3 ms·

> It changes nothing. It helps nothing. It is not to be trusted. Not when people are being absolutist rather than taking the situation for what it is and doing

by rob_c 1y ago

> It changes nothing. It helps nothing. It is not to be trusted. Not when people are being absolutist rather than taking the situation for what it is and doing the best they can with it. Tariffs or no the US wants back in on the construction/manufacturing industry. This is something that should be seen as a good thing. I just wish the EU was so visionary but we're worried about recycling plastics (when we don't use the plastic) or curtailing bad think (rather than open dialogue)...

motorest 1y ago
> Not when people are being absolutist rather than taking the situation for what it is and doing the best they can with it. The US is threatening NATO partners with invasion and annexation, not to mention the moronic tariff war, and you come here talk about "absolutist"? Pathetic.
- rob_c 1y ago
  Basically NATO partners are only suffering from less sales info the US pocket. The US pocket is weakening to allow the US to begin manufacturing. The tarrif "war" for what it is will see an excess of products not sold to the US markets. The US will not invade. It's a pr move. Frankly if you're bothered with that let's talk about Hawaii and Alaska (or several international trade routes). There's plenty of opportunity that doesn't involve bowing to the petrol dollar and becoming subservient and maybe that can even be done without importing half of the developing world. Don't call people pathetic unless you're actually equipped to engage in conversation. It's demeaning to yourself and is no better than demanding things change for your feelings. Being absolutist is just giving up your ability to take action and control your own life. The biggest victim is yourself and it only hurts others. Take action. Do something and move on with life. Stop being paralyzed by the media left/right/alt/mainstream/pink-lizard-bunny. Go touch grass and be happy.
  - rfrey 1y ago
    You keep isolating the discussion to tariffs, and ignoring the US hostility to former allies, including threatening to invade two NATO members, as well as US support for Russia against the west in active wars. Tariffs can be a reasonable policy (although not when implemented like this... rejuvenating manufacturing by imposing huge tariffs on raw materials? Really?) but when people talk about the US abandoning the western democracies they're not talking exclusively or even primarily about tariffs. Saying the equivalent of "Oh, that's just Trump talk" is nonsense. Everybody thought Trump's support for Russia was just talk. He's deployed active military on US soil. He's ignored the judiciary and is progressively neutering them. All that was "just Trump being Trump" before he did it. The man is a mad king and half of America is happy to follow him for the lolz.
    - rob_c 1y ago
      Please point to where America has put boots on the ground, spilled blood, taken ships hostage or violated blockades, critically since trump has come to office? (I get to call this condition since you're complaining about tariffs and current stance as being a detrimental change) Russia violates the waters and airspace of its neighbours regularly. It's almost expected. Nobody goes into the south China sea without expecting warning shots. When was the last time the US was shooting at Canada and Mexico? People scream death to America on the borders and inside the country and nobody gets rounded up and disappeared like a Hong Kong freedom fighter for that action alone. The US isn't abandoning anyone. It's a change in position that America isn't going to pay to keep "global" peace. Which is basically as global as creating a 2+1 tier state system. Inline with US policy or a terrorist nation state + CHina. Yes America is looking to reduce its military cost and armed persons abroad, but that's just means America is saving money and reducing it cultural influence from places where (as a non American I can STRONGLY say) we'd be better off without it (!). Having boots on the ground to stop an invasion probably make sense in the 1950s/1960s but we've been in a world where anyone could deploy thousands of boots on the ground in just hours for over 30yr+ now and the internet means you're not going to sneak 50 tanks into the centre of Berlin unnoticed. The old cold war military stance is wasteful and can be optimized whilst still providing adequate deterrent. Unless you think the US is incapable of such deployments? (Not winning, deploying and keeping an invader bogged down) America has not supported Russia. If that's your position I will just sit and judge because now we're either quoting bitchute or into imaginary territory. Trump has better relations than Putin and Putin still has the ability to turn Kiev into a parking lot. Clearly neither are actually happening but that's the Ukraine conflict it's more ideology and situational (corrupt) than a 30s soundbite can deliver. Yes Russia is the aggressor. Yes Russia should pay for rebuilding. Yes Russia started the current round of shooting. But. Yes the west supported a corrupt regime. Yes the west armed a corrupt regime on Russia's border. Yes America had connections between a fanatical right wing party in said nation and US high ranking members of congress and the whitehouse. Yes certain groups within Western nations wanted Ukraine to become a defacto NATO state. Yes none of that means Russia should have shot first or invaded, but it's all true and all on record. And that's before we start asking questions about the previous administration which are a little over hyped. Er mah ger orange man drumpf deployed us thing in us space to do a thing in the US. I thought this was a discussion about us foreign policy. I'm not going to get dragged into how the US conducts itself inside kids borders. If we're going this direction let's look at the Iranian, Israeli and Saudi regimes and then report back. (And no the be explicit that is NOT an invitation to take the conversation into irrelevant waters) This is like moaning if Moscow nukes itself. You can claim it's dum but they almost have a right to do it (outside of that act being closer to an act of genocide than peace keeping).

by rob_c 1y ago

motorest 1y ago

> Not when people are being absolutist rather than taking the situation for what it is and doing the best they can with it. The US is threatening NATO partners with invasion and annexation, not to mention the moronic tariff war, and you come here talk about "absolutist"? Pathetic.

rob_c 1y ago
Basically NATO partners are only suffering from less sales info the US pocket. The US pocket is weakening to allow the US to begin manufacturing. The tarrif "war" for what it is will see an excess of products not sold to the US markets. The US will not invade. It's a pr move. Frankly if you're bothered with that let's talk about Hawaii and Alaska (or several international trade routes). There's plenty of opportunity that doesn't involve bowing to the petrol dollar and becoming subservient and maybe that can even be done without importing half of the developing world. Don't call people pathetic unless you're actually equipped to engage in conversation. It's demeaning to yourself and is no better than demanding things change for your feelings. Being absolutist is just giving up your ability to take action and control your own life. The biggest victim is yourself and it only hurts others. Take action. Do something and move on with life. Stop being paralyzed by the media left/right/alt/mainstream/pink-lizard-bunny. Go touch grass and be happy.
- rfrey 1y ago
  You keep isolating the discussion to tariffs, and ignoring the US hostility to former allies, including threatening to invade two NATO members, as well as US support for Russia against the west in active wars. Tariffs can be a reasonable policy (although not when implemented like this... rejuvenating manufacturing by imposing huge tariffs on raw materials? Really?) but when people talk about the US abandoning the western democracies they're not talking exclusively or even primarily about tariffs. Saying the equivalent of "Oh, that's just Trump talk" is nonsense. Everybody thought Trump's support for Russia was just talk. He's deployed active military on US soil. He's ignored the judiciary and is progressively neutering them. All that was "just Trump being Trump" before he did it. The man is a mad king and half of America is happy to follow him for the lolz.
  - rob_c 1y ago
    Please point to where America has put boots on the ground, spilled blood, taken ships hostage or violated blockades, critically since trump has come to office? (I get to call this condition since you're complaining about tariffs and current stance as being a detrimental change) Russia violates the waters and airspace of its neighbours regularly. It's almost expected. Nobody goes into the south China sea without expecting warning shots. When was the last time the US was shooting at Canada and Mexico? People scream death to America on the borders and inside the country and nobody gets rounded up and disappeared like a Hong Kong freedom fighter for that action alone. The US isn't abandoning anyone. It's a change in position that America isn't going to pay to keep "global" peace. Which is basically as global as creating a 2+1 tier state system. Inline with US policy or a terrorist nation state + CHina. Yes America is looking to reduce its military cost and armed persons abroad, but that's just means America is saving money and reducing it cultural influence from places where (as a non American I can STRONGLY say) we'd be better off without it (!). Having boots on the ground to stop an invasion probably make sense in the 1950s/1960s but we've been in a world where anyone could deploy thousands of boots on the ground in just hours for over 30yr+ now and the internet means you're not going to sneak 50 tanks into the centre of Berlin unnoticed. The old cold war military stance is wasteful and can be optimized whilst still providing adequate deterrent. Unless you think the US is incapable of such deployments? (Not winning, deploying and keeping an invader bogged down) America has not supported Russia. If that's your position I will just sit and judge because now we're either quoting bitchute or into imaginary territory. Trump has better relations than Putin and Putin still has the ability to turn Kiev into a parking lot. Clearly neither are actually happening but that's the Ukraine conflict it's more ideology and situational (corrupt) than a 30s soundbite can deliver. Yes Russia is the aggressor. Yes Russia should pay for rebuilding. Yes Russia started the current round of shooting. But. Yes the west supported a corrupt regime. Yes the west armed a corrupt regime on Russia's border. Yes America had connections between a fanatical right wing party in said nation and US high ranking members of congress and the whitehouse. Yes certain groups within Western nations wanted Ukraine to become a defacto NATO state. Yes none of that means Russia should have shot first or invaded, but it's all true and all on record. And that's before we start asking questions about the previous administration which are a little over hyped. Er mah ger orange man drumpf deployed us thing in us space to do a thing in the US. I thought this was a discussion about us foreign policy. I'm not going to get dragged into how the US conducts itself inside kids borders. If we're going this direction let's look at the Iranian, Israeli and Saudi regimes and then report back. (And no the be explicit that is NOT an invitation to take the conversation into irrelevant waters) This is like moaning if Moscow nukes itself. You can claim it's dum but they almost have a right to do it (outside of that act being closer to an act of genocide than peace keeping).