I don't want to rake over cold coals but there are a couple of misconceptions there that need clearing up, or are false.
1: "In another subthread, you didn't understand me taking that responsibility and then asked me what I was going to do about it because I was replying to someone else, and you jumped between us."
I asked what you meant by 'taking responsibility' because, as I noted, usually it seems to be empty words. I was aware of the context, but that doesn't change that I had no clue as to what you meant (and still don't). You may have been conversing with someone else, but this is an open forum and ones doesn't need to be actively part of a conversation to be able to say something or ask a question.
2. "I posted a link to an article that described how bad that "partnership" is, and the only response was "look, they said partner in the article," and then going on about my inabilities without actually addressing the argument I was making."
Your argument was that China isn't "the largest trading "Partner" of Germany", and posted a link supposedly in support of that assertion. I highlighted a quote from that link that literally said "with China replacing the US as Germany's top trading partner". Note: not just 'partner' but top trading partner. That certainly looks to me like it is not saying what you expected it to say - it negates your supposition rather than supports it.
I have no intent to start flames either. I am trying to debate the arguments, or at least make sure they are clear, without any personal attacks.
In the spirit of clearing the air and trying to complete communications challenges. I am responsible for my communications, and if they aren't communicated well, I take responsibility for that also. I would appreciate the gesture of asking for clarification when it may not be clear enough.
When talking to Steve, I owned my responsibility for my country and its leaders. You implied that this ownership was empty unless explained in detail.
I asked, in a roundabout way, what penance (detail) you needed. An example of yours might do. Of course, since the level of rhetoric was fairly warm at the time, my examples were rather provocative.
As you say here in this quote, though, you didn't ask me to take responsibility, so I dropped the thread as just another needling, and I considered it just a case of keeping the argument alive for its own sake. As you say, it's an open forum, and I disengaged.
How can I give penance in your eyes? Gun to the head, poison, shackles, whips.
Not only am I not after penance, I've not asked for you to take responsibility for anything.
I was asking what you meant by that phrase. Was it just empty words or did you have something in mind?
As for the China and Germany "partnership," I specifically quoted the word "partner" and called it inaccurate in my view of their relationship.
This is the nuance I mentioned. I have no issue and, to my understanding, didn't try to deny the trading partners' ranks. I'm trying to say that a good partnership is typically much closer to 50/50, or at least amicable, between the "partners." The article made it very clear that German leadership does not believe it is fair or amicable.
But I have to challenge you on the facts here. China isn't the largest trading "Partner" of Germany. "Partner" suggests it is not one-sided, though it very much is in their relationship.
The last one was where I called out the common definition and current view that a "nationalist" isn't a great thing to be called in our modern era. The links to the definitions of "nationalist" and my references to them, believing in Nationalism, are clear, I believe. I don't know where you were with your views on the arguments, or if you were just poking at me to poke back. I was trying to provide ElectroDynamic information about his claim of Nationalist, and that generally it's not a very complimentary description of a person's views, since today people take it to mean you feel you're better than others, and your people are better.
This is why I felt trolled. Not engaging in my arguments but taunting me as if there was some victory or my take on these items. From my side, it looked like a drive-by shooting with no significant resolution intended or created except to score points for a team.
If you now go back and look at the ElectroDynamic posts over these past few pages. It's a repeat. Some true facts about Trump, some bashing of the US. No acceptance that his country supports Iran's actions, and a complete lack of acceptance that outsiders see some significant problems with some of Canada's own trade paradigms.
Krish came to repeat those same claims and add what I can only call lies since I am not aware of convictions by peers of the crimes he claimed. I don't think Trump is a good person. I don't like him, but in my country, you are innocent until proven guilty by peers. Luckily, in my country, Krish would have the right to make those accusations without being sued too.
Lastly, I'll harken back to a point you made. I appreciated it outright because it calls out the nature of this thread. I pointed out that the original poster's intention was to chat about how US people would handle their EE projects, given that US tariffs would substantially affect the availability and affordability of components.
The recent posts have nothing to do with this, and that's just as much my fault as the rest. This thread had died out till the SCOTUS ruling kicked it back up. I think people see everything in too black-and-white terms and believe that the US trade negotiations have been universally bad for everyone. The data doesn't really point to that, though. It points to higher prices in the US and lower exports in China. Most nations have increased their exports to the US to backfill the lost trade with China, and many are also importing more goods from China at lower prices because China is trying to get those goods out to somewhere.
The biggest impact on folks likely bouncing around here is the loss of de minimus, and I really, really miss it, but I understand why it was unfair in some ways, too.
Whew, that's a wall. If you have corrections or want to challenge any of that, I'm fine with that. I don't need us to agree. I just don't want to be judged separately or by different sticks from the rest of the folks here, and I don't want my views to be assumed.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
