4 ms·

lol. The orange man is doing more damage to the USA than China could ever do short of actual war. He is destroying the US militarily, economically and political

lol. The orange man is doing more damage to the USA than China could ever do short of actual war. He is destroying the US militarily, economically and politically. They emphatically support his efforts.

kadoban 15d ago
At some point they might prefer stability and sanity. I would bet that at this point they don't care much either way. China is playing long, most of the ~unchanging things are in their favor and the US already proved that they're unreliable. People won't forget that soon even if Trump is gone.
- LarsKrimi 15d ago
  Stability and sanity is not happening whether the conflicts stop in Yemen+Hormuz or not. At that point it's just going to go back to tarriff wars and new terror campaigns that the US admin will start somewhere else
  - kadoban 15d ago
    The context of this is which party China would prefer to win the midterms. The dems winning would distract Trump from being able to fuck up the rest of the world a bit. My bet would be that China doesn't care much either way, they win regardless.
    - LarsKrimi 15d ago
      We agree that China won't care long term. They cannot lose in the current setup In my view the worst that can happen for China is that Trump gets limited by anything. He's hurting US relations more than he's hurting China short or long-term. Relations take longer to build than trade "Don't interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake"
      - kadoban 15d ago
        > "Don't interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake" Yeah, that's the obvious answer, but I suspect there's a point where if the US fucks things up too quickly and too messily, there's fewer customers for China's crap and/or the random throws of monkey shit drag China into messes they don't feel like dealing with. Slow erosion of the US's global power is likely better for them than an implosion that might cause collatoral damage.
        LarsKrimi 15d ago
        I'm curious what you think that may be. The situation you're imagining is one of a global all encompassing depression caused by a single government. Not unthinkable, but the Americans would feel that deeply. Do you think they want to?
        TitaRusell 14d ago
        Germans didn't want Stalingrad yet it happened.
        kadoban 15d ago
        > The situation you're imagining is one of a global all encompassing depression caused by a single government. Doesn't even have to go that far (though it pretty easily can, the US is a big enough market). If the US causes a refugee crisis that affects one of China's allies, or fucks with the global oil supply enough or a thousand other things, that stuff is still annoying to China even if it's usually relatively better for them than it is for the US. > Not unthinkable, but the Americans would feel that deeply. Do you think they want to? The people in the US choosing do not care if the rest of America feels it or not.
giardini 15d ago
IMO it is a good thing that the USA is no longer paying for (among others): - NATO - Maintaining security on the high seas for other than USA shipping, - tariffs imposed by other countries (yes, other countries have been imposing tariffs for decades): https://wjno.iheart.com/content/2025-03-17-qa-how-many-countries-had-tariffs-on-the-us-prior-to-trumps-tariffs/ https://wjno.iheart.com/content/2025-03-17-qa-how-many-count... The USA can use the money saved for its own citizens (possibly even lowering their taxes!)
- jacquesm 15d ago
  Wow, how shortsighted. > - NATO - Maintaining security on the high seas for other than USA shipping, NATO consists of a lot of countries, why would they only work for USA shipping? And where do you think that shipping comes from? > - tariffs imposed by other countries (yes, other countries have been imposing tariffs for decades): Of course they do. But they're not usually idiots about it. > The USA can use the money saved for its own citizens (possibly even lowering their taxes!) You advocate for tariffs but don't understand how tariffs work...
  - giardini 14d ago
    I didn't "advocate for tariffs". I merely pointed out that other countries have had tariffs on USA goods for decades.
    - jacquesm 14d ago
      Yes, as does the USA. So your point is moot: tariffs are a tax on your own population, ostensibly to stimulate local manufacturing but in practice it is just another tax. Protectionists will immediately reach for this mechanism because they believe - in spite of all the evidence - that this time around it will work. It never does. Manufacturing is so intertwined now that all tariffs do is to reduce the buying power for those at the bottom of the totempole, whereas those higher up hardly feel any concrete effect. Whether other countries are stupid or not has no bearing on the discussion, that's just a distraction and the way the USA has been wielding tariffs over the last period is destructive in ways that will affect the country for decades to come.

kadoban 15d ago

At some point they might prefer stability and sanity. I would bet that at this point they don't care much either way. China is playing long, most of the ~unchanging things are in their favor and the US already proved that they're unreliable. People won't forget that soon even if Trump is gone.

LarsKrimi 15d ago
Stability and sanity is not happening whether the conflicts stop in Yemen+Hormuz or not. At that point it's just going to go back to tarriff wars and new terror campaigns that the US admin will start somewhere else
- kadoban 15d ago
  The context of this is which party China would prefer to win the midterms. The dems winning would distract Trump from being able to fuck up the rest of the world a bit. My bet would be that China doesn't care much either way, they win regardless.
  - LarsKrimi 15d ago
    We agree that China won't care long term. They cannot lose in the current setup In my view the worst that can happen for China is that Trump gets limited by anything. He's hurting US relations more than he's hurting China short or long-term. Relations take longer to build than trade "Don't interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake"
    - kadoban 15d ago
      > "Don't interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake" Yeah, that's the obvious answer, but I suspect there's a point where if the US fucks things up too quickly and too messily, there's fewer customers for China's crap and/or the random throws of monkey shit drag China into messes they don't feel like dealing with. Slow erosion of the US's global power is likely better for them than an implosion that might cause collatoral damage.
      - LarsKrimi 15d ago
        I'm curious what you think that may be. The situation you're imagining is one of a global all encompassing depression caused by a single government. Not unthinkable, but the Americans would feel that deeply. Do you think they want to?
        TitaRusell 14d ago
        Germans didn't want Stalingrad yet it happened.
        kadoban 15d ago
        > The situation you're imagining is one of a global all encompassing depression caused by a single government. Doesn't even have to go that far (though it pretty easily can, the US is a big enough market). If the US causes a refugee crisis that affects one of China's allies, or fucks with the global oil supply enough or a thousand other things, that stuff is still annoying to China even if it's usually relatively better for them than it is for the US. > Not unthinkable, but the Americans would feel that deeply. Do you think they want to? The people in the US choosing do not care if the rest of America feels it or not.

giardini 15d ago

IMO it is a good thing that the USA is no longer paying for (among others): - NATO - Maintaining security on the high seas for other than USA shipping, - tariffs imposed by other countries (yes, other countries have been imposing tariffs for decades): https://wjno.iheart.com/content/2025-03-17-qa-how-many-countries-had-tariffs-on-the-us-prior-to-trumps-tariffs/ https://wjno.iheart.com/content/2025-03-17-qa-how-many-count... The USA can use the money saved for its own citizens (possibly even lowering their taxes!)

jacquesm 15d ago
Wow, how shortsighted. > - NATO - Maintaining security on the high seas for other than USA shipping, NATO consists of a lot of countries, why would they only work for USA shipping? And where do you think that shipping comes from? > - tariffs imposed by other countries (yes, other countries have been imposing tariffs for decades): Of course they do. But they're not usually idiots about it. > The USA can use the money saved for its own citizens (possibly even lowering their taxes!) You advocate for tariffs but don't understand how tariffs work...
- giardini 14d ago
  I didn't "advocate for tariffs". I merely pointed out that other countries have had tariffs on USA goods for decades.
  - jacquesm 14d ago
    Yes, as does the USA. So your point is moot: tariffs are a tax on your own population, ostensibly to stimulate local manufacturing but in practice it is just another tax. Protectionists will immediately reach for this mechanism because they believe - in spite of all the evidence - that this time around it will work. It never does. Manufacturing is so intertwined now that all tariffs do is to reduce the buying power for those at the bottom of the totempole, whereas those higher up hardly feel any concrete effect. Whether other countries are stupid or not has no bearing on the discussion, that's just a distraction and the way the USA has been wielding tariffs over the last period is destructive in ways that will affect the country for decades to come.