence", don't you think?
I would go further to say that there is ethnic violence, just as there are hate crimes even in the US, only more. Dismal economy and poverty do give a breeding ground for radical extremists, but not all of the people fall for them. And luckily, South Africa hasn't collapsed.
Quoting Tzeentch
Or the apologetics of those that think actually Russia was the real victim in the Ukraine war. Yeah, I agree.
But we have to understand that people have different ways of thinking. I noticed it for the first time in PF (the old site, that is) when some Americans came to the forum to defend the actions of President Bush, like invading Iraq because of the WMD argument. They saw it as their patriotic duty to defend their country, when a lot of people where critical of the dubious reasons for the 2003 war.
Quoting Benkei
Reflecting on to other countries and not the one the one you live in is one way to sell a message that otherwise wouldn't fly, because a) it wouldn't be appropriate or b) usually people are aware of the situation in the country they live in.
Instantly back to being a clown, I see?
Well, back on the ignore list you go.
Oh.... a hit dog will holler.
I don't doubt it. I just ignore it.
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/27/fbi-white-house-cocaine-supreme-court-leak-investigations
In a country where ~95% of murders are unresolved against a specific (minority) ethnic group, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to leave. Protection is the basic function of government, and if the government isn't upholding its end of the bargain, then those citizens don't owe them anything. It's a little odd that you give the SA authorities the benefit of the doubt as to race being a factor in the resolution rate, but whatever.
There's a difference between accepting immigrants who appreciate the country they're emigrating to & work legitimate professions versus those who come, e.g., due to a religious duty to spread their religion or to exploit resources. Every nation has the right to monitor its borders and set its immigration policies. Some immigrants easily assimilate, while others have no desire to.
Quoting ssu
Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. You should double-check the information, sure, but bias alone isn't a reason to dismiss it. Virtually everything is biased, including us. The media has not been even-handed either. The media is just one source of news/info among others and even the most even-handed of us are biased. We all choose our bias, ultimately.
[sup] Siddharth Cavale, Nivedita Balu, Jessica DiNapoli, Aurora Ellis · Reuters · Apr 7, 2025[/sup]
How is the Canadian boycott affecting American products?
[sup] Bill Wilson · Supermarket News · May 28, 2025[/sup]
How Tariffs Are Making Beer More Expensive (beer important!)
[sup] Bromlyn Bethune · Macleans · May 28, 2025[/sup]
Seems like the trend continues for now, a "Trump effect", with analogous reactions in Latin America and Europe.
For Canadians, there isn't much of a difference between "Buy Canadian" and "Don't buy American", though other foreign products haven't been affected like US products.
There's been a "Buy American" campaign in the US for some time.
The first golden rule is that if it is commonly understood that the foreign people bring money into the society, foreigners will be accepted: nobody has a problem with tourists, with millionaires or needed talented professionals moving into your nation. If somebody is publicly against there being tourists, the person will be confronted by angry people who get their life earnings from the tourist trade. But if those tourists don't bring in money, just roam around and sleep in public parks, they will be immediately despised everywhere. Foreigners that just want to take your wealth and have no desire to appreciate anything else are usually in history called the invading enemy. What people feel about them is quite universal and these attitudes have a long history.
With refugees it's even more stark and obviously the closeness to the refugees matter very much. Clearest example of this is has been the response in European countries of the Ukrainian refugees compared to 2015 Migration Crisis. A very good decision by the Ukrainians was to forbid military-aged men from leaving the country (and many Ukrainian male expats going to fight in the war). Countries that had not taken any refugees in 2015 took millions. Poland has taken nearly a million Ukrainian refugees. People will think this is blatant racism, but the reality is that people can empathize with these as Poles obviously understand what a threat Russia is to them and the Poles have a bloody history with the Russians. If it would be just racism, then these countries would have taken also the Russian men fleeing the war as refugees. They surely did not.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Please focus on what the disagreement here is. I don't think there is a genocide taken place, something like the Turks did against Armenians or what the Hutus did against Tutsis during the Ruandan civil war. There simply aren't the piles of white people lying around with either South African soldiers or jubilant crowds with machetes. A genocide looks like a Zombie movie with the exception that the Zombies aren't the brain eating living dead, but totally ordinary people minding their business whereas the "heroes" in Zombie movie are just like how they are portrayed in the movies, except that they just think that other people are zombies and killing them will make the world a better place.
Is South Africa dangerous for Whites? Yes, but it's also dangerous for Blacks too. Are there severe problems in South Africa and tensions between the ethnic groups? Yes.
This isn't nitpicking. We do have to find a way to talk about the situations in various countries accurately. Because we shouldn't use these terms like genocide as tropes.
Quoting BitconnectCarlosBut if the source is telling that there's a genocide when there isn't a genocide, it's wrong. That there are tensions and hostility against an ethnic group can be totally true.
Do notice that the alt-right media-sphere that turns this out never report things like that EU and EU countries have dramatically tightened their immigration policies. This is because the agenda is to portray only the radical populists to be capable of doing this: the you have to favor some AfD in Germany to get change from Merkel's policies. Or that somehow Sweden is lost to multiculturalism when the US is far more multicultural than Sweden. And so on.
Let's see how this goes to the SCOTUS.
A minor setback. There are plenty ways around it.
I think this needs to be challenged.
A rich foreigner with an agenda can be quite dangerousprobably more dangerous than a foreign mugger. The latter is an obvious threat, while the former has the potential to do quite a bit of harm with their great resources. We must look at the values and allegiances of those entering our countries. Our elite universities in the US are flooded with very wealthy foreign students who have zero allegiance to the US, and I think our country is finally waking up to the fact that we've been sold out.
Quoting ssu
There's a lot of complexity around this word. Appropriating land is closely associated with ethnic cleansing. Is ethnic cleansing the same as genocide? Should we call expulsion and murder the same thing - genocide? Should we call harsh repressive measures that forbid/restrict the practice of a group's traditions/culture genocide? The question is a reasonable one to ask.
Here in the US, we stripped the natives of their land and forbade the practice of their customs. It was extraordinarily effective in decimating the native american populations (along with disease and alcohol), and that group remains the poorest and least powerful group in the country.
Quoting ssu
Maybe mass deportations are needed.
Sweden is responsible for managing Sweden. Currently, 80% of the population is native Swedes; would they be okay with this number going to 70%? 60%? What kinds of cultural changes would we see at those levels? Do Swedes value their culture, or is it more defined by its openness and receptivity? What cultures are they importing?
It's a difficult question that every country needs to address. I see value in preserving distinct cultures and think pride in one's group is fine as long as one is fair and hospitable to foreigners. One can hold pride in one's group while still looking outward and seeing value and brilliance in other groups. It follows, though, that if one values and has pride in one's culture, one should be prepared to defend it if necessary.
Seems you don't have any idea just how a modern scientific university works. On the contrary, foreign students bring money into universities... especially if your own citizens wouldn't have to pay huge fees. What are especially liked are foreign post-doc researchers, who come to make good research and then leave back to their country. The departments and the university get the product of their work, yet these foreigners aren't competing for the university positions with the locals, which the locals are very happy about. When you have had the best resources and the top research hubs in Ivy League universities, those attract the best talent.
Or do you think that foreign students are a fifth colony of agents that steel the precious wisdom only held the genius Americans? Hence the US would be better of without foreigners participating in their universities?
If you want to shoot yourself in the leg, please do so! Ban then all foreigners from entering your universities. That would really help them! I wouldn't be surprised if the Bigot in Chief in the White House would want that. He hates international trade, so this would be a natural extension of that.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Says the person living in a far more multicultural country than Sweden. But how do you get to 60%?
First of all, the largest population of foreigners and foreign born Swedes are us, Finns. The number of Sweden Finns are estimated of being from half a million to 700 000. These people were taught in school in Finland already the Swedish language. They are also Lutherans (if the belong the church), watch hockey and eat pea soup, just like the native Swedes do. They don't live in separated areas and naturally have intermarried to the native population. Above all, they look just like Swedes. This migration happened basically from the late 1960's to the early 1980's and thus their even their children are quite old now. As people can inside the Nordic countries as easily as an American can move from New York to California, many of the Sweden Finns have simply retained their Finnish citizenship, hence there are many who are indeed foreigners.
And because opening the border for hundreds of thousands of Finns worked so well and as they integrated well and the economy improved, some then thought Sweden that it was OK to get anybody. Until 2015-2016 that is. Once the European migration crisis happened, Sweden shut down quickly it's open door policy.
So how do you get these ideas of Sweden is "going to lose to multiculturalism"? That it becomes a Muslim state and the native population will be a minority and loose it's identity?
The only way you get these fictional statistics that in few decades Sweden will be muslim or whatever, is if you extrapolate from the year 2015-2016. Because that's when you had the European migration crisis. This is what it looked like in Sweden:
Hence if you assume the levels of Syrians coming to Sweden in 2016, then yes, then and ONLY then you will have dramatic changes in demographics of the country. Hence the idea that Sweden will become a Muslim country or loose it's identity is simply a lie. As I said, the Swedish government quickly stopped the open door policies - which naturally the racists and bigots extremists are totally silent about. And Swedes aren't at all so open to immigration, the US is far more open to immigration.
In fact it's quite difficult for even an American to emigrate to the Nordic countries ...if they wanted that is.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And just how is your President doing with those mass deportations? Last time he ended up deporting far less than other presidents, including his successor Joe Biden.
It's not about wisdom. When these universities accept billions from Qatar, their Middle Eastern Studies departments naturally promote certain views. It's hard for a university to be unbiased when billions are funneled in from the Middle East. What nation can be unconcerned with what it's citizens are taught?
Quoting ssu
What are the fertility rates of the respective groups? And what rates are people converting to Islam? There can be tension when one group tries to convert while the other doesn't.
Quoting ssu
I agree; I would love to see him step it up - perhaps judges are blocking him. He did stem the flow of illegals crossing the border, though. Those numbers were insane under Biden.
Quoting ssu
60% was just an example to convey a hypothetical question about whether such a thing would cause alarm. Yes, some immigrants integrate well while others do not.
My own country used to be a white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon country. I don't think anything in our founding documents says we must maintain such a status. The founders agreed on specific values that are important to protect. There was diversity there, thoughsome were strong Christians, others were highly irreligious deists. The Enlightenment influenced them.
Other states are different. China is Han, and that traces back to the Han dynasty. It's not the same thing. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, either; it's just different.
Now Bannon wants Elon to be deported. Ah, these MAGA people are so hilarious.
[sup] Eileen Guo · MIT Technology Review · May 1, 2025[/sup]
They flagged the Enola Gay B-29 bomber from the 2nd World War as being woke, so who knows what they might do. :D
He was so angry that last time during the BLM riots his people, starting from the Defence Secretary, didn't go along on what he wanted. Now it's different. Hegseth is eagerly promising Marines, the regular armed forces, to be deployed.
Oh, Trump really loves to hear that.
The Launch of the Long Game
[sup] Linda Stamato · Inside Higher Ed · May 9, 2023[/sup]
Seems to be enacted by Trump + team now.
Just inching things closer into a proper authoritarian regime. I guess no one cares? :chin:
If I'm being honest, no I don't think they do. Maybe if Trump starts to abuse his authority further but we're not there yet and the culture war is enough of a distraction currently to get people to accept what's going on.
This hides the fact that actually Trump administration, this one and the earlier one, has had difficulties in sending back as much illegal immigrants as other administrations because of the simple fact that illegal immigrants simply won't try to come to the US when Trump is in charge. Just as tourists are now avoiding the ugly police state that TACO's US is now. And Canadians for obvious reasons because of Trump's absolutely disgusting behavior towards Canada.
Quoting Mr Bee
There's a long way still to go with the Trump administration.
Do note that Democrats are still viewed as "normal Americans". So just let the effects of the tariffs take their effect on the economy. Perhaps there's more "Liberation Days" still ahead. Who knows about all that winning...
Now I get it, when there's an institution, as we also have, as something like the "Ministry of Education", it is sure that schools and universities and especially the principals, rectors and deans that they have, do have their work time filled with applying to the standards and the instructions from the "ministry". Because what else would a "ministry" or a "department" do other than give standards and instructions? Yet this is normal bureaucracy.
Yet this goes indeed deeper, because there's a genuine hostility against the educational institutions. The common right-wing understanding goes that educational system and the academy has been overtaken by the Marxists, hence you have to fight these institutions. They are basically bad and don't do their job well. One should have noticed even here in the PF the threads about how this happened.
So what's the answer? All that you see the Trump administration doing now. Micromanagement of the curriculum and all the ugly stuff you are seeing now how especially universities are harassed by the Trump administration.
As one commenter put it: it's like going after a fly with a bazooka. Firing that bazooka (especially in a closed area with a lot of people) will surely bring far more devastation than killing a fly. If it's killed, btw.
Anyone who cheers on rioters flying foreign flags and burning the flags of their host country is not a "normal American." If they were, that's the end of our country. Past civil rights movements at least clothed themselves in the dress and mannerisms of America; this modern one doesn't even bother.
The fact that you're concerned more about flag burning over what the government is doing will have more to do with why the country is gonna end.
A government must be able to enforce something as basic as immigration policy.
And there are better ways of doing so than sending in the Marines to deal with flag burners.
"Protestors" are throwing molotov cocktails at law enforcement.
So that warrants sending in the US military?
True, but a president salivating over the prospect of sending in the troops to an American city is much more disturbing. I've lived in L.A. County most of my life. I've seen bad rioting first hand. What's going on now is nothing like that. We don't need marines here.
Do you agree with me here that Trump is chomping at the bit to send the troops in and look like a tough guy?
Ad hom. Focus on the action, not the character of the person initiating it. I'm seeing streets full of burning cars and absolute lawlessness in LA, but if you'd rather focus on Trump's motivations, go right ahead.
Are you saying it's an ad hom to consider a president's motivation for a particular action??? Let me give you an example: say you have a corrupt cabinet member. A president firing him for corruption is good. A president firing him because he's a Jew is bad. Right? So, the action can be the same, but the motivation is HUGELY important. Yes?
Oh, and you think the city of L.A. has descended into "absolute lawlessness"?
[sup] Lauren Hodges, Patrick Jarenwattananon, Juana Summers · npr · Jun 5, 2025[/sup]
I haven't heard of any fraud cases raised yet.
Was DOGE a waster? :D
Parts of it.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes. Ad homs aren't wrong per se, but you're engaging in classic ad hom:
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Well, is the cabinet member corrupt or not? This is a one-to-one scenario rather than a mass event. I prefer a good action done with impure motives to a bad action with pure motives, especially on a mass scale.
I'm not attacking Trump's argument, I'm questioning WHY he's doing what he's doing. This is not a fallacy. In criminal law, is the motive of the accused important? Yes. Did John kill Bob because he was legitimately scared for his life or because Bob was sleeping with his wife? That matters a lot, right? If John was legitimately afraid, he doesn't go to jail. If John was bent on revenge, he goes to prison for a long time.
"Well, is the cabinet member corrupt or not? This is a one-to-one scenario rather than a mass event. I prefer a good action done with impure motives to a bad action with pure motives, especially on a mass scale."
Yes, the cabinet member is corrupt, but that's irrelevant to the hypothetical. A president firing a corrupt cabinet member because of perceived corruption (even if the president is wrong), is totally understandable, right? If the President truly believes Bob is corrupt, he should fire him. But if the cabinet member is corrupt and the President fires him because he's Jewish, we have a HUGE problem on our hands, don't we? The intention is everything.
I don't want to press on with my points until we've reached agreement on this central issue: President Trump's motives in sending the marines to L.A. is very important. Agreed?
I think thats exactly whats happening. Urged on by Stephen Miller.
But like Orwell said in 1984 about Goldstein: "Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him."
Honestly I think feuding with the world's richest man would be good for him politically, putting aside the fact that he gave him DOGE (which his supporters are willing to do anyways).That being said, nothing beats the classics like going after immigrants I guess.
Imagine if the topic were tax reform, and one of us kept bringing up the perceived impure motives of one of the parties.
We could do it. I'm not saying it's wrong in and of itself.
However, our discussion wouldn't touch on the bill's actual effects. The side with the impure motives could have had an excellent proposal, but we wouldn't know because we spent all our time impugning their motives.
Certain Congressmen are saying that billionaire Neville Singham is funding these riots. We could also examine his motives.
Yes, but we're talking policy, not individual vs individual.
Ok, let's imagine it's tax reform and the President's children stand to benefit enormously from the president's tax proposal, as well as the president's biggest campaign donors. The president also has a new cypto named after him and the people who have bought the most TrumpCoin just so happen to also benefit enormously from the new tax reform bill's crypto regulations.
Even if you agree with the bill, are you trying to tell me you wouldn't care about all these conflicts of interest?
What are you trying to argue here? Let's say we both agree sending in the national guard and marines are necessary. Let's also say that a leaked copy of a Trump meeting gets released where we hear the President say, "This is just what I need! Now I can get the media to ignore my failed Musk bromance. I hope there's a bloodbath so the story has legs. Muhahahaha!"
If that happened, do you think we would be talking about the policy or the individual?
He likes the idea of killing rioters. I don't think he cares about Musk.
That would be much better than the opposite, i.e., Trump not acting due to some "pure" motive (whatever that means), and the LA faces destruction by criminal elements. I'll take good actions, iffy motives over the opposite, any day regarding policy.
Quoting RogueAI
We can talk about either, but they're different topics. Sometimes discussions about Israel do get inundated by people obsessing over Benjamin Netanyahu or Arafat and ignoring the bigger picture.
People somehow voted for this fascist asshole, so you reap what you sow. If most Americans dont like it, as polling indicates, then show up in the streets and in the polling booth next time.
The immigration thing is especially funny. They ran on a problem that didnt exist, continue to claim its the end of the world, and now use it to turn the US into a military dictatorship. And all you have to do is say illegal alien or immigrant. Reminds me of Israel bomb a school or hospital? Hamas was there. Kill thousands of kids? Hamas. Turn Gaza to rubble? Hamas.
Send troops to subdue peaceful protests? Immigrants.
And no one seems to care. Oh well.
Did I say that?
Nope, but the usual strawman argument from you.
I think the real question is the enthusiasm Trump wants to federalize the National Guard and then use of the armed forces in the manner that previously his cabinet (during the last Trump administration) was not so eager to use. Talk about a power grab. Stephen Miller craved for many more arrests and naturally ICE didn't coordinate with local police (why should they, because California is lead by democrats), hence no wonder you got this in the end.
Would Trump make such a show in a MAGA voting city or state? Nope, even if many red states have their share of illegal immigrants.
Well, if only those motherfucking insurrectionists of Jan 6th would have had to face off with the National Guard and the Marines, perhaps the Congress wouldn't have been overrun with the member of the Congress having to flee the invading mob. Remember those rioters who attacked the police... that TACO-Trump then pardoned?
Yeah, it's a whimsical shit show of an administration...
I'm not sure why flag waving or burning flags is the decisive factor. For "normal people" once a government stops representing basic values and the rule of law such as habeas corpus maybe burning a flag is cathartic or symbolic enough for them to distance themselves from the government they disagree with. Of course, normal Americans are too stupid so probably they think like you do and have uncritical allegiance to bullshit.
But I've noticed a few showing the Stars and Stripes upside down.
I try to make it a rule not to engage with you because you're one of the worst persons I know, morally and intellectually. Considering the level regularly revealed in the politics threads; that's quite a feat.
Anyhoo, calling it amazing that people are protesting mass arrests and military deployment on domestic soil is a revealing choice. Whats truly amazing is how quickly you conflate basic decency with criminal complicity, as if the only two political positions left in America are support Trump or defend MS-13. What marvelous analysis... :snicker:
Nobodys out there waving machetes for drug cartels. Theyre standing in the streets because federal agents are snatching people at bus stops and supermarkets like its a dystopian lottery, because Marines are marching through Los Angeles like its Fallujah, and because a sitting president decided that immigration enforcement now comes with Humvees. People are protesting that; not gang violence, not borderless anarchy but state violence masquerading as law and order.
And lets dispense with the flag nonsense. The idea that the presence of a Mexican flag at a protest is somehow proof of national betrayal is the sort of paranoid grievance that thrives only where empathy has been starved and racism abounds. Immigrants often love both the country they came from and the one they live in. Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, it wont kill you.
As for the violence: if you cant distinguish between a crowd of grieving families and a few people breaking windows after dark, youre not trying to understand, youre just trying to discredit. But we already know where your allegiance lies. That has been clear for years.
This isnt about Trump, its about whats being done in his name. When the state sends in troops to control its own population and people object, that isnt anti-Trumpism, its the last gasp of civic duty. If your first instinct is to cheer for the troops rather than ask why theyre pointing rifles at citizens, then quite obviously you don't want a country - just supremacy.
It was the same in the Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd. The whole world could see what an egregious act of murder it had been, but rioting crowds burning and looting buildings completely changed the public perception, and again played into the hands of the right, who will seek any excuse to invoke martial law.
And the Democrats are well aware of this dynamic. Adam Schiff: The president would like nothing better than to create a conflict in L.A. to demonstrate his strongman credentials by then cracking down on the chaos, said Mr. Schiff, who has clashed repeatedly with Mr. Trump and led his first impeachment. The president is a chaos agent. He thrives on disorder. He thrives on situations that allow him to pretend, to act like a strongman.
If the protestors really were able to conduct themselves in the spirit of non-violent resistance, it would take a lot of the wind out of Trump's sails. But, human nature being what it is, the protests will always attract a coterie of those who just want to rumble. They will provide the wedge that Trump needs to justify calling in the troops.
The question is why? Why do Americans have to suffer yet again the destruction of their cities, the people in their roadways, the curfews, the violence and looting, the waving of foreign flags on American streets?
Its not like there hasnt been mass deportations before. Over 3 million individuals were removed from the country during the Obama administration. In 2013 alone over 83% were expelled without due process. Where were the activist judges? Where were the highly-televised protests and riots then?
Not only that, but around 1500 No Kings protests are planned across the country on June 14th, coinciding with the Armys 250th birthday and the military parade. Why? I suspect the anti-Trump imagination sees in its soy-colored narrative the military parades of Russia or China, soldiers goose-stepping about, and assume Trump was inspired with his dictatorial aspirations. But the inspiration came from watching France's popular Bastille Day parade.
And of course, like everything, Trump is to blame. The great demiurge has entered the brains of rioters and now moves them like marionettes to inflict violence upon their countrymen. It's going to be an eventful summer!
Not all protests are violent (in fact I'd say alot of them don't devolve into riots) and usually the level of violence depends on how law enforcement chooses to respond. Compare how the trucker convoy protests played out in Canada vs. Europe for instance. This is the problem with the Trump administration's approach since they're provoking a fight (intentionally) by using excessive means.
I thought you wanted social breakdown in the US. Didn't you?
Orange man bad.
Never mind the stores being destroyed and looted, the cops being assaulted, the cars burning on the streets, the Molotov cocktails, the rocks, the fire crackers launched at law enforcement -- Orange man bad.
Never mind the Jewish shops and centers being destroyed and vandalized with hateful graffiti and broken windows -- orange man bad.
Never mind the billionaires behind these protests; they're a totally organic response to deportation efforts! Orange man bad.
Let's all just focus on Trump's impure motives. :roll:
No, these riots are just extremely destructive. Maybe there's an argument for just letting California burn, though.
Quoting jorndoe
See the difference?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The protestors themselves seemingly don't want deportations. It's naive at best. There's also something very questionable about participating in a movement with widespread criminality. I'm seeing a lot of keffiyehs in these crowds.
I thought that's basically what you said. You hate the USA.
You the entire planet Earth and all living things. Its basically what you said.
:grin: Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that's how you felt.
yep. But they shade off into each other in a way that we can't really deal with in real time.
Quoting Mr Bee
Good lord. If this is the type of stuff Republicans deal with socially, I am unsurprised by their stupid reactions.
Do you think the rioting was so bad the Marines had to be sent in?
Edit: Appeal court just halted the requirement to hand 'em back to Newsom. So, i guess they're going in? NG, that is.
You have to do the Trump voice when hes being really mean when you say the big in italics.
People will find any reason whatsoever to justify what they or their team does, even if condemning it a minute earlier when it was the opposing team.
When we do it, its just.
When you do it, its unjust.
Pretty easy psychology. And so very predictable.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-12/house-passes-doge-cuts-to-pbs-npr-aid-in-win-for-musk-trump?srnd=phx-politics
I look forward to the many months of arming and aiding Israel in this war, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars.
But at least big bird got what he deserved.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/usaid-official-and-three-corporate-executives-plead-guilty-decade-long-bribery-scheme
Crazy.
Trump tried to fight the lobby and lost. Now he just tries to spin it as though he was in on it, or supported it, in the hopes of garnering more souls within the Israel lobby.
Right right silly me. Here Im thinking hes just like every other president, beholden to the Israel lobby. I think what really sets him apart is his how vacuous his knowledge, morals, and principles are.
But still deserving of a peace prize.
No, its just above conventional thinking. Easy to take Rubio at his word, or fully blame Netanyahu. But Netanyahu couldnt do this without US support, and he knows full well Trump is a feeble character. Hes just as culpable as Biden would be in which case youd be harshly (and accurately) tearing him down.
Those who are fooled by his propaganda as a tough guy need to grow up. This is a man with no balls and almost no intelligence. He couldnt locate Iran on a map if you asked him. To say he fought the Israel lobby is a joke.
I often emphasize the 'lightning rod' function US presidents fulfill.
If the US has to make some ugly policy decisions, it's blamed on the president so that once they leave office, people can be made to believe that the ugliness left with them.
That's why I hate to see people focus squarely on Trump. When Trump leaves office things aren't going to change one iota, because this is the face of America.
Fine. But this is the Donald Trump thread. Also good to counter the cult propaganda with a little reminder that the Candidate of Peace is not an innocent bystander.
In the spirit of conformity and catharsis they organized a multi-city protest to coincide with the parade, once again using the Trump thinks hes a king narrative to fuel their live-action roleplay. Its called the No Kings protest, a name about the average length of an anti-Trump activists incredulity. Bernie Sanders, donning his tricorn hat and advertising for the event, even made overtures to 1776 in an X post (the fact of which is verboten here). These are the kind of fantasies their politicians exploit for power, donor-dollars, and votes.
Perhaps funnier was the recent political theater put on by a Democrat senator. He disrupted a Kristi Noem press conference and tried to shove himself up to the stage to confront her, but was stopped and eventually pushed out of the event by security, taken down and cuffed. Afterwords, when speaking to the press, he started crying about it, literally. In unison the party pretended this event was an example of authoritarianism, not their own emotional and often violent outbursts, fuelled as they are by their own imaginations. Well see if any of this happens today, and I must admit Im kind of looking forward to it.
We need to have a conversation about far-left terrorism in this country.
I dont know, man, you might be right. But Personally, I would wait until all is investigated. It could be some disgruntled cop trying to discredit the protests for all we know.
Makes sense. Wait for the facts to come out. It's not looking promising; he was a Walz appointee.
We've got the killing of the CEO of United Healthcare, the shooting of two Israeli ambassadors, doxing and attempted murder of ICE agents and police, and now the MN state rep and her husband + injuring another Senator and his wife.
This is partly why I rarely engage the hard left anymore. What do you say to people who want to burn everything down?
The news also says he was targeting abortion clinics. Not necessarily a hard-left cause. I guess well see his motives from the manifesto he was reportedly carrying.
[sup] Annika Kim Constantino · CNBC · Jun 9, 2025[/sup]
RFK Jr. replaced everyone on the CDC's vaccine panel. Here's why that matters
[sup] Maria Godoy · npr · Jun 13, 2025[/sup]
More degradation. Will it cost lives? If so, then what?
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
[sup] Lolita C Baldor, Tara Copp, David Klepper · AP · Jun 12, 2025[/sup]
Are they afraid that Greenland might be taken over by Russia or China?
Looking like he was a right wing Christian nut, but whatever political persuasion he turns out to be, things are getting kind of ugly.
Lol.
Trump has never fought the Israeli lobby. What a bullshit lie.
Like when campaigning:
Yet unlike previous presidents, when moving the embassy to Jerusalem:
Yet unlike previous presidents, when accepting the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights to Israel:
On so on, on and on, countless of times. It's simply whimsical that anybody even tries to this stance that there would be some difference here with Trump and the neocons in this matter.
Good thing you dont support something like an entire region being turned to rubble. Otherwise people may think youre beyond a hypocrite.
Same goes for guys who are literally part of a cult speaking about the propagandists who speak against it. Absolutely hilarious.
An idiot and a clown walk into a bar
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/14/israel-iran-war-us-nuclear-program-trump
Watch, now theyll want the US to join the Isreali campaign to avoid the cognitive dissonance involved in their narrative.
I think it's just simply.... lovely.
The tankers and IFV crews are waving at the people, some are chewing bubble gum. Some salute the commander-in-chief (or where they sit as no general is taking the salute of the parade), some don't, quite randomly. Yeah, nobody is basically taking the parade (Trump stood, but oh it's so long time, that he has to sit). Then the driving vehicles have to randomly stop sometimes, because I guess there congestion or so.
Luckily the weather is so bad that they've seemed to cancel the overflights. Apart from some UAVs.
And finally, the walking troops don't have weapons. I've never seen that, marching columns of soldiers without weapons. I guess it's some American safety measure. But there marching... yep, these guys and gals haven't marched a lot or trained marching in formation. Because why the F would they? The local marching band of some little high school march better on 4th of July, because those youngsters train for that march. Sure, there's the Marine Color guard. But those are few and USMC.
Oh, it's all so Trumpian. Trump want's to see a military parade. Then the US Army has to quickly represent something out of the blue. End result is for everybody to see. Because this is so un-American and the US Army just shows it.
Assuming one would notice what a military parade looks like.
The pundits are saying Israel doesn't have the ability to disarm Iran by itself. They want the US to join in to finish the job. Trump appears to be bored by the notion.
It's been long in the making in large part because of the policies of his first term. Between the Abraham accords and ripping up an existing nuclear agreement, what's occurring now is just the logical consequence of what he did several years ago. Pretending to be a champion of peace in the last few moments is as hilarious as Biden pretending to care about the lives of Palestinians now that he's no longer president.
You mean Gaza? So, since I support fighting Hamas but don't support, e.g., violence against police officers and ICE agents, this makes me a hypocrite? :chin:
Any violence against police or ICE agents is not intended. The intentions are what counts. If theyre hurt its because the target of the violence was Hamas. Theyre out there, trust me. Trust the protesters official word on the matter. Otherwise youre anti-American.
Funny how youre against violence I mean fighting Hamas when its police officers or ICE agents getting hurt or killed (even though none have been killed). Weird.
Never doubt the neocons. But Trump had already urged Netanyahu not to attack a day or so before the attack happened, and to end the war in Gaza. And obviously this turn of events ruins the diplomatic talks between US and Iran which were supposed to happen tomorrow, I think. It threatens the Abraham Accords. I imagine Trump is pissed at Netanyahu. Hopefully this episode will further disentangle the US from that government.
:lol:
Another Trump supporting lunatic out killing people. But I guess it was just another day of love.
Meanwhile, peaceful protests across the country. Maybe Fox News can find the .0001% that damaged some property so they can talk about how our cities are burning down.
I wouldnt politicise such a heinous act. Politicising it is the kind of thing MAGA would do, had the shoe been on the other foot.
Are there any left?
They're still trying to politicize it regardless, check out the previous page.
Remember what Michelle Obama said - when they go low .
I agree that Trump has been overall responsible for the atmosphere of threat and the promotion of violence.
Trump distance himself from Israel? I sure as hell hope that happens, because it would mean that he's in the grave.
Same with the military parade. Events, dear boy, events.
One was the celebration of a 250 year anniversary that much of the press tried to pooh-pooh. The other was a hissy fit much of the press tried to glorify. Not really the same at all, chap.
I do like it, yes. As of now, my own statism goes so far as the so-called night-watchman state. It should defend rights and make justice accessible. Beyond that it should not go. Plus a parade in support of soldiers and veterans is a good thing, in my opinion.
A military is pretty expensive. Lots of taxes.
You haven't forgotten about it and it seems to have had an impact. :up:
I went to the one in my county and it was by far the biggest protest that I've ever seen at the government center here.
In 1984 the Two Minutes Hate was a form of catharsis. Do you feel better having vented your anger in a display of collective emotion?
That was just a month ago what you said, @NOS4A2.
Well, seems like it's very close that we indeed get a Trump war, now with Iran that was started by Israel.
Demanding unconditional surrender is a quite extreme demand. Talk about an ultimatum. Is it going to be still TACO-Trump or will it be the big sidekick coming to the fight when the opponent seems to be loosing?
To have a lot of tankers around is good especially for offensive purposes. You don't need them for defensive Combat air patrols, but you do need them if you want to strike deep into Iran. So I disagree a bit with the above article.
(Earlier the MAGA people thought like this. Let's see how it goes. But that was before the TACO-nickname.)
Yep.
Definitions of invader:
Merriam-Webster: one that starts armed conflict against another especially without reasonable cause
Oxford Learners dictionary: an army or a country that enters another country by force in order to take control of it; a soldier fighting in such an army
Wiktionary: One who invades a region. Synonyms: assailant, encroacher
Cambridge dictionary: an army or country that uses force to enter and take control of another country
I'm genuinely happy that tourist are ditching Trumpland and going somewhere else. Foreigners really shouldn't go to the US as long as Trump is in power.
Youre thinking like the Ayatollah now. I think thats the point.
Meanwhile, other Iranians are clamoring for diplomatic solutions while the senile old leader and his hardliners beg for suicide. So it appears to be working.
But your prophecy might come true should the Ayatollah get his way. In any case you dont know the answer. I dont even think Trump knows.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/18/world/israel-iran-trump
Classic art of the deal.
This is about what Trump wants to do, and likely he will follow what Bibi and the hawks wants him to do. It's the classic American take, when you are ready to pounce, the last thing would be for the target to back down, hence make as tough demands that they cannot simply abide to.
Now I might be indeed wrong, but I think it's just a matter of time before Trump comes for the help of Bibi "as Iranians haven't responded to all the efforts". No, in truth Trump is salivating too much to get piece of that "Winning" that Israel and Bibi are getting. A big juicy war.
The next likely outcome is if Trump stays TACO, that Israel declares that is has met it's goals. And the war on - war off - war continues...
Quoting NOS4A2
People refer to that absolute bullshit line, still? After all the whimsical "Liberation Day's" and so on? :rofl:
I think it should be clear how this dysfunctional administration will just go on forward from one crisis to another, and during this chaotic stumbling, the older crazy ideas are simply forgotten... hopefully. Like Canada becoming a state. Or the US annexing Greenland or Panama. Or Trump kicking over 10 million illegal immigrants from the US. Just like the "Liberation Day" tariffs.
I can imagine many future crisis that Trump will stumble into in the next three years. Ah, and you are going to be so tired of all that winning.
[quote=Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley law school]Trump has repeatedly ignored due process of law, such as in sending people to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador and to the South Sudan without a semblance of due process. The cutoff of funds to universities and to grant recipients has been done without any due process. This is a very serious abuse of power.
President Trump has used his power for retribution. His actions against law firms, which have been done without due process, have been expressly stated to be for personal retribution because they employed lawyers who investigated or prosecuted him. This is a very serious abuse of power.
The impoundment of funds cutting off funds appropriated by Congress in a myriad of programs, including for scientific research, for international aid, for colleges and universities, for agencies created by Congress is unconstitutional and illegal. It is unconstitutional because it is usurping Congresss spending power, and it is illegal because it violates the Impoundment Control Act. This is a very serious abuse of power causing great harm.
President Trump is using the military for domestic law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and a long tradition against such use of the military within the United States. This is a very frightening abuse of power.
It is clear that he is personally profiting from being president, with his cryptocurrency profiteering and his accepting an airplane as a personal gift and his real estate deals. This violates the emoluments clauses of the Constitution.[/quote]
It is obvious that Trump regards himself as above the law, and that his flunkies and sycophants all believe it. It's pathetic that the American political institutions have become so ineffective as to enable these blatantly illegal and immoral acts to be propogated from within the nation's highest office.
Article notes that the supine and compliant Congress will never take Trump to task, but let's hope that justice is eventually done.
In Canada the provincial and federal leaders are negotiating with each other about lowering the steep and stifling provincial trade barriers, fast-tracking projects that would otherwise take decades to get through the red tape, cutting spending, lowering taxes, diversifying trade relationship, and other goodies. Last month King Charles gave the throne speech to open parliament, the first time the true Canadian sovereign has done so in around 50 years.
All of it is a complete reversal from previous domestic policy of the last half century, and now we all know that every thing the Canadian governments have done over the past few decades were complete nonsense. My god, and all it took was a few Truth Social posts.
We now know from the royals being included in our politics once again that the rhetoric about Canadian sovereignty is also bullshit, with their satellite monarch reigning from a little island across the ocean.
And just last week the so-called G7 met here to absolutely zero fanfare, except when Trump arrived and then quickly left, of course. After all, there is a crisis going on in the Middle East and all these big Euro leaders from the post-war consensus, who remained signed on to the Iran Nuclear deal, were left doing photo-ops and drinking champagne in the Rockies.
Everything thats going in the world is the direct and indirect result of the kind of leadership you hope and pray for, and an old playboy and reality-tv show host is out here exposing how effete and obsolete it all is.
Thanks Trump!
Never underestimate the effect an derogatory and condescending statement from a foreign leader has on a population. Add there sky high tariffs on highly integrated supply lines, and you have Canada in earnest looking for other trade partners than the US.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, I don't think that international trade has been effete and obsolete. Throughout history it has been global trade that has brought us prosperity. Not stupid naval gazing and mercantilism.
Self sufficiency is an old American thing. You're free to the extent that you're self sufficient, so pulling back from the world stage, increasing tariffs to promote American industry, basically building a wall around America, all that makes sense at a deep level to the archetypal American, out on the range, living off trapped rabbits and wild onions. And coffee. Lots of coffee.
But that's it. Really, nothing else.
Perhaps it's really difficult for Americans to understand this, because there are 340 million of you, but the truth is that is your prosperity is dependent of global trade and you being a part of it. For us Finns, which there are a puny 5+ million, it's very easy to fathom: the World give a shit about us if we don't engage with the billions of people that make the rest of the planet. Our prosperity, is dependent on trade with other countries. And actually, even if many deny it, so is yours.
The MAGA people can live in their dreams that Trump can make the US independent of the rest of the World thanks to the "liberation" of tariffs! But if your industries don't have to compete on the world stage, then you will simply fall behind.
Tell that to Thoreau.
I mean really, how many people live like him, seriously?
It's this myth that people think they want to live like.
Is Finland on fire?
We have tractors.
:lol:
Good lord. How exactly did he do that? Before or after Netanyahu got everything he wanted?
Democrats challenged RFK Jr. on vaccines. Fireworks ensued. ( Carmen Paun, Kelly Hooper · POLITICO · Jun 24, 2025)
RFK Jr grilled on vaccine policies and healthcare fraud in bruising House hearing ( Joseph Gedeon · Guardian · Jun 24, 2025)
Schrier says RFK Jr. should be held responsible for 'every death from a vaccine-preventable illness' ( PBS · Jun 24, 2025 · 4m:48s)
I'd hold the administration accountable, not just RFK Jr. Ordinary trust in any administration is (further) eroded. US citizens aren't beneficiaries. It's not about us-versus-them or Democrats-against-Republicans.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e0ggw7d43o.amp
None of this stuff will net him a peace prize, of course, because he doesnt have the gift of hopey-changey rhetoric which the chattering class falls for.
Quoting The Supreme's Court's Intolerable Ruling
So having neutered Congress by purging it of any non-MAGA members, Trump has now successfully neutered the judiciary, the last bastion against his plainly totalitarian impulses.
Shame, America. Shame.
Yes, indeed, this is a dark day in Americas history.
Trump did not neuter the judiciary.
Another step toward "The Disunited States of America".
And thats from one of the dissenting judges, not a columnist.
Right, it's always been a little intimidating to get a lawyer and claim your rights have been violated. It's dastardly that the executive branch would do this, but other entities do it.
WTF peace deal are you talking about? You are basically talking about the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from Congo, but not about peace between M23 and the DRC.
If you would have any interest to look at the actual conflict in Congo, you would immediately notice that this is only a part of the conflict. Yes, Rwanda is a player (along others) abusing the weakness of the larger DRC. But what about M23? That Rwanda agrees to pull out it's soldiers, that haven't been as an major issue like the M23 taking towns, but basically been a humiliating issue for DRC showing it's inability to control it's borders.
Even the BBC article you referred to states the following questions:
But yes, now that Trump broke the promises of starting wars in the Middle East by eagerly jumping on a strike done by Israel, naturally he has to now pretend he is this great peace-maker. And what else do MAGA loyalists now uphold than his "peacemaking abilities" after likely quite useless strikes on Iran, which they naturally won't talk anything anymore.
And since Trump alongside others (like Bibi, Putin) have made the UN totally useless, naturally two sides of a conflict want to get some kind international arrangement, then the second best way is to have the US to be involved. Just like in the case of India and Pakistan.
And oh yes! Trump can claim himself to be this great man of peace.
So you have no idea what happened. Got it.
Yes, I was talking about the conflict between the DRC and Rwandan-backed rebels. Of course youd pooh-pooh such efforts because your folk devil Trump is a part of it and, once again, your EU overlords are absent. Sure, it could all collapse, but the penalties are clear enough.
What war in the Middle East? Youre starting to sound like Khamenei. I know you were praying for a war in order to prove to yourself that your utterings were not just the fantasies of routine anti-Trumpism. But no war, one precision strike, and an extraordinary de-escalation brokered once again by the US, while the EU leaders and your failed international institutions did nothing. Trump play in Iran was nothing short of brilliant. Everyone is saying it. Sorry.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna199742
This whole time the rinky-dink lower court judges were abusing their power and acting unconstitutionally, as anti-Trumpists are prone to do. But also Justice Jackson has appeared to pick up the No Kings rhetoric, revealing her own streak of radical anti-Trumpism, which may later prove disastrous for the country.
Re: the bolded, hasn't that always been the case, though? Someone has to sue if they think their rights are being violated.
Doesnt this handover more executive power to any administration and is that what you really want?
:rofl:
Now he even starts talking like Trump. Hilarious.
Trumps idiotic, useless Iran bombing at Israels command, like a good little lapdog, has accomplished nothing beyond (being generous) slightly delaying the enrichment of uranium. Now of course he has to pretend he got rid of the threat. Obviously more bullshit from the moron in office.
But whats interesting is this: Trump has to pretend that this was a success, because everything he does is a success (in his dream world which a third of the country and the Republican Party and media go along with). So in this world, he obliterated Irans nuclear threat. Okay.
But Israel needs that threat as a cover to attack Iran further. They were saying Iran was two weeks away from the bomb 13 years ago. Now what? Now they have to go along with pretending the strikes solved the issue because they need their lapdog. Guess theyll need another excuse soon. Or perhaps just upset the pile of shit in office, since hes ultimately irrelevant anyway. Who knows?
Will be fun to watch. And hilarious to hear the cult representatives on the philosophy forum regurgitate the official opinions the algorithm on Twitter has fed them.
So I think this strike was meant to bail Israel out, while giving Iran an off-ramp.
That is, unless there's a follow-up operation coming, which is definitely a possibility.
And you understand that Rwandan military and the M23 are two different entities and that DRC is fighting mainly the M23 and that the agreement was between Rwanda and the DRC?
Quoting NOS4A2
You did notice that Trump attacked Iran, didn't you?
You didn't comment much then, when the strikes were still happening. Noticed your silence.
But then I did write a week ago this:
I think my forecast was quite accurate, if it just went on for 12 days. And btw, even Trump talked about a 12-day war. Hence it's very telling that you are trying to deny any war happened. At least, I was very accurate week ago just what your reply would be. :grin:
Quoting NOS4A2
So then we will wait for the next time Israel/US will want to hinder the Iranian nuclear program with another short strikes. Could it happen in some years still in the Trump administration? Perhaps.
And you understand that the UN Security Council and other western nations found that the Rwandan military were supporting M23, and actively participating with them in the DRC, despite their denials?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/4/rwanda-backing-m23-rebels-in-drc-un-experts
https://press.un.org/en/2025/sc16004.doc.htm
Yeah he attacked their nuclear capabilities after diplomacy failed, then essentially ended the war between them and Israel. I noticed havent mentioned any of that.
Right, he was going to annex Greenland, Panama, start a war with the cartels, and strike Iran; a recession and the collapse of the FBIand something about tacos. Youre on a winning streak. Very accurate!
Quoting NOS4A2
That was known, but the main issue is what happens to M23 or what it does. Is it capable of fighting the DRC without backup from Rwanda? And anyway, many countries have put their troops and support into the mess that DRC is in. Basically earlier the African countries had their version of WW1 in the Congo.
There's still time to start a war with the cartels. Iran has now already been bombed. And Greenland, just as Canada, won't be annexed, unlike you think I've said. Panama I guess has also avoided a true conflict.
The FBI, just like the Department of Defense, will not show at all just how detrimental the ineffective leaders will be. Only later historians can write books about it, but that will take time.
And anyway, there's still the likely recession, the debt problem. And if the Democrats win in the midterms, what will that then give us in the end.
The only voices in favour are fossil fuel energy lobbyists. And, of course, Trump, the universal wrecking ball.
(Also worth noting that Musk, having returned to his sinking ship, thinks it a terrible plan: The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. Wish he'd had that realisation last October.)
By now, it's clearly about Trump versus non-loyalists.
What does that mean for the voters, though?
(I imagine their kids are watching, too.)
There are probably many other issues. Surely by this time next year many of these issues will be having serious consequences for a lot of Americans.
In economics I'd say Trump is at war against international trade and globalization. The sad truth is that many are for this, when they would basically want more fair income distribution, not for higher prices and more inefficiency in the economy (by going against trade).
Make Syria great again!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/world/video/make-syria-great-again-trump-billboards-ward-vrtc
At least here I can say that this is a good thing.
And also that Trump has gotten the 5% defense expenditure in NATO going forward... and he didn't leave NATO.
Of course, now governments are having think tanks on just what expenditure can be put into as being defense spending. (The Nordic idea of Total Defense will give lots to spend on).
So that's the rare positive feedback on Trump.
But now I guess the time to make those beautiful trade agreement before the "liberation" tariffs set in is coming to an end. And Trump has done... one with the UK?
Just today, he's crashed the negotiations, sending out his inane missives on his social media platform that he's slapping 30% tarriffs on EU and Mexico, who were in the middle of intricate and apparently promising negotiations to lower trade barriers.
It's clear Trump has no idea what he's doing with these tarriffs. He's driven by pique, whim, imagined vengeance, and a total misunderstanding of basic economics. The share market is 'irrationally exuberant' only because of the belief that he'll back down again, but if he doesn't, and the resulting inflation and contraction begins to appear, then it might be a very different outcome.
And this is just his first year. I start to anticipate that we really can have the big "dollar crisis" during Trump's second term. Just have Trump being similar as he has been now for a year or two, with similar "Liberation Day" and TACO stuff going around.
In reality there's going to be just one thing that will really put Trump to a tight spot: the bond market, the absolutely crucial lifeline for the US government of selling treasuries. A lot has to be rolled over this year, and the debt will rise even with the additions of few trillions that the "Big beautiful bill" will give. (Which btw people won't feel the positive aspects as the tax cuts are basically extensions of earlier tax cuts)
I would urge people to notice if the intragovernmental debt starts ballooning, or the treasury holdings held be the Federal Reserve. That would be a bad sign.
But just as long you can use the credit card, no worries...
Talk about where Trump & friends put the FBI and DOJ.
BREAKING NEWS: Trump Asked Point Blank If Bondi Told Him His Name Appears In Epstein Files
[sup] Forbes Breaking News · Jul 15, 2025 · 1m:29s[/sup]
Nope, reality of the Trump presidency. Which is something like a tragicomedy.
Just last year Maxwell lost the appeal against her sex trafficking conviction. But this year... it's the Trump administration, and Trump FBI, Trump DOJ.
Assuming it is true, it would explain a thing or two.
For the record, I think it is more likely true than not.
I agree with you. I think it might very likely truly be true, the World is simply such a crazy place.
And years ago I remember one US media (I think it was saying that this is the last scandal that actually people want to be opened up, because it's of a bipartisan nature. With possibly two US presidents from opposing parties involved in the sex ring, this isn't something that either the establishment or the staunch partisan defenders of MAGA or DNC want to hear.
But ah, FBI Director Kash Patel and former podcaster and FBI Deputy Director Bongino are indeed making my FBI forecasts to be true (that Patel will really damage the FBI). First Trump attacks Iran, then this. :smile:
It's so nice to now to watch the comments on the Epstein issue the present FBI director Kash Patel made when he was just the author of Trump children's books:
I'm just waiting when @NOS4A2 will come here to enthusiastically defend Trump. :lol:
Speaking of which it seems like a narrative is forming that the government is covering the files up because of connections to another government. It'd be funny if this is what gets the right to turn on Israel, but you know this is bad when the right prefers to think they voted for a foreign puppet over an actual pedophile. Personally I think it's both.
You disappeared for a couple weeks there. Did you finally find a little angle to exploit?
The implication is that these (virtually unaccountable) intelligence agencies are running massive human sex trafficking and pedophile rings.
Rumors relating the CIA to such networks have been floating around for decades.
Last time I wrote was two days ago, so couple of weeks is a bit of an exaggeration.
And having a summer vacation...
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, what do you think Patel and Bongino are doing to the credibility of the FBI with the turns and whims in the Epstein case?
Quoting frank
Lol, :snicker:
Well, QAnon is the classic way that every actual conspiracy is made so bonkers that no sane person can believe it. From starting that Epstein had ties to intelligence services to then believing in flat Earth. When you can link the two, then you can say everybody thinking that Epstein had ties to intelligence services is a Flat Earther. Right?
Let's just remember pizzagate... and the pizza place with the basement that wasn't.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf
Apparently a lot more is to come, which they might even use to build a criminal conspiracy case. Yikes.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/07/16/exclusive_secret_meeting_opens_document_floodgates_on_trumprussia_hoax_1123108.html
In Latest Attack on Media, Trump Sues Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Report ( Jessica Corbett · Common Dreams · Jul 18, 2025)
The baby-rants are part of the circus.
Who stands to benefit?
I took a look at the links, and don't see anything new. What is this frighten info that we're supposed to find?
I wasnt aware of the whistleblower information, or that Obama and his crew ordered a reassessment after they lost the election. Is that old news?
I don't know, that seems quite trivial. Where's the frightening part?
Its a criminal referral for what DNI Gabbard called a treasonous conspiracy. The DOJ has taken up the referral. Whats the trivial part?
A made-up report which directly contradicts an earlier, bi-partisan report, chaired by Marco Rubio, now Glove Puppet of State, which established that Russia really did try to meddle in the 2016 election, had a hand in publishing leaked DNC documents, and had favoured Trump over Clinton, but had not been able to change any actual votes.
And Trump accuses Obama of treason :rofl:
Impeach Now! :rage:
Unfortunately they didnt have access to those files. More to come, too. Buckle up.
I feel good for the Americans who don't like either of the two political parties running the US. With a hideous sex scandal involving TWO Presidents that represent both parties, It's so hilarious to see how the partisan hacks are incapable of discussing ALL the Epstein client list.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf
This particular piece of misinformation is by now so deeply embedded in many minds, that it will be interesting to see if that conviction can be changed, and maybe we can unite and hold to account those that lied to them for all these years. That would be the honorable thing to do. Yet, doubling down and distorting the media landscape with distractions might be their [I]modus operandi[/I]. Last night I saw a clip of a CNN host speaking over the DNIs allegations as she went live, in what appeared to be an attempt to censor and distort for their viewers her most damning claims. The state media in my own country, which pushes that narrative to this day, went so far as to call it all lies.
Key Findings of the Bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee:
Contrast with the Mueller Report:
The Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigation (2019) also found that Russia interfered to benefit Trump but did not establish enough evidence to charge Trump campaign officials with a criminal conspiracy. However, the Senate report went further in detailing the extent of Russia's preference for Trump.
As for Gabbard, CNN reports:
The upshot is that right now the Trump Presidency is consumed by two competing conspiracy theories: one, that Russian interference in the 2016 was a hoax, the other being the Epstein affair. It's a complete schemozzle and a shitshow.
Quoting Patrushev · TASS · Nov 11, 2024
Quoting Trump · UCSB · Feb 28, 2025
Quoting Peskov · zarubinreporter via max seddon · Mar 2, 2025 · 1m:52s
Quoting NBC · Jun 16, 2025 · 30s
Elizabeth Warren on Colbert Late Show Cancellation: Is the Paramount Trump Payoff a Bribe?
[sup] Elizabeth Warren · Variety · Jul 23, 2025[/sup]
:D
Scottish newspaper headline about Trump visit referred to him as 'convicted US felon'? (...)
[sup] Cindy Shan · Snopes · Jul 25, 2025[/sup]
The Senate Intelligence Committee report relied on the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017 and the testimony of its drafters, all of which left out the contradictory evidence as reported in the newly unclassified HPSCI report. This report, found locked away in a safe-within-a-safe in a hidden room at CIA headquarters, illustrates damning evidence regarding its failures. It also illustrates how Putin probably had [I]kompramat[/I] on Clinton. Why do you think the drafters of the ICA report would actively hide and misrepresent this evidence?
You might want to give it a read and judge for yourself.
https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf
Quoting Patrick Tucker
There's a big sign near my work place that was once a Trump campaign poster. People keep painting new stuff over it in a kind of billboard war.
Today's fresh coat of paint announced:
you voted for a PEDO
For BlueAnon, making such statements before all the facts are out is the going rate, these days.
What is truth?
I have no reason to doubt the media reports on it. As for you, you want to believe it, as one who has spent the last 8 years defending and supporting Trump.
Pam Bondi ends FBI effort to combat foreign influence in U.S. politics ( NBC · Feb 6, 2025)
Trump administration retreats in fight against Russian cyber threats ( Guardian · Mar 1, 2025)
Carlos Giménez (Homeland Security committee member) said on Mar 3, 2025, that he didn't know why Hegseth ended these cyber efforts.
Weird. Trump's people have lost sufficient credibility that they'd need clear evidence by now. I wouldn't underestimate incompetence in the Trump regime, though. I wouldn't let it distract from the Epstein case, either. Meanwhile, the Scots kind of "welcomed" Trump. :)
It gets difficult when the 'deep state' is your group in power. Claimed but not owned. Needing the old narratives but the victim of them at the same time.
Pretty weak beer.
You have no other choice because believing media reports is how you form your beliefs. How could you operate without them?
[quote=NY Times] The absurdity of this investigation is underlined, too, by the fact that Mr. Obama is almost certainly immune from prosecution thanks to Mr. Trump and the Supreme Court. In its decision last year in Trump v. United States, the court held that there was a presumption that former presidents could not be prosecuted for any official conduct during their time in office. The preparation and dissemination of intelligence findings are certainly official functions of the presidency, and accordingly, they would be off limits as the bases for any criminal charges.[/quote]
Not that facts ever matter to MAGA.
You can find that one in the anti-Trump trophy case, with all the other Supreme Court losses. It appears abusing the courts and weaponizing the justice system is unconstitutional.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/eu-us-trade-deal-tariffs-european-union-five-key-takeaways
It means some drugs will cost more. I guess the goal would be to inspire more pharmaceutical production in the US.
Anyway, Trumps EPA is now pretending greenhouse gases dont harm people. Another nail in humanitys coffin courtesy of the racist rapist in the White House. What winning.
I suppose the only reason for the lack of commentary is that Trump traffics so regularly in outrage that the world has become indifferent - part of his plan, no doubt. But it's an absolute outrage against the principles of justice and the affairs of a sovereign nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/world/americas/trump-sanctions-brazil-judge-bolsonaro.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU8.zfq4.Wkrti8CrsaLC&smid=url-share
A minority of Americans voted this buffoon into office. At this point, we deserve whatever he does. He feels emboldened this time around, and he should. We actually voted this stupid, incompetent, ignorant, anti-American degenerate into office again. Theres little else to say.
I think weve been down this road before. I dont agree with it. Its true that Trump has been Biden 2.0 in regards to Gaza and Ukraine. But on other consequential matters especially climate change and nuclear proliferation Trump is not the same. And those differences matter.
Yes, some people treat things very simplistic, as a set of only one policy against another, rather than a web of politics that comes with the elected. Trump is absolute chaos and screws up so many things for the US and the world that the bad of Biden would probably have been preferable to this mess Trump is creating.
The core problem is that US politics overall tries to cater to rural America more than urban areas. Rural America is gone, theres no industry to sustain it. The hard working man that builds his own house is a dream that ended long ago, but these relics in politics still believe it to exist. They try to win votes from people in these areas on the idea that rural America will return to its glory days of industry. But theres nothing to be gained from it. They get the votes, but these regions are more or less on their death bed and the abandonment of urban voters will backfire so hard when these relic politicians die off.
Both parties, but especially the republicans are facing extinction in the form they exist under now. Mamdani is a good example of how fed up many are with the stupid, corrupt, disgusting politicians.
The old ones need to die and die fast. The entire congress, senate, democrats and republicans are filled with 75-90 year old demented fools, believing themselves to exist in the mid-1900 political landscape. Out of touch, out of their minds.
And the only reason these people havent been pushed out of politics yet is because they have so many capitalists feeding them money while younger people doom scrolls TikTok more than actually getting into politics.
A revolution doesnt need to be armed, it could just be people pushing these old relics out the door and updating politics to the actual times.
But, you know, good for you. You're nothing if not relentlessly positive.
Here's a poster. I'd include Hamas.
You mean the group that published footage today of an emaciated hostage forced to dig his own grave? It's fine he's a Zionist.
If we're listing heads of state whose soldiers have committed or likely committed war crimes, we could add Zelenskyy to that list.
The only reason everybody is up in arms about it now, is because Trump falls outside their preference bubble, so now suddenly it matters. If one categorically ignores all the fucked up shit that their preferred candidate gets up to, then one might successfully delude oneself into believing that there exists a better alternative.
It is business as usual: the American people are placated with a spicy emotional melange of outrage and trumpeteering, unaware they're part of a circus.
Example: If its too hot outside for your liking, fire the guy who read the thermometer. Then launch an investigation about thermometers liberal bias. Problem solved.
No one wants cancer. That doctor who noticed a tumor? Fired. Situation resolved. Etc.
Trump orders termination of labor statistics official after jobs report and downward revisions ( Fox · 2025 Aug 1)
Trump removes official overseeing jobs data after dismal employment report ( AP · 2025 Aug 1)
WATCH: I think their numbers were wrong, Trump says after firing BLS head over jobs report ( PBS · 2025 Aug 2)
Trump defends firing labor statistics chief after weak jobs report ( The Hill · 2025 Aug 3)
I guess the numbers for the next few years will be Trumpified, unreliable/untrustworthy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/doj-russiagate-trump-grand-jury-investigation/
The political scandal that duped hundreds of millions might finally generate some accountability.
I believe that there is a very easy way for Trump to stop the war in Ukraine: he must initiate an all-US referendum with suggestions to prohibit big sports for transgenders, and establish that there are only two genders, men and women. If such a referendum is performed, Russians will experience a cognitive dissonance they will realize that democracy leads to prohibiting gender diversity and their worldviews will evolute, so they would stop supporting Putin and his war. This is so simple
So the simple solution to stopping the war in Ukraine is to let Trump ban trans people from sports? :rofl:
And why would the Russian people get cognitive dissonance by that and not everything else that contradicts Putin? Why would that information specifically be something they manage to accept as outside information when the whole problem of information in Russia is that its constantly flooded with contradictions to make the people so confused as to grab onto the only reality that is tangible, which is the here and now for them locally.
They wouldnt get that dissonance. All of that just sounds like a way to justify what Trump is doing in the most far out scenario possible :lol:
This is a joke, right?
No.
Cool. So now I know to ignore you in the future. :up:
U.S. secures strategic transit corridor in Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal ( Steve Holland, Ross Colvin, Lincoln Feast · Reuters · 2025 Aug 7)
Naturally, it's to be called "The Trump Route". :D
Maybe Gamaleya will get foreign investors:
Cancer cure? Russia commences human trials of revolutionary personalized cancer vaccine ( The Economic Times · Aug 2, 2025)
RFK Jr. announces end to some mRNA contracts, including for flu, covid ( The Washington Post · Aug 6, 2025)
It looks like the military has joined the fray against the drug cartels, just as you predicted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-military-drug-cartels.html
I live in Russia, and I know the mentality of Russians. The Putins propaganda manipulatively states that Russia needs a Tsar, not the Western model. The Russians use the word Gayrope (Gay Europe), and many of them connect LGBT with the democracy in Europe (at least unconsciously). Some Russians use the word dermocracy, the word dermo in Russian means sh t. As far as I know, only in German 80 years ago there was a similar word systemzeit. This is caused by the fact that both Germans and Russians had been living under democracy with very big economic problems the Weimar republic in Germany and the Yeltsins time in Russia. But I am sure that if Russians see that under democracy people can vote against transgenders, they (the Russians) will experience a cognitive dissonance.
What's the alternative?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-white-house-armenia-azerbaijan-069379e9c4a058c96af38afbf4684829
[sup] Craig S Neumann, Darlene A Ngo · Journal of Research in Personality · Jul 21, 2025[/sup]
:D
[sup]This Study Finds a Chilling Link Between Personality Type and Trump Support ( Tudor Tarita, Mihai Andrei · ZME Science · Jul 30, 2025)[/sup]
Trump is a president that will do what he says.
Hope the US military will collaborate with Mexico, or it will be something like the US going after the Taleban in Pakistan earlier. The worst outcome is if the White House demands something "flashy" to come out of the operation or takes control over the operations, then the US can have another fiasco at their hands.
* * *
Well, we just saw Ghislaine Maxwell being put into a minimum security prison after Trump's personal lawyer (now top DOJ official) went to talk to her. How convenient.
The Epstein case won't go away. More and more, I think it's really looking to be one historic conspiracy as the link to Israeli intelligence (or part of it) seems realistic. Otherwise Epstein's rise to have the ties that he had would be difficult to understand. And because both parties are involved and the US-Israeli connection is so delicate, likely the thing will be swept under the rug (as it has been now for years). Or then anyone referring to the link is accused to be an anti-semite racist.
(please delete if inappropriate)
Great one.
U.S. Image Declines in Many Nations Amid Low Confidence in Trump
What's a subordinate protectorate?
Trump really has taken the corruption and criminality down to Third World level in the US. That Trump was introduced to his showcase wife by Epstein seems to have hit a nerve too in the White House.
Turns out he was indeed compromised, by the all-American CIA, and now he's being blamed for not throwing US gov't employees in jail for doing their jobs.
Oh, the irony of it all.
A sex offender like Trump can easily have 'kompromat' here and there.
Before the talks, Trump told Fox 'I won't be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire'
After the talks, 'No deal until there's a deal', whatever the fuck that means.
Pissant.
Big gift to Vlad the Destroyer, though, being treated like a dignitary instead of the criminal terrorist he so plainly is.
TACO?
I prefer pissant.
I don't understand why non-Americans always focus on the stuff that doesn't really matter. You guys should read more Wall Street Journal and less of whatever it is you're reading.
Quoting WSJ
Quoting WSJ
Quoting WSJ
The talks with Putin regarding Ukraine don't matter?
Do they matter to you? When's the last time you looked for an analysis of the Russia/Ukraine conflict? Three years ago?
Yesterday. I read the Kyiv Post maybe once or twice a week.
There's also a show in Australia called "Planet America", which is enjoyable. It's a mix of news and comedy - it might have once been called "satire" but that term no longer works in relation to US politics.
I suppose that the US foreign policy is perhaps more important to folk outside the US than to folk inside.
The tariffs are curious because they are somewhat novel and unpredictable. Estimates put the reduction of US GDP at up to 6%, and it is this slow down of the US economy that will have the greater effect on Australia, rather than a 10% tariff on our exports to the US. If everyone else ends up paying 10% or more, then that makes little difference to our competitiveness in the US market.
remember that it is the US customer, not Australia, who pays the 10%.
Australia's economy is much more closely aligned with that of China than the US, has been for decades, so the US economy is increasingly irrelevant. But our foreign policy remains closely aligned with that of the US and Europe, an it is this tension that is interesting here.
So the talks in Alaska matter at least as much to us as US economic decisions.
What may be developing is an alliance between Australia, Japan and South Korea, independent of US foreign policy. Australia is re-assessing it's own attitude in the light of the changes in the US.
The US economy isn't slowing down, though. Not yet anyway. Maybe it hasn't affected Australia, but Europe is struggling now as European companies are gravitating toward the US looking for investors. European leaders are anxious about this because it increases the practical power of the US over Europe just when Europeans would like to loosen ties. That article is also in the WSJ.
Quoting Banno
So far, the way it's been working is that US importers are steering away from countries with high tariffs, and turning toward duty free and domestic goods. So no, so far Americans are not booting the bill.
Quoting Banno
What's their assessment of what will take place in Russia if the war ends?
Quoting The US economy is a puzzle but the pieces aren't fitting together
We will have to wait and see.
Washington Post, NY Times, Australian Broadcasting Commission, CNN, etc. Occasional stories from Wall Street Journal through Apple News. The important stuff I see Trump doing is undermining democratic norms, attacking science, public education, public health and public broadcasting. Deprecating the power of Congress and attacking the Judiciary. Preparing to betray Ukraine out of his infatuation with strong-man Putin.
The US economy usually grows at around 1.3% in the first half of the year. It makes up for that in the last half. But yes, we're waiting for the full effect of the tariffs. So far, it's not as expected. It's actually a lot closer to what Trump predicted.
By contrast, what I see is that he's filled the military with loyalists, and is now flexing his ability to use the military domestically. He recently floated the idea of arresting the governor of California.
And you're worried about PBS. :meh:
Frank, one should remember just how GDP growth is calculated. Imports are subtracted from the equation, meaning that as imports to the US fall and as they now have fallen off a cliff, GDP grows.
see U.S. GDP Growth Bounces Back as Imports Plummet
Now just ask yourself, is truly a huge drop in imports something that makes Americans better off? How about then having absolutely no imports of anything, starting from no coffee from abroad, no foreign cars etc? This would (with everything else being the same) also increase the GDP.
It will help a lot of Americans, yes.
Is it the mythical "domestic manufacturer" whose situation will improve when global trade / foreign competition is stifled?
Well, when it comes to a lot of things, like coffee production, there simply isn't that "domestic growers/manufacturers". But perhaps MAGA people simply hate trade and think they would be better off without the rest of the World. Unfortunately human history says this is totally wrong: trade is the thing that creates prosperity. To forget the billions of consumers and focus on the 300+ million Americans isn't going to create more prosperity.
And how about the American consumer? Fuck him or her.
It's noteworthy that where this Trumpian idea was very much used as a guideline was with many African states. After colonization, they opted for socialism and high trade tariff barriers to "get their domestic production" up and running. Well, all they did was create some (if any) small companies totally dependent on the trade barriers with no way of competing with in the real world. Socialism and state monopolies were of course one thing, but the idea of trade barriers was the same. The whole issue of the "trade barriers to protect your domestic industry" only has worked in history when the true objective has been to get the domestic industry ready to compete openly with global market, hence they haven't been permanent. Otherwise it turns into rotting cancer.
Trump is opting for the rot.
And who cares about the tiny export sector, like farmers, who are going to really feel how Trump's policies hinder them.
A year ago, if I wanted to start a shower curtain business, my only option would be to make high end ones for a niche market. I couldn't compete with imports to make regular ones.
Now, with tariffs, I can. I can hire workers, reinvest profits to expand into faucets, and eventually bathtubs. I hire more people, reinvest, and the next thing you know, there are fewer fentanyl addicts in my community because there are good jobs for them.
You don't want to see this because you're totally bound to anti-Trump. It doesn't once occur to you that autocracies start with giving the people what they want and need. You've rendered yourself blind.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/dnigabbard/status/1957623737232007638?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/08/19/uk-apple-backdoor-data-privacy-gabbard/
Unfortunately, the ineffectual leaders of other countries have their peoples inured to the old diplomacy where a lot of talk and not much else happens. So the doubled efforts in the myth-making around the Anchorage summit and Trumps meetings with Euro and Ukrainian leaders reveal the same old unhinged desire to set the stage, tell the history, while Trump is out there making it. If they get it wrong again its just another data point among many of their failing as a political class.
? Norway, Australia, United States, South Korea, Singapore, Russia, North Korea
Interactive map
Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index (focuses on change/trajectory, part of the picture)
Don't be surprised when there are objections to Trump's circus helping the proliferation of the lower.
EDIT
Can't distinguish the governance of, say, Solberg and Putin? Lincoln and Stalin? Macron and Mussolini?
Well, if you can't differentiate, then that's on you (or on cognitive/intellectual inadequacy).
Im not clicking on your links, bub. One day youll just have to make an argument.
V-Dem Institute, World Justice Forum, MaxRange, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Freedom House, Academic Freedom, Economist Group, Heritage Foundation + Wall Street Journal, Reuters + Oxford, Reporters Without Borders, Transparency International, Foundation for the Advancement of Freedom, CIRIGHTS Data Project
Quoting NOS4A2
Too bad.
Quoting NOS4A2
Point already made ("Don't be surprised").
It's hard for me to folllow what his actual plans are if there even are any, but if I recall wasn't this entire thing just to bring back manufacturing to the US? That isn't happening thus far: US manufacturing extends slump; factory employment lowest in 5 years
A friend of mine lives in an area that just landed a fairly large commercial jet manufacturer. Supposedly they'll be making about 20 jets per month, which kind of blew my mind. I doubt that has anything to do with the tariffs, though.
Darn tootin'
I really don't think it had to do with tariffs. It's too soon. Sarcasm is for people who are having a shitty life.
These are commonwealth countries:
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries
Point missed.
That's in fact the exact term I would use to describe the Washington establishment, and whatever shitty NGOs they bribe on the daily.
Are you actually in the shower curtain business?
No. Your whole issue is a thought experiment. Yet if you would link to an article on how the shower curtain business is actually making great advances again in Michigan (or where ever), then there would be more credibility to your argument.
Quoting frank
That simply is a lie.
I've praised the American president when there is a reason for it. Hiking defense spending to 5% in NATO is one of those things that wouldn't have happened with Trump and which is a good thing. If the US economy fires up to spectacular successes, I will admit it if that happens. This is the this stupid American way of just putting people into pro- and against camps. Sticking to your party line in a country where the both parties are at fault of this mess, that I don't get.
Quoting frank
Rooting now for autocracies, Frank?
On a philosophy forum? Or being ironic?
Autocracies give for themselves. The people are only a tool for them to get what the autocrat, the man in charge, wants. And the first thing, every time, is to maintain the power of the autocrat. The way to do that is hinder every institution that could weaken (or oppose) the power of the autocrat. Hence democratic representation, separation of powers, democratic institutions and so on are an obvious threat to the autocrat and his power. Only fools believe in the idea of the benevolent autocrat who will solve the problems what republic has. But there are ample amount of these kind of fools in every country.
You seem a little hostile about this. What I told you is just a fact. American labor has been competing with foreign labor for decades, and that was by design. It was to cripple American labor unions. It worked. I did provide you with an interview in which the leader of the United Auto Workers labor union stated that the tariffs were a good idea, and he voted for Harris, not Trump. He was just stating the obvious.
Quoting ssu
My party line? By nature I lean toward progressive.
Quoting ssu
No, I'm just aware that autocratic-minded individuals flocked to Trump when he was running his second campaign. They came ready to transform the US government and the military into loyalist entities, and they accomplished that. I'm aware that the Vice President favors autocracy and he will most likely be the next president. I'm aware that the last realistic opposition to Trump is the SCOTUS, and he has stated that he doesn't think their rulings matter.
None of this means the US is bound to lurch toward autocracy right now. But it's very likely. A factor that makes it more likely is if Trump gives American voters what they want in the form of temporary tax breaks.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/appeals-court-throws-trumps-454-million-civil-fraud/story?id=124848691
Then please refer then to the facts. Have links to studies proving this. Really, I honestly would find that educational and informative for me.
Quoting frank
This is the crucial thing that people get wrong: globalization and income distribution don't go hand-in-hand. German auto industry has been very competitive and produces more cars, yet the labour unions have been very and still are powerful in Germany. The labour policy has been different!
The real problem in the US is in income distribution, not globalization. A lot of issue simply suck in the US, starting from you health care system, and naturally your politicians blame foreigners, because why not? Yet the obvious fact is that not in every Western industrialized country the politicians only work for the billionaires and the rich. Oligarchs won't help the ordinary citizen, they don't think that they have any obligation to do so at the first place.
Or is put on the other side now, like with Melania suing Hunter Biden for 1 billion dollars? :lol:
(Might be quite indeed the Melania was handed down from Epstein to Trump. Who knows.)
They're both problematic. At least we don't have to worry about being invaded by Russia.
Quoting Leavitt
Not really. Though some have learned how to entertain him (including Putin by the way).
US popularity collapses worldwide in wake of Trumps return ( POLITICO · May 12, 2025)
U.S. Image Declines in Many Nations Amid Low Confidence in Trump ( Pew · Jun 11, 2025)
'Never been lower': Trump's approval among Republicans rapidly declining due to this issue ( AlterNet · Aug 13, 2025)
Quoting Leavitt
Not Putin. They instead continued bombing Ukraine (and went after Trump's coveted minerals earlier for that matter). The clown apparently never learns.
Bad statement. Perhaps not that surprising, though, given the record-setting number of false or misleading statements by Donald Trump (CNN / Colbert from 2020). Additionally, their endless crap could undermine trust for years (and years). Who benefits? Putin's Russia, other adversaries.
The idea that there ought to be "trust" between countries is a leftover from the Cold War. Those days are gone.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/22/politics/john-bolton-fbi-search
That's your boy retaliating because someone said he was ignorant.
Quoting WSJ
, nah. But the Kremlin is on it; age-old strategy. Distrust in Trump's US doesn't mean mutual distrust throughout (if that's what you were seeing); in fact, it can lead to increased cooperation/collaboration/bonding elsewhere.
, any relation to Michael?
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they're all funded by the US department of state. :rofl:
The academic world is dead, my friend.
Globalization isn't going to survive climate change, and that's actually underway now. Get with the times.
Quoting jorndoe
That's great.
Sweet sweet justice.
Ok?
I hope they are funded; they need to be! It's not that the free market would cater to them. But if they are indeed all funded by the US state department (which I doubt in some cases), isn't it all the more impressive that they are also quite critical of developments in the US?
Quoting Tzeentch
What makes you say so?
https://www.justice.gov/maxwell-interview
:rofl:
Its raining out fire the meteorologist.
This guy was elected. Twice. Just shows how stupid Americans are.
But what would an elderly Canadian know.
On the foreign policy front, there may be minor successes (mostly exaggerated), and bumbling attempts at peace, but so far no real results. Especially in Gaza and Ukraine.
Meanwhile, his polling numbers are tanking and his signature policy bill is deeply unpopular.
Republicans will get wiped out in 2026, with or without their blatant cheating.
Dont underestimate US stupidity. They may win again with cheating.
I think the problem is that both sides view Trump as someone with a plan or agenda. All I see is someone whos going with the flow, following a trend, fully focused on placing all eyes on himself through different forms of embarrassing, improvised behavior, in front of all the cameras.
World politics is pushed around by the consequences of one mans narcissistic ego trip to feel good theres no plan, its a child playing with his toys and people try to react within the confines of law, reason, and society to confront and battle him.
Its more embarrassing to see the world deal with Trump, than the man himself.
It says something about the power of elites, their control of propaganda, the education system, and the general social and economic conditions which lead to the voluntary election of an ignorant, degenerate fraud.
It also tells us something about the Democratic Party, and just how crappy they have to be to have the majority prefer sitting at home and letting Trump run the country into the ground rather than vote for their anointed candidate.
Well then, let me dispell all your doubts by pointing out it's right there on their websites under 'Funding'.
No....wait.....
Yeah, too many regular people in the Democratic Party. You know, people who go out and organise neighborhood events and waste time on community activism and grassroots stuff. Everyone knows they really need a charismatic huckster who can flood the airwaves. Poor fools, they should get with the times.
Dont be a sap. You know very well thats exactly what I advocate. I assume your too many regular people line isnt sarcastic, but it should be. Regular people like Jeffries and Schumer and Pelosi? Please.
Not hopeless, just vacuous. Mamdani is a bright spot.
Illegal immigration at the Southern border has slowed to a trickle, stock market is up 6%.
Nope. They have all kinds of funding, some including from the US State Department, the Economist Intelligence Unit mostly from revenue, ... It varies, yet these freedom type results are fairly similar. You can also find methodologies.
Slowed to a trickle, yes. Which will be a disaster, since immigration is a good thing and there never was a problem to begin with, other than a backlog. But I guess this was a fulfilled goal.
As for stocks being up yes, as they have been for years. Where the 6% comes from is anyones guess. 6% in what index? From when?
Legal immigration is a good thing, illegal immigration is not. The Southern border was a festering wound during the Biden Admin that only started to get addressed at the tail end of his presidency. It's a big reason why Harris lost.
Quoting Mikie
This is from GoogleAi, I assume it's fairly accurate:
"Total returns (through mid-2025):
S&P 500: For the year-to-date through August 11, 2025, the index was up 8.4%.
Wilshire 5000: Between January 17 and July 18, 2025, this broad market index had a total return of 4.8%.
Nasdaq 100: This tech-heavy index was up over 14% since the November 2024 election as of August 21, 2025"
An 8% return on the S&P500 in less than a year with inflation under 3% is laudable. This is just a continuation of a trend that was happening at the end of Biden's term, but historically, presidents get credit/blame for the economy during their tenure, and the doom&gloom predicted from the tariffs has yet to materialize.
I'm praying that the reports I'm hearing about Trump's imminent demise are true, but to say nothing good has happened under him is just wrong. I would also add he set back Iran's nuke program with no casualties and no blowback (so far). He's also pushed back against the insanity of tolerating men in women's sports. That's a trivial issue as far as the well being of the country goes, but it's one of those 70-30 wedge issues the Democrats managed to get on the wrong side of. Prominent Dems like Gavin Newsom are finally coming around on it. It was a significant factor in Harris's loss.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-americans-oppose-trans-women-competing-female-sports-2-3-gen-z-rcna203658
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
That's coming from expectation of the Fed dropping interest rates in September. But the CPI is up, so we may not get it.
I think the other factor is that people have been expecting a recession since before Trump was elected, and it's never come, so it's a boy cried wolf situation.
But yea, the notion that everything has gone to shit is just clearly in conflict with reality.
Illegal immigration is good too. Should be more of it.
Quoting RogueAI
If by that you mean a manufactured problem that countless people believed, mostly because they want someone to blame for their shitty lives then sure.
Quoting RogueAI
:up:
I suppose this is a success despite his best efforts to crash it.
Quoting RogueAI
Yeah, no ones said that. Plenty of good things but mostly in spite of this administrations policies and choices. And thats the point.
Strawmen are usually the first sign of a shallow mind.
Quoting frank
Case in point.
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Aug 11, 2025
Quoting Stephen Miller · Aug 12, 2025
Quoting President Trump calls Washington, DC crime stats a 'fraud' amid crime decrease · WUSA9 · Aug 13, 2025
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Aug 18, 2025
What are the supposed real, (magnitude) higher numbers that he's using for comparison?
It's a standard case of "Put up or shut up", especially before doing anything.
Furthermore, he keeps pulling it (msn) and the population, including many politicians, keep tolerating it; where are the responses with potential consequences?
Further furthermore, the number of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump keep increasing, which was record-setting some time ago (also check CNN / Colbert from 2020).
Regress for all to see; I'm sure US adversaries are delighted, and the Trumpists appear oblivious.
He is a bright spot and we do need more immigration. Illegal or otherwise. That youre so far brainwashed into believing both of these things are somehow ridiculous only reveals what a waste of time you are. Enjoy your mainstream narrative (propaganda) and stay thoughtless.
This is a gift link to a New York Times exposé of the way that those who were tasked with prosecuting the January 6 Rioters were treated after Trump regained power. Summarily sacked, dismissed, demoted, walked out of offices. Some excerpts.
I'm in. I'm not on board with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Not that anything here is about me, though.
Why has Donald Trump not spoken out about the famine in Gaza? | Inside Story ( Al Jazeera · Aug 25, 2025 · 27m:55s)
As mentioned before, there's more than one problem, ongoing existential threat to Israel, ongoing injustices to Palestinians, ... Apparently, many can't see one for the other.
I'm not on board with any humanitarian crisis in Gaza either; the only people who should be getting punished are genocidal Palestinian militant groups and the civilians who take part in their activities. It still baffles my mind that on 10/7, over 2000 Palestinian civilians took part in the atrocities. Obviously, I don't want any innocent Gazan to suffer, but innocents are always killed in war, especially in urban warfare. I condemn all Israeli injustices, of course.
It's seemingly impossible to find objective info on this matter.
IMHO, Gaza was a humanitarian disaster even before the war. Any land that kidnaps and murders political dissidents and homosexuals is a humanitarian disaster. War, of course, brings humanitarian catastrophe, and it is not helping that Hamas hoards food and murders its own citizens. There's apparently quite a bit of infighting occurring between the factions. I want to move the civilians to a safer location, but this is apparently now "supporting genocide."
I discussed it with the world the other day and it said it definitely hates Israel.
Word to your mother.
I think this is the first time I've seen you upset over something Trump did. The ulterior motive is distraction. Ukraine isn't going well, inflation is up, job growth is down, Epstein is a running sore. Remember when Obama was going to be hauled in for treason? Seems like a lifetime ago, doesn't it?
I think its to get his opponents to defend flag burning, personally. Tim Walz already encouraged people to do so.
Youre against the right to safely burn a flag that you own as a form of protest? What other liberties are you against?
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Aug 24, 2025
Unsubstantiated postulates (as usual) just in that post:
[/list]
I'd like to see some substantiation.
After all, it's from the person in the top position of the US.
Until substantiated, it reads like accusations that are confessions ("biased and untruthful").
And attacks on free speech.
Im not against it at all. You just dont know what youre talking about.
I just thought it would be funny in a dumb sort of way if you were to defend flag burning as a form of protest like Trump's opponents. Don't mind me.
I think all forms of protest are stupid. But I do defend your right to be as stupid as you want.
I just did a search and there are 743 instances of you mentioning Biden on this public forum. I didn't read any of the posts listed but I assume they express some disapproval or objection.
Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
Intentionally going for division/polarization/vitriol?
[sup](division favors adversaries, collaboration favors the cooperators)[/sup]
[i]"No, Turd Sandwich is worse!"
"I can't believe you think that! Giant Douche is clearly worse!"[/i]
The silver lining was that at least the subject seemed to have subtlely changed. The children had started to realize that neither Turd Sandwich nor Giant Douche was a particularly appealing option - for they were a set of very special, philosophical children.
Alas, despite this profound insight, the die had already been cast. Someone was going to have to 'win' this argument, which usually entailed convincing the other side that they had better things to do with their time.
Poignant questions about how come there were only unappealing options would have to be answered, presumably, later.
The first post listed in the search for your mentioning "Biden" (743 instances) is your protesting his excessive use of executive orders...
Quoting NOS4A2
Yet you think "all forms of protest are stupid."
Oh, and:
It would be smart of you to protest Trump's excessive use of executive orders also.
Thanks to for another laugh. The hypocrisy (and unadulterated stupidity) are so easy displayed with the cult, if only one takes a little time to do so. Thanks for spending that 5 minutes. Gave me a chuckle at least.
I don't care, that just seems an odd double standard to raise.
I guess its an inside joke.
Your stoicism compelled you to spend time, search my name and Bidens. I love living rent free.
Unfortunately that was 5 and a half years ago. I love how Trump is ramming this stuff down your throat. Three more years.
That took seconds, the hard part was deciding on an EO graph. And stoicism has been out for ages. Im a Nietzschean now. Will to power, baby! :strong:
U.S. Orders Intelligence Agencies to Step Up Spying on Greenland ( Wall Street Journal · May 6, 2025)
France summons US ambassador over antisemitism claims ( Courthouse News · Aug 25, 2025)
Denmark summons US envoy over suspected influence operations in Greenland ( Reuters · Aug 27, 2025)
EDIT
Rumors will have it that the Trump administration has been doing crap in Alberta, Canada; though being rumors, they've become more credible
That was the labor secretary.
Okey dokey
Beyer: Trump Must Fire Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ( Don Beyer · Aug 28, 2025)
No sh¦t. And a few others. How much longer before RFK Jr gets a cab home? And a few others. Hold the administration accountable.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/investors-worry-trumps-intel-deal-kicks-off-era-us-industrial-policy-2025-08-27/
Nationalize everything!
(He'll either stay, or quietly be asked to resign for some reason they find plausible, is my guess.)
White House says ousted CDC director Susan Monarez was 'not aligned' with President Trump's mission ( ABC · Aug 28, 2025 · 1m:21s)
Quoting Leavitt
Make America Healthy Again
Monarez is better aligned with the slogan than Trump and RFK Jr together
Stephen Miller: The Democratic Party is a 'domestic, extremist organization' (Fox · Aug 25, 2025 · 5m:5s)
Well then, now that it's been broadcast by a government official, what will happen next (if anything)?
Stephen Miller Yells About American Killing Field in Unhinged Rant (Daily Beast · Aug 26, 2025)
Stephen Miller rants about killing field in Chicago as he appears to liken city crime to Cambodian Genocide (The Independent · Aug 26, 2025)
Taking Stephen Miller Seriously. And Literally. (Charlie Sykes · Aug 29, 2025)
Stephen Miler called Democratic Party a 'domestic, extremist organization' (just double-checking · Snopes · Aug 30, 2025)
Should be passed off as Trump-style ramblings, though I suspect some will pick it up.
What's your take?
Reichstag fire ( 1933)
Shelling of Mainila ( 1939)
Zersetzung ( 1970s1980s)
"False positives" scandal ( 19882014)
Domestic Military Deployments after Trump v. United States ( Chris Mirasola · University of Houston Law Center · Nov 13, 2024 Aug 19, 2025)
The Kremlin backs Orbán (Hungary)
Orbán (Hungary) backs The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation pushes Project 2025
The Trump administration and Project 2025 overlap
Both Trump/Vance and Orbán periodically whine and complain about Europe / the EU, for example. (As well as Putin.) While critique is welcome, crap has been seen going beyond that. Is there a momentum of sorts towards alignment of sorts (or attempted anyway)?
Much more importantly, what's your take, anything to see here? (Could be faces in the clouds.)
So we're seeing the march of the United States into an authoritarian dictatorship, day by day.
Read on for the details.
And per tradition, Ill ask, whats the people of the US doing about it?
We cant blame narcissistic psychopaths for their attempt at seizing power, but we can criticize the people for not removing such people from positions of corrupt power.
People saying that this isnt possible are essentially enablers of these people to wield their power without consequences.
For instance, the troops deployed in LA was judged to be illegal. If a presidential order and actions on those orders are illegal, then US Marshalls should arrest Trump. Simple as that really. Thats how non corrupt governments handle people who abuse power.
Yet, since thats not happening, then the people are responsible for upholding the laws of the nation. Maybe the people should remove him from power by force then? Some would argue that this would be similar to Jan 6, but its not, since its based on the fact that Trump has acted illegally against the constitution and that the systems of government are unable to uphold that constitution. In that case, theres no other choice for people than getting their hands dirty and out all the people involved with this corrupt takeover and abuse of power.
A democratic leader who acts illegally has revoked their contract with the people of that democracy. That person should be taken down by force if necessary. How else would the US survive as a democracy than to protect itself from those who want to destroy democratic systems?
Theres a point when these people cant hide behind the fact they were elected democratically. Almost all dictators were voted for democratically. Would people stand in the middle of Nazi Germanys peak and honestly defend Hitler for being democratically elected after he seized power and created an authoritarian regime? I dont think so.
No, it's not. Trump is immune. Even before SCOTUS established this (and before they became corrupted), the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel had determined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. So the only way Trump can be held accountable is if he were impeached and removed from office.
The House of Representatives is controlled by Trumpists. They publicly rationalize everything he does. So although a judge determined Trump's action was illegal, Trumpist Congressmen say the judge got it wrong. It will be appealed, and they will continue to say the courts got it wrong unless and until SCOTUS affirms it.
How everything became the culture war
[sup] Michael Grunwald · POLITICO · Nov 3, 2018[/sup]
Much of the article aged fairly well.
, how far does the immunity go?
All the way until impeachment + conviction by Congress?
Trump's "Fifth Avenue" sequel
[sup] Axios · Jan 9, 2024[/sup]
Possible Exxon business for lifting of sanctions (which apparently matter to Putin):
Exclusive: US and Russian officials discussed energy deals alongside latest Ukraine peace talks
[sup] Reuters · Aug 26, 2025[/sup]
Does Sullivan's accusation hold up?
Trump threw away Americas relationship with India just to PROTECT his familys business interests with Pakistan a move he says makes US allies like Japan & Germany wonder if they can TRUST Washington at all.
[sup] MeidasTouch via Megh Updates · Sep 2, 2025 · 1m:32s[/sup]
Ex-US NSA Jake Sullivan Accuses Trump Of Sacrificing India Ties For Family's Business With Pakistan
[sup] CNN-News18 · Sep 2, 2025 · 5m:47s[/sup]
If this...stuff is true, then...corruption of sorts, though I doubt the Trumpets care.
Immunity applies to any acts that are part of his official duties. For example, he can't be prosecuted for illegally firing people, illegally withholding funds from universities, or violating the Posse Comitatus Act (ordering the National Guard to enforce the law). He's done all these things.
He could have been convicted for his 2020 election fraud, when he wasn't in office. He was indicted for this, but it was dropped when he became President because (it has been decided years ago) any prosecution would interfere with his official duties.
He could certainly be impeached for any of the crimes he's committed, and it Dems control the House after the 2026 elections, they may do that. GOP won't, because Trump controls them. Regardless, even if impeached, he won't be convicted because it requires 2/3 of Senate.
It's going to be a long 4 years.
We basically won't have a CDC in 2028. Aaaaaaaah!
[I]"...questions, outlined under the administrations Merit Hiring Plan, ask candidates how they would advance the presidents executive orders and policy priorities, and to name one or two executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and how candidates will help implement them if hired."[/i]
--
https://marylandmatters.org/2025/08/25/opm-trumps-hiring-questions-mandatory-to-ask-but-optional-to-answer/
And he keeps trying to use the military for domestic crime issues. I wonder if that will feel normal in 2028.
As in so many matters, the permission granted in those orders is contingent upon whether or not Congress resumes the power granted to it by the Constitution. The illegality of ignoring existing statutes is not enough, although a helpful stumbling block going forward.
My prediction: he will not send troops to a city, like Chicago, because that would be a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. He can, and will, send the National Guard to places like New Orleans - where the Governor invites him, since the law allows it. He will then blame Democratic governors for not inviting him and letting their crime rates continue. The whole thing is political theater. This cannot solve a city's crime problem because it can only be temporary. At best, crime will be down temporarily.
But Trump is Hitler, and America is becoming fascist!
I agree. I'm just trying to see the point. Trump says crime is out of control in DC when the statistics say the opposite. He then sends in the National Guard. Whether this is the point or not, it gets people used to the idea that a military body is rightly used for domestic issues.
What do you think the goal is?
I'm sure that's true, but the control he presently has isn't so much his doing. People flocked to him with lists of supporters to plant in government jobs, like project 2025? You think I'm overthinking it?
Yes . and if people oppose the idea of this being actual rising fascism, theyre delusional. Im still waiting for people to ignite some actual rage in opposition to all of this. There still not enough of anti-fascist rage going around. Instead, people, even on the side of criticizing Trump and his followers, treat them as a sort of legitimate political side.
But I find it pretty simple; whenever the democratic mechanism gets dismantled and the laws and regulations doesnt work on a leader who abuse his power for whatever reason, he and his loyalists should be removed, with force if necessary. And if it cant be done by the agencies meant to protect the nation, then its up to the people to do it instead.
Im still waiting for the people to rage enough that it starts to become dangerous for Trump and his loyalists. Because that could fuel political actors in opposition to take much stronger action and not fiddle around without actual opposition.
But maybe theyre holding back because they want Trump to screw things up enough to win the mid term. And then when they have that power we will see that rage come down on Trump harder than weve ever seen on the US political stage. Well, one can only hope thats the long game theyre playing. If not, then the people itself will need to do something.
The majority of the population doesn't care about (what can be characterized as) legal technicalities, they simply want action that achieves the results they desire. For this reason, I truly wish the center and left would focus on the aspects of Trump's actions that are illegal and unconstitutional, and remind everyone on why the "technicalities" matter - rule of law is critical to our system of government.
I'll give one blatant example. The administration has been denying due process rights to individuals it chooses to deport. Abrego Garcia is the most stark example. He was arrested and deported (in defiance of a court order) based on flimsy evidence he's a gang member. They have consistently claimed he's a horrible criminal, and attacked the left for coddling him. When they finally acceded to court intervention, they fished for what other charges they could pin on him. They took the unprecedented, and absurd, action of working a plea deal with a man who accused Garcia of human trafficking (bringing undocumented workers into the US). Plea deals are typically made with low level guys in a criminal organization to make a case against the higher-ups. In this case, the plea deal was made with a higher up to get Garcia - the lowest level guy in the (alleged) activity.
There's many more instances. Generally, reporting (on the left and center) mentions the illegality, but indirectly trivialize it by criticizing the policy, the morality, and painting a sympathetic view of the victim. Reporting on the right typically ignores the illegality (often criticizing the judges who rule this way) and stresses how great it is to get rid of illegals.
The importance of rule of law is a non-partisan issue, and more stress on Trump's attack on rule of law should be placed. His die-hard supporters will never care, but the other 20% of Republicans would probably care if it were made clear to them.
They would then be forced to admit their own illegal and unconstitutional actions. Trump has almost always won his Supreme Court cases during his second term. In July it was reported that the U.S. Supreme Court granted all 15 of President Donald Trump's emergency applications since April.
The rule of law has been a thorn in the sides of Trumps opponents, so it would be a little comical to hear them opine about the rule of law now.
There are close to 400 cases against the Trump administration, and a majority are pending. He's likely to lose a large number. I'll mention a few.
His coercion of law firms who support liberal causes (like Perkins Coie) is unprecedented, and will not survive the court challenges.
His multiple violations of the Impoundment Act.
His executive order on "Birthright Citizenship", in direct defiance of prior SCOTUS rulings.
The issue is broader than violating the law. He may have the legal authority to punish career DOJ lawyers for prosecuting cases against Jan 6 criminals, while treating the criminals as heroes - but it certainly is inconsistent with rule of law.
His politicization of the DOJ is unprecedented. They have lost much of the independence they've had since Watergate. It's appalling that his "former" defense attorney (Todd Blanche) has the role of deputy AG, but is still actively working to protect Trump, as in his sham (quid pro quo) interview of Gislaine Maxwell. The DOJ also filed a frivolous lawsuit against Maryland Judges, because Trump didn't like some rulings.
The DOJ's treatment of the Epstein files seems largely based on protecting Trump, including the performative request to release the irrelevant Grand Jury Testimony - which the judge called them out on.
These are just a few things off the top of my head. I eagerly await your damning facts that demonstrate similar or worse behavior by Democratic administrations.
You just listed, nearly verbatim, a bunch of lawfare complaints from anti-Trump plaintiffs and lawyers, which you imply are damning facts, even though they havent been ruled on.
You know what has been ruled on? Bidens agenda and a series of progressive causes, much of which have been deemed unconstitutional and unlawful by the highest court in the land.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-biden-historic-series-defeats-2025-01-18/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/10/us/charlie-kirk-shot-utah
Sounds about right.
We should arm conservatives so they can defend themselves.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/northern-utah/political-activist-believed-shot-at-utah-valley-university-speaking-appearance
:mask:
https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/gun-charlie-kirk-shot-with-revealed/
Personally, I would remain skeptical of such engravings as it would be the perfect cover for more sinister suspects, such as the cartels or some foreign-influence operation, who may be trying to goad the reactionaries into action.
I saw that. That's crazy. I'm a bit of a fanatic so I have no doubt he'll actually be on a beach in Belize after a facelift and tan sipping cocktails delivered by scantily clad maidens until he no longer remembers what memories are. Just my take.
Also, this has nothing to do with Trump. Remember, all the enemy can do is distract you to throw you off mentally. And your post seems to be a fairly sufficient example of said phenomenon.
The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY! Trump said in a letter that he sent to Brazils president, who is widely known as Lula, and posted to Truth Social on July 9.
Trumps letter went on to tie Bolsonaros prosecution and de Moraes social media rulings to the tariffs hed later impose: Due in part to Brazils insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-brazilian-products-tariffs-bolsonaro-rcna222534
:clap: Brazil has a functioning judicial system. Good to see. May he rot in prison, that piece of shit.
Wasn't the US supposed to be the beacon of light for free democratic societies in the world? Trying to install it in other nations by the means of anti-communist wars...? Fighting for the "good".
...how's that going? :sweat:
I'm thinking some of that divergence can be attributed to the history of their foreign support/influence. Seoul went democratic/humanitarian/aspiring, Pyongyang went militant/crazy, etc.
EDIT
HDI: North Korea, not South Korea
Yes, but one needs to also ask, if nothing was directly influenced, could the entirety of Korea have come out leaving behind authoritarianism and not being divided? The probable reason for why they went so far in either direction might be because outside influence pushed the country to that extreme divide.
Point being... if the US would have leveraged diplomatic power through trade agreements and aid... the carrot rather than the stick... might we have had much more peaceful transitions to democracies in the world?
Subsequently, would the US have become an actual force for good? A nation that wouldn't be involved with military and getting criticized and instead through its economic power have actual soft power to influence without stepping on the freedom of each nation it involved itself in.
Sweden was long a great diplomat between nations in conflict, per capita I think we have more diplomats that made a difference in the world than most other nations. But we didn't have the economic power, so we could only act as mediators. If we had the economic power of the US, maybe we would have been able to change much more than the US which produced the consequences of fracturing nations, destroyed people, cultures and giving rise to terrorism.
Americans will probably be paying more for their coffee as a result of this ruling since you're asking.
South Korean workers return home after ICE raids at US Hyundai factory
[sup] Reuters / Australian Broadcasting Corporation · Sep 12, 2025[/sup]
South Korean workers detained in US raid arrive home
[sup] BBC · Sep 12, 2025[/sup]
Americans in other countries might want to self-identify as Canadians or something.
I'm sure Canada, Mexico, Europe, whoever would welcome such investments.
Earlier:
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Sep 7, 2025
[quote=David Farrell]The only man who could play both parts in Dumb and Dumber...[/quote]
There was a conflict-ridden momentum.
Do you think it was realistic for a single Korea to remain fairly uninfluenced + thrive, perhaps analogous to South Korea / unlike North Korea?
Technically possible sure, but realistic?
:100:
empathy (uninfected) vs stupidity (MAGA-virus)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012974 :fire:
addenda to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012352
Quoting NY Times
This, from the President who pardoned more than a thousand felons convicted of looting the Capital Building on 6th January 2021. The hypocrisy of this administration knows no bounds.
The only people who believe there are organizations that would fund violence against conservatives are people like Kirk, who believed Jews are attempting to eliminate all white people by importing non-whites. So it appears the cabinet is being motivated by conspiracy theories, to no one's surprise.
https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-appeal-georgia-supreme-court-trump-7be50feee272612484490b53592e7e08
The hopes and dreams of the anti-Trump brigade lied with the corrupt because their hopes and dreams were corrupt.
So basically, "I'm right, anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong." This is cognitive dissonance. A metaphorical demon of sorts. The brain will believe anything it's told from an early age. Why do you love your mother and your father more than a random woman or man off the street you've never seen before? Surely, they're fine people deserving of love, too.
Ah, the path to truth is not for most. I doubt it is for you. You remain useful and serve a purpose. But, the path is there. If you have the will for it. Be warned however, it is not for the faint of heart. Many men die an agonizing death attempting to pursue it.
While our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, it is a statistical FACT that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the Far Left.
[sup] Vance · Rapid Response 47 · Sep 15, 2025[/sup]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1967652535679721576[/tweet]
The killing of Charlie Kirk is part of a grim pattern of political violence in America. This is what the data show http://econ.st/4gwVO6Y
[sup] The Economist · Sep 16, 2025[/sup]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1967966886320050373[/tweet]
Worse than casual bullshitting. To be called out.
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism (archive·today 2024Oct24, archive·org 2025Sep11)
[sup] National Institute of Justice Journal · Jan 4, 2024[/sup]
I can see why they wanted to "review" it.
Vance lied straight to everyone (2025Sep16) in typical Trump style.
Miller has taken it up as well. (2025Aug24, 2025Aug30)
Johnson, too? (2025Sep8)
They reached the point of "Put up or shut up" for everything they say some time ago.
Trump sues degenerate New York Times for $15B
And the irony that the extreme right have been crying about the "woke left" and their cancel culture, but are now not only doing the very same thing by firing people who haven't even said anything extreme, but also, as a state, threatening a private company into silencing one of their talkshows.
Is it ok to call Trump, Maga and his people fascists now? Is it properly aligning with the textbook definition? Or will people still debate the true nature of Trump and his people and followers?
That's actually how partisan Americans think (as others in other countries). Partisanship has taken such a firm grasp over the discourse. If you do care about freedom of speech and other rights of the individual, democracy or the rule of law, sooner or later the partisans on both sides of the political aisle will hate you and dismiss you. This is because the loyal partisan supporter simply cannot be critical about his or her side.
Quoting Jimmy Kimmel
ABC cowardice on display good grief that's weak. (Loss of independence integrity?) From the looks of it, Trump managed to not directly violate the law in this case, at least not openly as far as I know.
Over on Fox News, the old "life unworthy of life" was aired, but hasn't received much attention from high-ups, be it leadership or government.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1966878449290649676[/tweet]
Quoting someone
This earns President Trump a space on Mount Rushmore.
[sup] Trump · Robert F. Kennedy, Jr · Nov 9, 2024 · 6m:36s[/sup]
Did P01135809 then go ahead to implement half of his accusations?
[I]"Disney's ABC announced it is taking Jimmy Kimmel's late night talk show off the air indefinitely following comments he made about Charlie Kirk's suspected killer. During his Monday monologue, Kimmel said: "The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Following his remarks, the Trump-appointed chair of the FCC publicly pressured ABC to punish Kimmel and suggested the commission could move to revoke ABC's affiliate licenses. Several celebrities and free speech groups condemned ABC, while President Donald Trump, a frequent critic of Kimmel, praised the decision."
--[/i]https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/business/timeline-jimmy-kimmel-suspension-vis
I remember. Also, so-called election denial was verboten. Anti-Trump pressure campaigns even got the president removed from the largest social media platforms, along with vast swaths of his supporters. Thats why I dont care too much about the victims here, and their cries ring rather hollow. This is what you get.
This is very sad that you don't understand my ideas.
As far as I know, currently Trump is planning an invasion into Venezuala. It is possible that Putin will start using again his nuclear threats; and it will cricial important for Trump to tell some information to the Russians. If Trump makes some posts or videos for the Russians, many Russians will watch them. Currently many Russians sympathize with Trump, including those who support Putin, because Trump is homophobic, and the homophoby is a sacred element of Russian state ideology. This gives Trump a chance to start lowering the rating of Putin in Russia; when the rating of Putin will become smaller, very soon a general will ovethrow him.
Trump must carefully and politely tell the Russians that the USA has a lot of nukes, incliding the ones at submarines, and the USA will nuke the Russian cities if Putin starts nuking other cities. I hope that eventually the majority of Russians will start hating the Z-activists, pro-war minority which is responsible on all the horrors of current war, and this minority will eventually go to prisons for their crimes.
Charlie Kirk and The Hate Speech Algorithm ( Evey Winters · Sep 18, 2025)
Net summary is escalating anti-gay rhetoric.
I think the point is that we need to take a good look at stochastic terrorism and judge whether Charlie Kirk was getting more and more practised at this art. Isn't stochastic terrorism what Trump is accused of in relation to the Jan 6 event?
So the free speech absolutist makes an exception, when it entails retaliation by his side; a retaliation that's an order of magnitude worse because it entailed explicitly political speech, and threats to misuse the office of the FCC to inflict that punishment*, and threats of expensive lawsuits
If retaliation (in spades), is acceptable, then you should be fine if there were to be counter retaliation from the left. But obviously, you have no principles.
______
*Amazingly, even Trump sycophant Ted Cruz denounced the threat.
Fascinating analysis! I'm also not sure exactly what to make of it, other than that this seems to be a promising methodology and that her general observations of Kirk seem to have an objective basis.
But I'll focus on one statement I think problematic:
"Theres almost no way he wasnt aware of his impacts during his lifetime."
Of course there's ways he could be unaware! First, it's not something Kirk would have been interested in, so he might not have given it a thought. Alternatively (or in addition), he may have had an point of view that's an idealization of NOS4A2's: free speech absolutism and holding speech blameless no matter how extreme it is. Such a perspective would deny any relationship between one man's speech and another's actions. Arguably, the statistics are evidence against that point of view, but anything short of deductive proof can be rationalized.
No, Im pointing out that this is the world that people like Kimmel built. You want censorship you get censorship.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/1347741672289959936?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Trump and his Congressional sycophants accused the "Biden Justice Dept" as being "weaponized" against conservatives, on the basis of the fact that Trump was investigated and indicted. By painting it as "Biden's" DOJ, they sought to link Biden to it. It was "Biden's DOJ" only to the extent that he appointed the AG (a former nominee to the Supreme Court respected for his legal acumen) and a few other top positions. There was never one hint of Biden trying to influence any DOJ actions. Biden continued the post-Watergate norm of an independent DOJ. Presidents set priorities (e.g. prioritizing civil rights violations, or prioritizing violations of immigration law), but they have refrained from directing specific investigations or prosecutions.
Based on this false claim that "Biden's DOJ" targeted conservatives and victimized Trump, Trump & Co are explicitly, and unequivocally, politicizing and weaponizing the DOJ.
On a related note: a family member of mine is an FBI agent, stationed in Washington DC. He has spent most of his 15+ years with them in foreign intelligence (specifically not law enforcement, as some agents do). For the past few years, his full time assignment has been on one specific country- one of our biggest rivals in the world. He now has to spend 2 days each week patrolling DC, so he now spends only 60% of his time working intelligence. All for Trump's political theater.
I don't want censorship, but I have a more nuanced view of free speech than you. And I'm not a hypocrite - like you. I do not, and have not, advocated silencing people like Kirk for their speech. I support rebutting that speech, as I do with you. But if Kirk's speech, which clearly exhibits prejudice, is allowable - why wouldn't satire?
Lets get this out of the way firstdo you believe those in power should decide what you can and cannot say?
Personally, I do not think those in power should wield that power to limit free speech. I believe that is likely unconstitutional, but absolutely believe it is wrong.
He managed to get rich. I suppose maybe he thought all that luxury just fell at his feet.
[quote=Wikipedia]On January 5, 2021, the day before the Washington, D.C., protest that led to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Kirk wrote on Twitter that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 "buses of patriots to D.C. to fight for this president".[51][52] A spokesman for Turning Point said that the groups ended up sending seven buses, not 80, with 350 students.[51][53] In the lead-up to the storming, Kirk said he was "getting 500 emails a minute calling for a civil war".[54] Publix heiress Julie Fancelli gave Kirk's organizations $1.25 million to fund the buses to the January 6 event. Kirk also paid $60,000 for Kimberly Guilfoyle to speak at the rally.[55][/quote]
As a constitutional matter, the call for a free press is clear. What complicates the present issue is that the FCC was formed by Congress to restrict what enough people found to be offensive. That measure was aimed at certain expressions of profanity and extreme references to individuals and groups. Those limits are subject to changes of sensibility over time but also represent a set of negotiated agreements under constant review.
The elephant and the donkey in the room concern how ownership of the media influences that set of controls. That element also introduces the broader problem of regulation of commercial enterprise.
So, the administration uses some of their power to reduce the limits put in place by Congress and heighten other parts when it serves their political objectives.
[sup] Sequoia Carrillo · npr · Sep 17, 2025[/sup]
I'm getting some vague 1920s-30s Italy vibes here. Isn't the US education system in need of basic improvements, rather than this?
Quoting Kirk said · Jan 11, 2021
Extremist magnet. Who the senders were (domestic + foreign) might be informative.
Such White House interference in Dept Justice actions is, of course, almost completely unprecedented and highly irregular to say the least. Trump complained that the two impeachments and five indictments brought against him were all 'based on nothing', so in his (twisted) mind, filing false charges against perceived adversaries is no different (and as usual never mind the actual facts). NY Times coverage (gift link). Rachel Maddow comment.
He was bought, for his ability to speak, and would speak about whatever he was paid to speak about, regardless of whether he had any real belief.
Quoting Banno (Nov 14, 2020)
Hopefully that turns out a bit dramatic, yet the comment seems to have aged too well. The first emperor, Augustus (-27), also told Romans he was the only one who could save Rome, and they believed him, et voilà, imperial cult.
What laws and regulations can battle that if their entire drive is set on a second coming of christ delusion? I dont think people realize how dangerous such a movement can become, especially when they seem to now self-radicalize because of Charlie Kirk.
It also cements that the US is a christian fundamentalistic nation, exactly in the same vein as how we view many Islamic nations, forming laws and values out of whatever skewed idea in their religious delusions they push forward as their primary creed.
I have no doubt that most of the people at the Charlie Kirk event want to burn the rest of the world in holy nuclear fire. Were witnessing a proper cult getting dragged out from the dark by someone bathing in their love.
And few seems to actually care. :shade:
House Trump has
Some are typical authoritarian, and democratic backsliding has been seen.
(By the way, my possibly wrong impression is that personally, Trump isn't particularly racist or homophobic, but some who are have his ear.)
I'll leave Trump accolades to someone else.
Looks like he has maintained support among hard-liners/radicals.
Not to critique, but if one was so adamant and such facts were so self-evident, one could easily have made each bullet point a hyperlink a person just has to click instead of researching themself. The fact I don't even want to, rather I don't have the time to check facts, neither does the average person, I mean, it kind of explains why he gained popularity. People are not intelligent. Not in a free society. Thinking is hard. All I need to do is learn how to dress myself in the morning and do a basic function, any function really, it can be as simple as pushing buttons or pouring coffee, and I get to live a life that a monarch 1,000 years ago could only dream of. I do that, I get to make a living. Anything else is superfluous. That's what the average person thinks. That's how they live. That's who they are.
Since he is still in power and hasn't been removed from power, I guess all of that is legal and aligns perfectly well with the constitution? Right?
This is why he should be removed by force. And since he isn't, we know that the US is broken and does not have a functioning democracy that upholds law and constitution. To say that he is in his right to do whatever he wants is to be an apologist for an authoritarian leader and an authoritarian regime.
There's not really much nuance here.
Quoting jorndoe
Did you miss how he talks about immigrants? Or are you saying that he is too stupid to understand what he is saying if he forward racist remarks from others?
It could very well be that he is too stupid or rather, just don't give a shit about what he says. That anything that can give him the love of his followers will be said, regardless of what it is. I wonder how far he is from relaying an idea of using deadly force against democrats? I mean, if he is too stupid to grasp what he is saying, but he gets love from his followers by saying that, then he could say it. Only his legal team would have to scramble to try and cover it, but if he said something like that, I think he's done for.
Quoting Outlander
Yes, and this is why I hate the masses more than the authoritarian leaders. Because that would be like hating a rock for being a rock, there's no point. But the apathy of the people, to ignore fighting for the freedom and good life they have, to defend against those who want to destroy it for their own benefit, that apathetic people are the worst and they deserve the authoritarian boot on their head so they can re-learn what others already know.
Just think of the farmers who voted for Trump, now panicking over rising costs, lost workers to ICE raids, and exports diminishing. They deserve what they voted for, because maybe now they'll learn not to be stupid. Or they'll perish under their own stupidity, either way, normal, thinking people wins. I despise these people; a bunch of spoiled children who whines to their daddy Trump only to end up being left behind when Trump is done with them. Absolutely pathetic.
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump | List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump | Donald Trump's conflict with the media (Retaliatory lawsuits and federal government actions) | Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration | In Assault on Free Speech, Trump Targets Speech He Hates | The Right Takes Aim at Wikipedia | Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies | Government hiring and personnel of Donald Trump | Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | Inspectors general removed or fired by Donald Trump | Trump publicly urges US Justice Department to charge his enemies | Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency | U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective | US democracy under siege | Trump sides with Putin over U.S. intelligence during remarkable press conference in Helsinki | The Cipher Brief: Report for Tuesday, June 17, 2025 | Under Trump, Americas New Friends: Russia, North Korea and Belarus | US vetoes G7 proposal to combat Russias shadow fleet of oil tankers | US Derails G-7 Condemnation of Russian Missile Strike on Ukraine | Trump Bans AP And Reuters But Invites Russian State Media To Zelenskyy Meeting | Trump has pushed America into a new Axis of Evil by aligning with dictators and betraying allies | 2025 TrumpZelenskyy Oval Office meeting + Some responses | US popularity collapses worldwide in wake of Trumps return | U.S. Image Declines in Many Nations Amid Low Confidence in Trump | Trumps War on Science: How His Policies Affect Canadian Research | As USAID retreats, China pounces | Indictments against Donald Trump | Donald Trump quotes
, oh, you're right, something about those evil immigrants eating cats... :D
Racial views of Donald Trump (Springfield pet-eating hoax)
At the moment, I don't have time to organize this stuff tedious but can be bribed. ;)
Quoting Christoffer
Yeah. I'm thinking better basic education might help.
"Unilaterally" once meant "done only by one person". Trump used it to mean "Done my everyone except me".
List of countries that recognise a Palestinian state:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium (recent announcements in 2025 see sources)
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cabo Verde (Cape Verde)
Cambodia
Cameroon (varied positions historically; check source notes)
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Republic of the Congo)
Costa Rica
Côte dIvoire (Ivory Coast)
Croatia (debated at times)
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo)
Denmark (varied; see source notes)
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea (position has varied; see source notes)
Estonia (varied; see source notes)
Eswatini
Ethiopia
Fiji (historical / parliamentary positions vary)
Finland (varied; see source notes)
France (formal recognition announced in 2025 see sources)
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel (does not recognise included here only for completeness of discussion)
Italy (varied; see source notes)
Jamaica
Japan (does not recognise included here only for context)
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Luxembourg (recent actions 2025 see sources)
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta (recent recognitions/announcements 20242025 see sources)
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico (varied; see source notes)
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands (varied; see source notes)
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea)
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau (position varies; check source notes)
Panama (varied historically)
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal (recent announcements 2025 see sources)
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore (does not recognise included here for context; see source notes)
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Turkey
Turks and Caicos (territories may have local statements; check national government positions)
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Western Sahara *(recognises Palestine note: Western Sahara itself is a disputed/non-UN member entity)
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Complied by ChatGPT. Recent additions may be missing.
There you have it. Thats a principle. I guess its a good thing Kimmel, the multimillionaire who celebrated other people being fired or censored, is still doing his show.
We just found out the other day from Google that the Biden admin pressured them to remove accounts for misinformation, many of whom were Trumpists like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. Terrible isnt it?
Enjoy Kimmel tonight.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/23/us-news/google-to-reinstate-youtube-accounts-banned-for-repeated-violations-of-covid-19-content/
Quoting NOS4A2
It depends on what the Biden administration actually did. If they "coerced or significantly encouraged" their protected speech, then it was unconstitutional (per the standard set by 5th circuit in Murthy v Missouri). If all they did was flag content that was contrary to Google's policy, they did no wrong.
Despite Kimmel's reinstatement, it is Trump's threats that are problematic. They are continuing, and they clearly cross the 5th circuit line:
"(Kimmel) is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution," Trump said. "I think were going to test ABC out on this. Lets see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. "
Justice Department weighing whether to charge former FBI Director James Comey, sources say
Former AG Barr had reported that Trump wanted Comey prosecuted in his 1st term, but he pushed back.
Trump showed his hand on his "truth" social post:
[I]
We cant delay any longer, Trump posted on Truth Social in a message directed to Pam. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! He specifically lamented the lack of criminal charges against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, three of his most prominent political antagonists.[
...Trump amplified his post in a brief gaggle with reporters on Saturday night, saying the post was not meant as a criticism of Bondi but that we have to act fast.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/20/trump-bondi-truth-social-00574380
[/i]
Siebert's replacement, Lindsey Halligan, has never prosecuted a case in her life. She was an insurance lawyer. She was 3rd runner up in the 2010 Miss Colorado pageant.
Comey has a good case for "vindictive and selection prosecution". I'm skeptical this will go to trial.
Andrew McCabe testified to the inspector general that Comey authorized leaks. Comey in 2020 testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he did not. One of them lied and obstructed justice. Given that during a hearing in 2018 Comey said he cant remember, cant recall and doesnt know 245 times Im leaning towards him being the liar. They threw people in jail for far less.
LOL! Here's what the IG said:
[I]
"While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comeys version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabes account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabes claim."[/i]
And even if they had a chance for a conviction, Trump flushed it down the toilet with his comments and actions. In addition to his public comments that I quoted, he had also fired Comey's daughter from the DOJ without cause, and likely got the IRS to audit him.
Incidentally, no one gets convicted of perjury for saying they don't remember.
Thats right, its Comeys word versus McCabes, and its frightening that this stupid dynamic was once present at the highest levels of law enforcement management. These were supposed to be the experienced adults in the room, and they all turned out to be bickering hacks. Now Comeys lawyers are going to have to convince a jury that McCabe is a liar and Comey isnt. Thats hilarious.
On the other hand, your inexperienced prosecutor convinced a grand jury that there was enough to indict.
Getting an indictment is a low bar, and she only succeeded on 2 of the 3 charges.
It also remains to be seen if she followed the proper procedures with the grand jury. The judge will get a transcript of the proceeding and could kick it out if she failed to follow the rules.
Quoting NOS4A2
And the IG judged that Comey's was credible, so how does this make him a hack? And you're ignoring the implications on the current DOJ.
The biggest mistake of Comey's career was to discuss the Clinton investigation- contrary to DOJ standards. This has become common, under the current leadership. Comey acted alone, on his own poor judgement, not under orders. The current DOJ prosecutes who Trump tells them to prosecute.
McCabe says that he had two people deliver the leak and that he did that without asking for, or receiving, authorization from Comey.
What answer can Cruz give to these questions: When and where did McCabe say that Comey authorized McCabe to leak? What is an exact quote of McCabe or even a reported paraphrase that asserts that Comey authorized McCabe to leak?
If it is made clear that the indictment concerns McCabe's leak to the Wall Street Journal regarding the investigation of the Clinton Foundation, then on what basis would the prosecution claim that Comey authorized McCabe to leak?
McCabe and Comey might differ on certain matters, but in what exact quotes or reported paraphrases does McCabe say that Comey authorized McCabe to leak?
(1) Governmental action to restrict speech vs private action to restrict speech.
(2) Speech that does not use public airwaves and speech that does use public airwaves.
It is sneaky, dishonest argument from many on the Left to conflate the alleged shooter's own views with those he was raised with, as perhaps we were supposed to glean from Kimmel's comment that the alleged shooter was at root from the Right. The alleged shooter was, it seems, raised in a Right leaning family but he himself, it seems, leans Left. The fact that he was raised in a Right leaning family doesn't cancel that he himself leans Left. Indeed, reversing Kimmel's own point, some on the Left will do anything they can to make it seem that the alleged shooter is not Left leaning.
And Kimmel's comment was not comedy or even humour. There was no punchline or even irony to it. (The comedy was only in the next paragraph in which Kimmel pointed out that Trump, without a trace of self-awareness, segued his answer about grief over Kirk by pointing out how nicely the new White House construction is coming along.) I don't always mind a comedian getting serious during an act, but I am annoyed when comedians claim that their act, even including the non-comedic parts, should have a dispensation from responsiblity for its content just because it's "just a joke".
But it is ludicrous pearl clutching to claim that what Kimmel said disrespected Kirk or is even remotely in the same universe as "hate speech" (oh come on!). Much of the Right seized on the assassination to try to put the kibosh on virtually any criticism of Kirk by claiming it is "hate speech". That's so ridiculous. It was claimed that the Left and Democrats (virtually always, the claims are couched as if there is a monolithic The Left and The Democrats) were celebrating Kirk's death, as if, en bloc, the Left and Democrats were doing any such thing. Who, other than some crackpots on Internet forums and, as rare exceptions, a TV commentor or two, said anything that could remotely be construed as celebration of Kirk's death? I'd like to know what Democrat in national or state office said anything that could remotely be construed as celebtration of Kirk's death. I really would like someone making the claim to give examples with exact quotes. The Right is a wily adaptive creature - turning woke right back as a cudgel against the woke and woke-friendly themselves. Well played, even if crudely and transparently dishonest.
And Vance and Trump, for example, look ridiculous faulting the Left for claiming that Kirk's commentary included vile ideas, when we consider that Vance and Trump propogated the unconscionable lie - endangering local immigrants (legal) in that Ohio town - that immigrants were eating stolen pets, and even as, when it was made clear to Vance that the claim was a canard, he said it's okay for him still to advance it if it is effective in highlighting that immigration is a problem. Seriously, from a candidate for vice president?!
On the other hand, many on the Left are liable to do similarly if the situation is reversed. Thus the mindless, interminable tu quoque loop. Right and Left are both hypocritical and each is hypocritical for saying the other is hypocritical, ad infinitum ...
And especially ridiculously disingenuous and hypocritcal is the argument that Kimmel or anyone should be restricted from the airwaves on account of making untrue claims. First, as mentioned, the claim was, at face value, basically true (even if underneath it was suggesting an untruth). But more importantly, the airwaves are flooded with falsehoods and lies. Falsehoods and lies are the proverbial water we fish swim in. The President of the United States is himself the apex predator liar of those waters. And then all the way down to the most pathetic radio talk show host at the smallest, most hapless radio station in the smallest, most pitiable radio market in the U.S. If we censored the airwaves on the basis of truth, we'd have dead air across the dials and the proverbial after hours TV test pattern around the clock.
Meanwhile, what a juvenile mind the President of the United States has. He harped about Kimmel's ratings and the El Presidente's estimation of Kimmel's talent. As if that adds to the case for kicking Kimmel off the airwaves for speech that clearly should be protected.
But still, most crucially, the President of the United States, along with his team and many of his millions of supporters, took arguably the most salient philosophical and policy minded leap in American history across the cherished line that the government should back far away from imposition of censoring speech. And then the dishonest, hypocritical rationalizations for that.
Right vs Left and Left vs Right. It gets dramatically worse even from just one news cycle to the next. There is no hope for honest, rational national discourse.
1) Unblocking YouTube
2) Unblocking messengers
3) Cancellation of 280 articles of the Criminal Code
4) Signing a peace treaty with Ukraine.
In the future, a 5th point could be added to these four: the return of 2013 territories to Ukraine in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against Russia. firstly, as we suppose, this point should not be declared, because in Russia there is the 280.1 article of the Criminal Code which prohibits public statements with suggestions to give somebody a Russian territory (this will prevent spreading the proposal by the Ukrainian supporters in Russia). On the other hand, the 5th point is important for calming Ukrainian patriots.
The gist of the idea is that Russia essentially consists of three peoples: an apolitical majority and two minorities - democracts and anti-democratic vatniks. Authoritarianism in Russia is based on widespread "sectarianism": everyone only makes friends with people who think like them. "Vatniks" talk only with other vatniks, and they believe they are the majority. If the referendum is held, most Russians will probably vote for all points, and the vatniks will experience cognitive dissonance; they will realize they are a minority, and their views will start changing. If Putin refuses to hold the referendum, the fact of the refuse will make the Russians change their views too.
The goal of this plan is to force Putin to implement democratization in Russia.
How about the USA cedes territory to Russia?
We could give them South Carolina.
As a Brit, the only states I know are California (Hollywood), New York (the city), Florida (palm trees), Texas (cowboys), Alaska (cold), and Hawaii (those flower necklace things).
Can you stop kidding? I am serious.
Probably Putin wouldn't perform this referendum, but the fact of his refusal will make the Russians experience a cognitive dissonance, they will start understanding that Putin lies to them.
They probably already know that.
Not truly.
The authoritarianism in countries like Russia is supported by LIES: the rulers declare that they fulfill the will of nation, but in fact they ignore this will in critical points like freedom of speech.
Trump will be able to go further; for example, he can declare that he plans to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but he would refuse to do so, if Putin nevertheless performs this referendum. Possibly Putin will start again making his nuclear threats. For him, possibly it can be rational to choose the nuclear war instead of the referendum, because if his lies would be exposed, he will loose the power and with the power - his life. But if this becomes obvious for the Russians, they will overthrow Putin.
A simulacrum curb-stomps the fat(uous) orange avatar of American imbeciliity ...
:mask:
Maybe you believe that most Russians support the Putin's war? This is not so. When they vote for Putin, they vote for "stability", not for the war.
I see that in Russia there is an apolitical majority and two minorities: those who support the war and those who are against it. The number of people who are against the war, or maybe have some unconcsious protest, can be estimated by the number of famous writers and musicians who have left Russia after the war - nearly half. Below I present some anti-Putin music videos, which give some insight how many people in Russian are against the Putin's war. Can you look at these videos?
https://youtu.be/q07dm6lPs2k
https://youtu.be/RMg0AGE11oo
https://youtu.be/l07MYf2iPr4
https://youtu.be/6vHufynMM1g
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Oct 2, 2025
I guess everyone knew. At least it's confirmed that there's a Project 2025 element in the White House. Rambling about the others as radicals and scammers will trickle down and out to his herd.
A Boston judge issues a blistering warning over free speech under Trump
[sup] Axios · Oct 2, 2025[/sup]
Should Young be worried about his future now?
Quoting Stephen Miller · Oct 4, 2025
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1974534850334933179[/tweet]
Another "Put up or shut up" type claim. Most reports over the past few years tell a different story. More erosion of the Trump regime's credibility; more still if no one calls him out on it. Goes along with Vance's and Trump's earlier comments, perhaps Hegseth's goings-and-doings as well. I guess we'll see what comes of it.
Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2022
[sup] Anti-Defamation League · Feb 22, 2023[/sup]
Underrecognized: Extremist murders are usually from right-wing actors
[sup] The Washington Post · Feb 28, 2023[/sup]
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism
[sup] National Institute of Justice · Jan 4, 2024[/sup]
Is radical-left violence really on the rise in America?
[sup] The Economist · Sep 12, 2025[/sup]
Trump Called for a Crackdown on the Radical Left. But Right-Wing Extremists Are Responsible for More Political Violence
[sup] TIME · Sep 16, 2025[/sup]
Trump administration says it will target far-left groups for Kirk's assassination. Prosecutors made no such link.
[sup] NBC · Sep 17, 2025[/sup]
Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence ? what the data shows
[sup] The Conversation · Sep 17, 2025[/sup]
He's an effective propagandist - effective at telling like-minded people what they want to here. It's especially appealing to those who are still in shock at the assassination of Mister Kirk.
Your response, pointing to actual analysis that falsifies what he says, seems to me the correct one, but none of his audience would be at all interested in researching it.
1)Compliance with Court orders. They document 16 instances in which the government failed to fully comply. They contrast this with history over the past 70 years theres only one prior instance of the government failing to comply with a court order: in the 1960s, a judge ordered a cessation of bombing in the Cambodian War. In this case, the non-compliance by the DOJ lasted only for a matter of hours.
2) Presenting false or misleading information in Court 35 cases are described.
3)Arbitrary and capricious administrative action: 50 cases
If anyone is interested, the full report is here.
The lead author is Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, who has worked with the State Department and the National Institute of Military Justice.
I consider this analysis extremely important because it identifies behavior by the Trump administration unrelated to partisanship, but firmly entrenched in the law. No one, of any ideological perspective, should consider this behavior acceptable.
Well said.
This is what the strategy of the new populist right is: entrench yourself in your own echo chamber and create your own version of reality by believing your own propaganda. Facts don't matter as you aren't engaged in any discussion. Everything is simply a show of your loyalty to the cause you engage in discourse to win the argument. The Trump team has learnt this now. Anybody remember Trump's first lies in his first term about inauguration crowd size? At first his people then had difficulties with this and the first spokesman had trouble to give a pure outright lie. Now they don't have any problems: it's just a show of faith. Trump supporters don't care a shit about it. If it causes outrage (as it before did) that was just good.
Politics simply has gone astray when it should something that ought to be grounded in reality and trying to find a consensus between opposing views, it turns into a religion. Then political discussion turns into a sermon where the faithful just compete in showing how faithful they are. This shows that the movement has reached an ideological end. Trump of course, didn't have any ideology behind him, but he just became this figure that ideological hopes were pinned on.
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
First of all, there is absolutely no intension to have a real discourse. Populists aren't for democracy, they have an enemy (usually the rich, but now it seems the Anti-Trump liberal rich). You don't negotiate with the enemy, you fight it. Democracy is only there for you to win the next elections. In a genuine engaging discussion you have to give respectability to the other side. That won't do. Besides, it's just easier to create a semi-fictional enemy.
Not just populists and prominently egregious demagogues, but also "mainstream conservatives", "center right", Republicans in general, "mainstream liberals", "center left" Democrats in general, "centrists", "independents" and even "neutral" commentators. So much terribly low grade argumentation all over the place. The sneakiest are those who operate under a pretense of being "reasonable", "rigorous" and "analytical". While humans have made spectacular achievements in so many intellectual spheres, public discourse on matters of public affairs seems to continually regress.
Well a new power has just ridden into town. Plenary powers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/plenary-authority-stephen-miller-cnn-dictator-b2841627.html
Some of these claims will be heard by SCOTUS in this term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/10/06/bomb-threat-catholic-church-supreme-court/
These sorts of acts, along with the ongoing insurrections occurring throughout the country, hint at a country on the verge of civil war.
Which other insurrections?
Well, usually it starts with the objective being winning the argument just for the sake of winning.
The CDC has been gutted. ( Neil Stone · Oct 11, 2025)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrNeilStone/status/1977122920905298306[/tweet]
How can anyone think that RFK Jr is helping Americans?
The psychological oddity is the degree to which people allow anger and disdain to blind then to facts straight in front of them.
The fed cuts rates when things slow down. In other words demand has been stifled, not redirected.
No.
Jan. 6 probe potentially investigated over 150 Republicans, documents show
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/29/trump-january-6-republican-senators-fbi-arctic-frost
There's nothing wrong with spying. It's how we find out what those who are not forthcoming in their admissions, are really up to. Probable cause is not necessary, because spying is how we determine probable cause, therefore prior to it. Those who have nothing to hide don't worry about the spies.
You've always been a man of mystery, MU! Thankfully one fact has been brought to light. You're clearly not a minor, one responsible for one, a female, or a minority.
Because otherwise, yeah. Spying is a form of harassment and mental assault on a person's human rights. It is akin to stalking, threatening without threatening. Restricting their movements, patterns, habits, and even thoughts. Presenting an unknown danger and essentially constantly tickling the "fight or flight" part of the brain with a feather. Or jagged piece of metal.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is also not true. You assume people who live lives of deceit are for some reason moral people who would never lie, commit sabotage, or plant evidence that would hinder people of another "team" or race or ethnic group or religion or what have you. That people wouldn't do things at the expense of another to get ahead or further either one's individual or collective interest(s). This is sheer ignorance of the global community and basic history (as well as human nature).
Come on, man, you're slipping! :razz:
[quote=Bob Dylan]There are many here among us,
Who feel that life is but a joke.[/quote]
Ok? Trump doesn't care much how the US appears to the rest of the world. In large part, the standing of the US is something the rest of the world created in the first place. It's been clear that Trump is isolationist for the thousands of years he's been on world stage. Seems like thousands, anyway.
Point is: whether they take him for a chump is their problem. Not his. Or mine.
Good lord.
Why is everyone around here so strongly against spying? Have you succumbed to paranoia? If you want to find out what someone is up to, you spy on them. How is there anything wrong with that?
Who have you spied on?
Other than checking the whereabouts of my kids on the phone app, I don't get the urge to spy. However, I accept it as a reasonable and legitimate way of checking up on someone whom you suspect.
They are children and you are their father. The claim there is nothing wrong with spying pertains to all those who get the urge to spy, who want to find out what someone is up to. Are you fine with them checking up on the whereabouts of your children?
Sure, why would I not be fine with it? It's just a natural and acceptable part of our society. It's sometimes required and useful for identifying wrong doers. If someone (my children, or even myself) is suspected, then that person will be checked up on. And the thing is, that the spying is required before knowing whether the person is a wrong doer or not, it's based on suspicion.
I mean I wouldn't disown my society just because people have the right, and will, to spy on others within it. No, I understand the reasons why people spy, and I accept it as an unavoidable, natural, and rational thing for human beings to do. This is because many human beings are inclined toward bad deeds, and to avoid being prevented from carrying them out, or being punished for carrying them out, they attempt to hide this inclination. Therefore they must be watched when they think no one is watching (spied on), to identify that inclination toward bad deeds.
However, if the spiers fabricate evidence, or do other dishonest things, then that's a different story. But that's not a faultiness of spying in specific.
Why would you not be fine with strangers tracking your children?! Are you serious? What an absolutely mad question to even ask!
And youre comfortable with just anyone making a decision about what is suspicious or not? Or is it just the organizations that can enforce through violence?
Should we all spy on each other? Make sure no one we know is doing anything they arent supposed to?
Your position is utterly baffling to me, what am I not understanding?
It reminds me of the Stasi and East Germany.
It's quite likely happening already, and also completely legal. Why should I worry about something I can't do anything about? That just makes a person miserable. And if it's happening it's not hurting anyone anyway. So if I worried about it, I would be the only one being hurt by it. I'm not interested in self-inflicted harm.
Quoting DingoJones
If that's what you like to do, then go right ahead. I'm sure there are many who already practise, so you won't be alone. I won't be joining you though, I've got better things to do with my time, like hanging around TPF.
This isnt a question of not worrying about what you cannot control. You are really not concerned about say a pedophile spying in your kids? Spying itself isnt necessarily doing direct harm but the results from spying is the intelligence used to inflict all kinds of harm.
Also, I didnt suggest worrying all the time but good lord in heaven man you can take reasonable precautions against people gathering intelligence (spying) to use against you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps define more how you mean spying? Im still utterly baffled by this shoulder shrugging on spying with no exceptions or caveats.
You are changing the goal posts. I am fine with the basic principle as stated "strangers tracking my children". I believe that is a natural, unavoidable, and fundamentally lawful, aspect of our society. But now you ask about a "pedophile", and a pedophile is psychologically ill, or a dangerous criminal. Do you see the difference? You've totally changed the question. Of course I'd be concerned about a pedophile spying on my children. I'm concerned about the very existence of pedophiles. But I'm not concerned about the existence of spying
Quoting DingoJones
If the prospect of people gathering intelligence to use against you bothers you, then by all means take reasonable precautions against it. But if it doesn't bother some of us, then why should we make that effort?
Quoting DingoJones
Let's take your words, "gathering intelligence". And we should add "in secrecy". But not necessarily, "to use against you" though, so remove that as a requirement. The reasons for spying have a very wide range, and the person spied on is not necessarily targeted as one whom the intelligence will be "used against" at any time. Often people spy with the intent of helping the person spied on, so the intelligence in this case, would be used to assist you rather than against you.
No Im not. Strangers includes harmless folks and harmful folks, the requirement is only that you dont know them. Some strangers can and will use spying for harm, ergo we should have some concern about spying.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It should bother you, and it does in the case of a pedophile so you are not actually unbothered by spying. You are unbothered by harmless spying (a minority of spying). That doesnt mean you should let your guard down does it?
Why are you so invested in not being bothered by spying?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
To use against you is the concern. Because spying includes the distinct possibility of being used against you I think it is in fact a requirement. Without that requirement
You are ignoring the majority use of spying.
I think I sufficiently indicated that I have concern about those who will do harm, because they do harm. I don't have concern about the act of spying because that act does no harm in itself.
Quoting DingoJones
I believe in placing blame where blame is due, distinguishing acts which are bad from acts which are not, and not letting myself be concerned by acts of other people which are not bad. If an act of another person is not causing harm why should I be concerned about it?
Quoting DingoJones
My kitchen knives have the distinct possibility of being used against me. That's a fact, and requirement of being a knife, it cuts flesh.
Quoting DingoJones
As I said, the reasons for spying have a very wide range. I do not believe that there is any such thing as "the majority use of spying", except as we defined, "gathering intelligence".
Ok.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1989483659980628191?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Yeah, tells something when they covered 23000 pages of files from Epstein:
Number of times of mentions in the documents:
Melania Trump: 12 times
Putin: 792 times
Obama: 1783 times
Trump: 9 379
So it seems that the best friends then had a breakup in their bromance. What else would be new?
Much of it was anti-Trump, though, and he was clearly coaching a Dem congressman what to ask Michael Cohen during an anti-Trump investigation. Like most of you, he had the same Trump obsession. Should we count how many times youve said the word Trump?
Evidence of the breakup in the bromance?
Definitely evidence of collusion between Epstein and others.
Its crazy to think he was influencing congressional investigations into president Trump through party apparatchiks, literally feeding them talking points. We can watch it happen live. What other ones did he have his dirty hands in? Whatever it is, thats a romance of an insidious kind.