Tariffs

[Cyclotron]

If we all used our wallets where we often find our moral compasses pointing we all might not be here.

Morality has nothing to do with it. It might have if we were talking about under-the-counter tax-free cigarettes smuggled into the country by organised crime syndicates or stolen goods. But consumers exercising their free right to by goods at a price that suits them is an economic, not moral choice.

I believe you've missed the point. People claim that the orange guy has done "X", and this has enabled China to be more successful. This implies that China's prosperity is wrong. The articles suggest that China's influence in LATAM is bad. The majority of the reason I read that people think China is bad is due to their politics, treatment of humans, and various activities over time that are less than acceptable to people's moral views. 

This is the source of my statement about using your wallet aligned with these moral beliefs.

With what I hear of late about goings on in America there seems to be a rapidly diminishing gap between how China conducts its affairs and how America is. If America can deport one citizen without due process they can not lay claim to a firm stance on the moral high ground.

China became more successful through American policies long before Trump. That was not an accident. America is ruthless in developing policies that suit its own interests. Just because what once suited the purpose  no longer does is not the fault of China. China is not without blame for doing the same either. China has structural problems which will slow its growth in the near future. Namely a rapidly aging population much as Japan has gone through in the last twenty years. Declining birth rates in the first world countries is putting the brake on growth and will continue to do so. Immigration was one way for countries to bolster the younger demographics and attempt to forestall the effect of a declining working age populace. Trump's immigration policies suit his support base now but will come back to bite them for sure.

Trump is merely accelerating the decline of the American Empire. Comparing to historical timeframe for prior empires to collapse I have heard 80 years quoted. How much quicker it actually happens is going to be something to watch. Whether it is debt or internal conflict or the rise of an external power who can say.

What "citizen" did you hear was deported without due process? Wasn't it Australia that removed a visa holder for not having a COVID vaccine?  Oh my.
I recall reading of the human rights issues around the 2024 immigration laws passed in Australia. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/28/australia-passes-harsh-new-anti-migration-laws.

And the "West" is and has been in decline. Australia included.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-a-wealthy-country-in-gentle-decline-exposing-itself-to-danger/

None of this is on point to the argument, though.

[krish2487]

You mean like Denmark's policies designed to reduce asylum applications to zero and to facilitate the return of individuals, including the option to send asylum seekers to third countries for processing, such as the proposed arrangement with Rwanda. The government has also targeted Syrian refugees, stripping some of their temporary residence permits and creating conditions to pressure them to return to Syria.

Absolutely. Just to be explicitly clear, there is no compulsion that Denmark has to take on asylum seekers. We have promised to take a set number and adhered to it. Taking asylum seekers was a humane thing to do and we have done it to the limit we believed we could handle.
This is very different from immigrants ( legal ) who have applied, have been granted permission to stay in the country. Detaining them unceremoniously and throwing them out at random is just plain wrong and unethical to put it mildly.

We have seen what it turns out when countries like Sweden, Germany and France have (with all good intentions) accepted immigrants without a plan. They have some of the highest crime rates today in Europe.

Now I see your rebuttal coming that this is what US is doing, but as I mentioned - asylum != legal immigration. Its not even fair to compare the two.
Again, all I m seeing is whataboutism from both you and Zero999, without any logical rebuttal.

That doesn't apply to Trump. He wasn't the one who censored social media: look up the Twitter files. Yes, he wants to redraw funding from universities who oppose him, but try being a Republican in a top university and see where that gets you, hence the retaliation. Yes, there was 6th January, but then BLM supported by the Democrats claimed more lives. He's not the only one to challenge the results of electrons. Remember the conspiracy theory of Russian collusion which turned out be false.  I could go on.

.....

The above have been done in countries who are not fascist in any meaningful sense of the term.

Again, all I m seeing is excuses for why he did what he did and finger pointing without any concrete examples.

 

Let me put it in a very very simple way. Denmark and other countries are not the topic of discussion here. Trump and USA are. so any finger pointing you guys are doing is at best Ad Hominem.

[Cyclotron]

Writing T’rump is a symptom of TDS, hence why it seems as though you’re just blaming the current administration.

No, it's not.

Trump derangement syndrome is the attitude that everything Trump or his administration does is somehow harmful.  I may not like Trump but even I can admit some of his actions have been positive, in a sea of otherwise bad decisions.

Merely refusing to spell his name correctly simply shows a lack of respect for the man... and given he seemingly has an utter lack of respect for nearly everyone but him, I think it's pretty fair.

I agree. Some people are afflicted with some trauma so much that they must make false statements, like "convicted rapist" or "Fascist/Nazi" or that he "Colluded with Russia", and my favorite, "Insurrectionist".  I generally ignore everything they say after that because it's going to be framed by these ignorant statements.

I don't care for the personality of the US president. But why? It's the same reasons mentioned above. Mischaracterization, names, and ignorant statements.  Funny how they are so much the same.

There is both good and bad in each administration. I agree with your sentiment. If a person only sees the bad, then they have TDS.

[Cyclotron]

What a load of nonsense. There are valid criticisms of Trump but being fascist is not one of them. He's said he's fine with same sex marriage, which is not a fascist position.

The Biden regime was quite authoritarian, the way they censored social media, much more so than Trump.

Objectively speaking, the Chinese government are far more far more fascist, authoritarian.

I can definitely see why they voted for Trump, rather than Kamala Harris who just came across as a complete idiot with no redeeming factors. The Democrats seriously messed up by putting forward such a poor candidate.

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats. It was done because of money. The money raised by the Biden/Harris campaign could not be used for anyone other than Biden or Harris under US law.

Even then, she could not provide any talking points on how she differed on policies and issues from Joe Biden. She doubled down and did nothing to push back the view that special interests were the dominant topics because it would have ticked off the most vocal of the parties ' far-left leaders.

Realistically, Harris represented the worst of double-talk nonsense-speaking politicians. Funny that both Biden and Harris shared attributes from vastly different sources that overwhelmingly ended with the same results. Nobody knew WTF they were saying.

The current administration won on very simple, important topics that hit home for a massive number of people. If Trump were as charismatic as, say, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, his win would have been a landslide not seen since Reagan.

[TimFox]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

[Cyclotron]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

I've seen this argument before, and honestly, I'm perplexed by it. It appears to be an attempt at what I believe to be a nuanced point, but in the contest between A and B, there are always at least 3 groups of prejudices and preferences illustrated.

I'm interested to learn more about why this is fascinating or of interest to others. It seems like a deflection to avoid acknowledging the will of the voters. I mean, that's my initial take on it.

For me, this line of reasoning leads to the outcome that people left their homes and went to vote for a person they don't like because the opposition was that bad. That has some profound implications if true. I doubt it, though. In my experience, people in general tend to be lazy. Apathetic people, more so. I suspect that people who were really turned off by both simply didn't show up to vote at all.

It appears Harris may be intent on entering the contest again. When Trump ran the first time, I often said, "You can open a phone book and point to a random name and find someone who can beat him for president." Obviously, I was wrong. This view of voting against someone implies there's far worse than the winner, so much so people felt the need to do things they didn't want to do.

[tggzzz]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

[tggzzz]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

...
For me, this line of reasoning leads to the outcome that people left their homes and went to vote for a person they don't like because the opposition was that bad.

Anecdotally that seems to be the case, but obviously my sample is very limited.

That has some profound implications if true. I doubt it, though.

Some people regard voting as a civic duty, and hence will always vote. There's no reason to doubt it.

There is a standard name for the very real phenomenon: tactical voting. In the UK it was especially visible and prevalent in the last election, and undoubtedly resulted in the ejection of many Conservative MPs.

In my experience, people in general tend to be lazy. Apathetic people, more so. I suspect that people who were really turned off by both simply didn't show up to vote at all.

That happens too. Political parties spend a lot time trying to get such people out of their armchairs, with varying degrees of success.

[Zero999]

Let me put it in a very very simple way. Denmark and other countries are not the topic of discussion here. Trump and USA are. so any finger pointing you guys are doing is at best Ad Hominem.

Well not, the topic of discussion is tariffs, not fascism, which is completely unrelated.

Well, clearly such people would not ever elect a convicted rapist, cheat, tax dodger, insurrectionist, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorial, mud slinging turd and more to power now would they... (twice)

...

What Trump is definitely responsible is for the consolidation of their (China's) soft influence in the east by alienating every other country with these stupid tariffs.
Whats the saying.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

You omitted "draft dodger". T'rump used the traditional "bone spurs" excuse.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/26/politics/trump-bone-spurs-vietnam-war
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/27/trumps-lawyer-no-basis-for-presidents-medical-deferment-from-vietnam/

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if it's misinformation. On the other hand, if it's true, he's not the only one who avoided the draft. Many people opposed the Vietnam war, for valid reasons.

The usual "valid reason" was that they didn't want to be killed/injured in action.

We realise that it is uncomfortable for you to acknowledge that T'rump was a draft dodger, but it isn't misinformation. It looks like the information comes from the (authoritative) National Archives and the (less than authoritative!) Trump campaign. Apparently he avoided the draft 5 times.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-draft-deferments/
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-evades-specifics-on-his-draft-deferment-120330
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-avoided-the-military-draft-which-was-common-at-the-time-vietnam-war-2018-12?op=1
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/donald-trump-bone-spurs-228f60

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

[tggzzz]

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

We realise you would find a way to distrust such sources if they told you that 1+2*3=9, and that only Faux News and Pravda Social "say it as it is".

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

The main reason such people dodged the draft was to avoid being killed. I can't say I blame them, but that doesn't make it praiseworthy.

To conflate running for cover in a firefight, with running for president is stupid and obscene. You insult people who put their lives on the line for others.

[pope]

Let me put it in a very very simple way. Denmark and other countries are not the topic of discussion here. Trump and USA are. so any finger pointing you guys are doing is at best Ad Hominem.

Well not, the topic of discussion is tariffs, not fascism, which is completely unrelated.

Well, clearly such people would not ever elect a convicted rapist, cheat, tax dodger, insurrectionist, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorial, mud slinging turd and more to power now would they... (twice)



...

What Trump is definitely responsible is for the consolidation of their (China's) soft influence in the east by alienating every other country with these stupid tariffs.
Whats the saying.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

You omitted "draft dodger". T'rump used the traditional "bone spurs" excuse.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/26/politics/trump-bone-spurs-vietnam-war
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/27/trumps-lawyer-no-basis-for-presidents-medical-deferment-from-vietnam/

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if it's misinformation. On the other hand, if it's true, he's not the only one who avoided the draft. Many people opposed the Vietnam war, for valid reasons.

The usual "valid reason" was that they didn't want to be killed/injured in action.

We realise that it is uncomfortable for you to acknowledge that T'rump was a draft dodger, but it isn't misinformation. It looks like the information comes from the (authoritative) National Archives and the (less than authoritative!) Trump campaign. Apparently he avoided the draft 5 times.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-draft-deferments/
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-evades-specifics-on-his-draft-deferment-120330
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-avoided-the-military-draft-which-was-common-at-the-time-vietnam-war-2018-12?op=1
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/donald-trump-bone-spurs-228f60

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

[Zero999]

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

We realise you would find a way to distrust such sources if they told you that 1+2*3=9, and that only Faux News and Pravda Social "say it as it is".

You're the one blindly believing the likes of Communist National News. i'm not saying it's definitely false. I have my doubts about the accuracy of websites which contain TDS.

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

The main reason such people dodged the draft was to avoid being killed. I can't say I blame them, but that doesn't make it praiseworthy.

You were arenoutn back then. Don't you remember the protests? I saw plenty of footage and have read about them. It's now history.

To conflate running for cover in a firefight, with running for president is stupid and obscene. You insult people who put their lives on the line for others.

Rubbish. There's a difference between fighting to defend your country and some proxy war. .

Let me put it in a very very simple way. Denmark and other countries are not the topic of discussion here. Trump and USA are. so any finger pointing you guys are doing is at best Ad Hominem.

Well not, the topic of discussion is tariffs, not fascism, which is completely unrelated.

Well, clearly such people would not ever elect a convicted rapist, cheat, tax dodger, insurrectionist, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorial, mud slinging turd and more to power now would they... (twice)



...

What Trump is definitely responsible is for the consolidation of their (China's) soft influence in the east by alienating every other country with these stupid tariffs.
Whats the saying.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

You omitted "draft dodger". T'rump used the traditional "bone spurs" excuse.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/26/politics/trump-bone-spurs-vietnam-war
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/27/trumps-lawyer-no-basis-for-presidents-medical-deferment-from-vietnam/

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if it's misinformation. On the other hand, if it's true, he's not the only one who avoided the draft. Many people opposed the Vietnam war, for valid reasons.

The usual "valid reason" was that they didn't want to be killed/injured in action.

We realise that it is uncomfortable for you to acknowledge that T'rump was a draft dodger, but it isn't misinformation. It looks like the information comes from the (authoritative) National Archives and the (less than authoritative!) Trump campaign. Apparently he avoided the draft 5 times.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-draft-deferments/
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-evades-specifics-on-his-draft-deferment-120330
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-avoided-the-military-draft-which-was-common-at-the-time-vietnam-war-2018-12?op=1
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/donald-trump-bone-spurs-228f60

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

A false equivalency.  The Vietnam was was lost. Do you have any idea of what would have happened had WWII has been lost? It was also very different because most Americans have family in Europe.

[tszaboo]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

Well, that's what you get if you have 1 bit politics.
Single issue voters.

But IMHO if the last 3 elections showed anything, is that one side will go every length to win, and still lose. Same is happening all over Europe. Left goes as far as banning right wing parties, repeating elections, as a last ditch effort to keep themselves the power.

[tggzzz]

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

We realise you would find a way to distrust such sources if they told you that 1+2*3=9, and that only Faux News and Pravda Social "say it as it is".

You're the one blindly believing the likes of Communist National News. i'm not saying it's definitely false. I have my doubts about the accuracy of websites which contain TDS.

So you think I might believe communist propaganda?! You really are clueless about what you don't know.

How many times did you go through the Iron Curtain into communist countries? I have personal experience of what was on the other side.

How many friends do you have whose job was to travel around Soviet bloc countries to determine how well BBC radio broadcasts were being received?

How many friends do you have who got divorced in order that the husband could crawl under the Iron Curtain, then remarried when reunited with his wife and children?

Numbers please.

In case it isn't bleeding obvious to you, I have been recognising propaganda a.k.a. "alternative facts" for a long time. Hence it isn't difficult for me to see through T'rump's bluster, bullying, and behaving like a mobster.

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

The main reason such people dodged the draft was to avoid being killed. I can't say I blame them, but that doesn't make it praiseworthy.

You were arenoutn back then. Don't you remember the protests? I saw plenty of footage and have read about them. It's now history.

So what? Your point is irrelevant.

You think history is irrelevant? Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

To conflate running for cover in a firefight, with running for president is stupid and obscene. You insult people who put their lives on the line for others.

Rubbish. There's a difference between fighting to defend your country and some proxy war. .

Strawman argument.

If that's your considered response to my statement, then you have comprehension problems. While your statement is valid in isolation, it has no relationship to what I wrote.

Or maybe you do think being defeated in an election is the same as being defeated in close quarters combat! You insult people who have been in such battles.

[Analog Kid]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

Yes.
My take on the 2020 election is still that nobody* voted for Biden.
They all voted against Trump.

* for certain values of "nobody"

[Cyclotron]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

You do realize the implications of what you're saying, right?  The people shouldn't be trusted to select their leaders. That Harris being chosen by her peers was best, and she turned out so awful that people didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris.

There's a political system often used to demonize the current US administration, which selects its leaders from within its ranks rather than from the people, at least in the primary historical examples I'm aware of.

I'm glad the US kicked the British to the curb and selected our methods myself. It's a 250-year-old experiment that's still going.

[Cyclotron]

You mean like Denmark's policies designed to reduce asylum applications to zero and to facilitate the return of individuals, including the option to send asylum seekers to third countries for processing, such as the proposed arrangement with Rwanda. The government has also targeted Syrian refugees, stripping some of their temporary residence permits and creating conditions to pressure them to return to Syria.

Absolutely. Just to be explicitly clear, there is no compulsion that Denmark has to take on asylum seekers. We have promised to take a set number and adhered to it. Taking asylum seekers was a humane thing to do and we have done it to the limit we believed we could handle.
This is very different from immigrants ( legal ) who have applied, have been granted permission to stay in the country. Detaining them unceremoniously and throwing them out at random is just plain wrong and unethical to put it mildly.

We have seen what it turns out when countries like Sweden, Germany and France have (with all good intentions) accepted immigrants without a plan. They have some of the highest crime rates today in Europe.

Now I see your rebuttal coming that this is what US is doing, but as I mentioned - asylum != legal immigration. Its not even fair to compare the two.
Again, all I m seeing is whataboutism from both you and Zero999, without any logical rebuttal.

That doesn't apply to Trump. He wasn't the one who censored social media: look up the Twitter files. Yes, he wants to redraw funding from universities who oppose him, but try being a Republican in a top university and see where that gets you, hence the retaliation. Yes, there was 6th January, but then BLM supported by the Democrats claimed more lives. He's not the only one to challenge the results of electrons. Remember the conspiracy theory of Russian collusion which turned out be false.  I could go on.

.....

The above have been done in countries who are not fascist in any meaningful sense of the term.

Again, all I m seeing is excuses for why he did what he did and finger pointing without any concrete examples.

 

Let me put it in a very very simple way. Denmark and other countries are not the topic of discussion here. Trump and USA are. so any finger pointing you guys are doing is at best Ad Hominem.

You are simply lying about what's going on in the US or repeating the lies of people you blindly follow and calling your country's methods better.  You are not superior now, nor have you ever been.

It's not "Whataboutism," it's the truth that you are acting on the same principles and then declaring ours bad. That's snobish, ignorant elitism, not whataboutism.
How about this, try on some modesty and consider that you are being lied to, or worse, you're the liar.

[Cyclotron]

Let me put it in a very very simple way. Denmark and other countries are not the topic of discussion here. Trump and USA are. so any finger pointing you guys are doing is at best Ad Hominem.

This is a perfect example of your denial, snobbery, and elitism. This thread is about the subject of "Tariffs." (look up there ^) You just lied again and said this thread is about Trump and the USA.  Don't make crap up, I will fact-check you. Here's a clue, just so you are very clear, Tariffs are about "international trade", not just the USA.

You literally rattled off a litany of names about people and the leader of a nation, and then turned around and claimed someone was attacking you personally.  This is classic and exemplifies what you've made clear about yourself.

[Buriedcode]

You're the one blindly believing the likes of Communist National News. i'm not saying it's definitely false. I have my doubts about the accuracy of websites which contain TDS.

Wow Zero... every single remotely political topic you do the same thing... claim certain replies are "off topic" (which they are) whilst simulataniously perpetuating the off-topic stuff trying to get the very last word in.. and pepper that with phrases only used by right-wing sources (like above, and "TDS") all whilst claiming the "other side" is baised.  Its one thing to have a stance/opinion on matters.. but I mean.. surely you see the hypocrisy?

Simply adding "of course I have my own biases" every so often doesn't excuse you from doing the very thing you seem to be complaining about about.  If you really were concerned about staying on topic, your last ~5 posts here wouldn't exist.  I 've seen this many times... you keep pouring fuel on the fire, Dave/Admin threatens to lock the topic and you immediately reply with something to get the last word in, then..."Ok I'm sorry, I won't post about it any more".  Its like you want to feel like you've somehow won an argument just as the topic gets locked.  This forum is filled with this crap, but its a very small minority that does it - just look at the past 40 posts.. there's plenty about Tarriffs and their effects, how many of yours have been about that?

[tggzzz]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

You do realize the implications of what you're saying, right?  The people shouldn't be trusted to select their leaders. That Harris being chosen by her peers was best, and she turned out so awful that people didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris.

There's a political system often used to demonize the current US administration, which selects its leaders from within its ranks rather than from the people, at least in the primary historical examples I'm aware of.

I'm glad the US kicked the British to the curb and selected our methods myself. It's a 250-year-old experiment that's still going.

Wrong. Read again, more carefully this time.

Skilled people should select plausible alternatives, and then unskilled people can choose between the alternatives.

[Cyclotron]

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/rupee-plunges-all-time-low-steep-us-tariffs-logs-4th-month-loss-2025-08-29/

I take the reasons for tariffs on India at face value. Stop buying oil from Russia, which, I assume, supports its war in Ukraine, or face harsh trade tariffs.
I don't understand why this wasn't a policy item for every country seeking to end the war in Ukraine.

[Cyclotron]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

You do realize the implications of what you're saying, right?  The people shouldn't be trusted to select their leaders. That Harris being chosen by her peers was best, and she turned out so awful that people didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris.

There's a political system often used to demonize the current US administration, which selects its leaders from within its ranks rather than from the people, at least in the primary historical examples I'm aware of.

I'm glad the US kicked the British to the curb and selected our methods myself. It's a 250-year-old experiment that's still going.

Wrong. Read again, more carefully this time.

Skilled people should select plausible alternatives, and then unskilled people can choose between the alternatives.

I read it, in much disbelief, I must say. I can't believe anyone in this day and age would suggest an elitist system of "Qualified people make the decisions."

I can only assume that I am wrong because you say so. You didn't provide any reasonable explanation, any examples, or show any willingness to counter my argument.

[tggzzz]

You're the one blindly believing the likes of Communist National News. i'm not saying it's definitely false. I have my doubts about the accuracy of websites which contain TDS.

Wow Zero... every single remotely political topic you do the same thing... claim certain replies are "off topic" (which they are) whilst simulataniously perpetuating the off-topic stuff trying to get the very last word in.. and pepper that with phrases only used by right-wing sources (like above, and "TDS") all whilst claiming the "other side" is baised.  Its one thing to have a stance/opinion on matters.. but I mean.. surely you see the hypocrisy?

No, he doesn't. Sometimes he sort of moves towards that understanding, but then gears clash and his brain resets.

Simply adding "of course I have my own biases" every so often doesn't excuse you from doing the very thing you seem to be complaining about about. 

Of course it doesn't.

Traditionally political and religious extremist rabble rousers frequently make statements damning others for things they do themselves. A classic one is adultery, but there are many others.

[tggzzz]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

You do realize the implications of what you're saying, right?  The people shouldn't be trusted to select their leaders. That Harris being chosen by her peers was best, and she turned out so awful that people didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris.

There's a political system often used to demonize the current US administration, which selects its leaders from within its ranks rather than from the people, at least in the primary historical examples I'm aware of.

I'm glad the US kicked the British to the curb and selected our methods myself. It's a 250-year-old experiment that's still going.

Wrong. Read again, more carefully this time.

Skilled people should select plausible alternatives, and then unskilled people can choose between the alternatives.

I read it, in much disbelief, I must say. I can't believe anyone in this day and age would suggest an elitist system of "Qualified people make the decisions."

I can only assume that I am wrong because you say so. You didn't provide any reasonable explanation, any examples, or show any willingness to counter my argument.

Of course I'm elitist. The myth that everybody is equal is a pernicious destructive force. You will never be my equal.

We know what happens when arts graduates and MBAs dictate how software is developed, etc, etc, etc.

Or maybe you think a lawyer should determine that your prostate cancer (the most common male camcer) needs to be treated, and how. Personally I'd prefer an oncologist to offer me suitable alternatives and let me choose.

[Zero999]

Oh, the usual left-leaning sites and Ministry of Truth, eh "fact checkers", so a grain of salt is warranted. . .

We realise you would find a way to distrust such sources if they told you that 1+2*3=9, and that only Faux News and Pravda Social "say it as it is".

You're the one blindly believing the likes of Communist National News. i'm not saying it's definitely false. I have my doubts about the accuracy of websites which contain TDS.

So you think I might believe communist propaganda?! You really are clueless about what you don't know.

How many times did you go through the Iron Curtain into communist countries? I have personal experience of what was on the other side.

How many friends do you have whose job was to travel around Soviet bloc countries to determine how well BBC radio broadcasts were being received?

How many friends do you have who got divorced in order that the husband could crawl under the Iron Curtain, then remarried when reunited with his wife and children?

Numbers please.

In case it isn't bleeding obvious to you, I have been recognising propaganda a.k.a. "alternative facts" for a long time. Hence it isn't difficult for me to see through T'rump's bluster, bullying, and behaving like a mobster.

CNN = Communist National News. You like to use silly names for Fox News. Don't get annoyed when others do the same. All I say is I'm sceptical of both.

Either way, I agree with Trump for avoiding the draft, if that was really the case. There were plenty of other reasons for opposing the Vietnam war. The US wasn't being attacked. It was interference in another country's affairs. I would have done anything to avoid getting roped into it, had I lived in the US back then, just as I wouldn't go and fight in some war which has nothing to do with us, on the say so of our current idiotic government. He clearly isn't a coward. If they were the case, then he would have dropped any idea of running for president, after the first assassination attempt.

I find it odd how, back then, most left-wingers would have applauded Trump, only to change their tune since.

The main reason such people dodged the draft was to avoid being killed. I can't say I blame them, but that doesn't make it praiseworthy.

You were arenoutn back then. Don't you remember the protests? I saw plenty of footage and have read about them. It's now history.

So what? Your point is irrelevant.

You think history is irrelevant? Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

No I don't. That's the whole bloody point. I wouldn't go into a Vietnam style war for my country, but if WWII happened again, I would, because it would be a different matter entirely.

To conflate running for cover in a firefight, with running for president is stupid and obscene. You insult people who put their lives on the line for others.

Rubbish. There's a difference between fighting to defend your country and some proxy war. .

Strawman argument.

If that's your considered response to my statement, then you have comprehension problems. While your statement is valid in isolation, it has no relationship to what I wrote.

Or maybe you do think being defeated in an election is the same as being defeated in close quarters combat! You insult people who have been in such battles.

Alright. I've noticed that pattern, in light of a rebuttal say the magic word: strawman aka bollocks.

You're the one blindly believing the likes of Communist National News. i'm not saying it's definitely false. I have my doubts about the accuracy of websites which contain TDS.

Wow Zero... every single remotely political topic you do the same thing... claim certain replies are "off topic" (which they are) whilst simulataniously perpetuating the off-topic stuff trying to get the very last word in.. and pepper that with phrases only used by right-wing sources (like above, and "TDS") all whilst claiming the "other side" is baised.  Its one thing to have a stance/opinion on matters.. but I mean.. surely you see the hypocrisy?

Simply adding "of course I have my own biases" every so often doesn't excuse you from doing the very thing you seem to be complaining about about.  If you really were concerned about staying on topic, your last ~5 posts here wouldn't exist.  I 've seen this many times... you keep pouring fuel on the fire, Dave/Admin threatens to lock the topic and you immediately reply with something to get the last word in, then..."Ok I'm sorry, I won't post about it any more".  Its like you want to feel like you've somehow won an argument just as the topic gets locked.  This forum is filled with this crap, but its a very small minority that does it - just look at the past 40 posts.. there's plenty about Tarriffs and their effects, how many of yours have been about that?

I admit I'm guilty of not staying on topic, but the same accusation could be made at many people here? Why single me out?

Regarding right wing, well maybe it's just I'm right of your opinions? Everything is relative. If you read my posts you'll find I've made many criticisms of Trump along with tariffs. I use the term TDS because it genuinely applies to some: big orange man, T'rump, fascist etc. are all clear signs of TDS. I don't like Trump. He's an a-hole just like any other politician. The difference is he doesn't bother hiding it. I might occasionally call a politician a name like that, but I don't fill my posts with it. I prefer to attack their actions, rather than resorting to childish insults.