I don’t think there’s much reason to believe a Democrat or a different Republican would be less likely to implement protectionist laws. That’s kind of a reoccurring problem.
Remember when Biden increased tariffs on Chinese EVs because they threatened American auto companies and unions?
Maybe... maybe... if this were a discussion about only his protectionism on Chinese tech, yea, maybe you have a point. Literally everything is coming off the rails because Trump is so obscenely corrupt, so we'll never actually know. A new wall of tariffs, extreme oil prices, subpoenas on journalists for reporting on his Qatari (bribe) plane, the fact that he made about two and a half billion dollars last year somehow (1.5B in TrumpCoin bribes)... This shit just doesn't happen under Democrats or pre-MAGA Republicans.
Yea, if it were just some "big bad concern" about protectionism, sure. My point is that when you elect a corrupt idiot, the protectionism might actually be about protecting his (literal) friends and family's investments, rather than some dying American industry.
> Maybe... maybe... if this were a discussion about only his protectionism on Chinese tech, yea, maybe you have a point.
That is the discussion though…
Too many people here are acting like Trump is the only one who would do this. It’s very likely any President would do the same. The Biden EV tariffs were just one example.
I feel the election that brought mcdonalds trump into power merely accelerated what was already the trajectory in this regard, but he did manage to shift the overton window so dramatically that people are willing to ignore the rise in fascism that's allowing the oligarchy to take control.
I'd much rather have Vance right now. I don't like the guy, but he's clearly got a good education and isn't literally selling crypto-as-bribe tokens openly.
You are not flummoxed by his willingness to sell everything he stands for to be close to power? The man is a psycho by every definition. He plus Stephen miller are the new Adolf and Goebels
Trump's lack of knowledge on many topics, unwillingness to learn from others, and random chaotic capricious nature are on the one hand a problem (e.g. the Iran war) but also prevent his administration from being as effective as it might otherwise be. The bribery/money side is a distraction: yes, it's bad, corrupt, etc., but compared to the cumulative chaos unleashed on the world with the decision to attack Iran, it's negligible.
If Vance took over and pursued the same Project 2025/Miller/MAGA agenda, it could be much better organised, and much more effective. That's even scarier.
The world is full of nuance. Just like whataboutism and "both sides" can be convenient rhetorical devices for people lying to themselves or others, accusing someone of either can be a convenient figleaf for avoiding thinking about the flaws of one's own side.
The fact that Trump won in 2016 obviously overshadowed many things about that election. I didn't vote for him but I can still remember acutely the disappointment I felt during the primaries when the presumptive frontrunners were another Clinton and another Bush. Like out of 300 million people, these will be the choices presented to me? Whataboutism is bad mkay, but two things can also be true at the same time. Nuance.
> "Both sides are the same" is the last bastion of denial.
This is hyperpartisan bullshit that you obviously wouldn't say if someone were choosing between a red shirt and a blue shirt. If you support some political candidate, defend them on the merits of their positions and capabilities, not by repeating content-free jingles.
Or even worse, based on unexplored counterfactuals: "X" did this, don't you wish you picked "Y"? As if the fact that the red shirt turned out to be flammable means that the blue shirt wouldn't have been. Then when somebody points out that the labels are the same, "whataboutism!"
Even "the last bastion" is just a cynical flourish to associate this sentiment with a saying that has value to people on its own merits.
> cope
And this is twitter/online addiction. With an opposition like this, Trump will be president until the heart attack kills him. Addicted to self-regard.
I'd say if I have to chose between a moron and a corrupt moron, I'd say let the whole thing collapse. The "world burning" because one of the two parties can't get elected is a bunch of bs. The whole thing is a sham and trying to get people to vote because the other party is worse just shows how bad you are.
I don’t think there’s much reason to believe a Democrat or a different Republican would be less likely to implement protectionist laws. That’s kind of a reoccurring problem.
Remember when Biden increased tariffs on Chinese EVs because they threatened American auto companies and unions?
Maybe... maybe... if this were a discussion about only his protectionism on Chinese tech, yea, maybe you have a point. Literally everything is coming off the rails because Trump is so obscenely corrupt, so we'll never actually know. A new wall of tariffs, extreme oil prices, subpoenas on journalists for reporting on his Qatari (bribe) plane, the fact that he made about two and a half billion dollars last year somehow (1.5B in TrumpCoin bribes)... This shit just doesn't happen under Democrats or pre-MAGA Republicans.
Yea, if it were just some "big bad concern" about protectionism, sure. My point is that when you elect a corrupt idiot, the protectionism might actually be about protecting his (literal) friends and family's investments, rather than some dying American industry.
> Maybe... maybe... if this were a discussion about only his protectionism on Chinese tech, yea, maybe you have a point.
That is the discussion though…
Too many people here are acting like Trump is the only one who would do this. It’s very likely any President would do the same. The Biden EV tariffs were just one example.
I feel the election that brought mcdonalds trump into power merely accelerated what was already the trajectory in this regard, but he did manage to shift the overton window so dramatically that people are willing to ignore the rise in fascism that's allowing the oligarchy to take control.
[flagged]
I'd much rather have Vance right now. I don't like the guy, but he's clearly got a good education and isn't literally selling crypto-as-bribe tokens openly.
You are not flummoxed by his willingness to sell everything he stands for to be close to power? The man is a psycho by every definition. He plus Stephen miller are the new Adolf and Goebels
When you get enormous power and almost zero accountability, it changes you in various ways. I have zero trust Vance is immune to that.
Trump's lack of knowledge on many topics, unwillingness to learn from others, and random chaotic capricious nature are on the one hand a problem (e.g. the Iran war) but also prevent his administration from being as effective as it might otherwise be. The bribery/money side is a distraction: yes, it's bad, corrupt, etc., but compared to the cumulative chaos unleashed on the world with the decision to attack Iran, it's negligible.
If Vance took over and pursued the same Project 2025/Miller/MAGA agenda, it could be much better organised, and much more effective. That's even scarier.
yet
> Let’s hope the next one is better
Trump has shown the world that you don't need to "be better" to get into the top job.
I bet the more conniving machiavellians will pretend to be better, but secretly operate even worse than trump.
Like a Vance presidency
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The world is full of nuance. Just like whataboutism and "both sides" can be convenient rhetorical devices for people lying to themselves or others, accusing someone of either can be a convenient figleaf for avoiding thinking about the flaws of one's own side.
The fact that Trump won in 2016 obviously overshadowed many things about that election. I didn't vote for him but I can still remember acutely the disappointment I felt during the primaries when the presumptive frontrunners were another Clinton and another Bush. Like out of 300 million people, these will be the choices presented to me? Whataboutism is bad mkay, but two things can also be true at the same time. Nuance.
11 replies →
I didn't say "Both sides are the same". I said both candidates were morons.
As far as terms, I don't like really like either side we have on the menu right now.
17 replies →
I mean, both sides do implement protectionist laws.
Did we already forget about Biden raising tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect the auto industry & unions?
I’m not sure you’re looking at things quite fairly.
3 replies →
> "Both sides are the same" is the last bastion of denial.
This is hyperpartisan bullshit that you obviously wouldn't say if someone were choosing between a red shirt and a blue shirt. If you support some political candidate, defend them on the merits of their positions and capabilities, not by repeating content-free jingles.
Or even worse, based on unexplored counterfactuals: "X" did this, don't you wish you picked "Y"? As if the fact that the red shirt turned out to be flammable means that the blue shirt wouldn't have been. Then when somebody points out that the labels are the same, "whataboutism!"
Even "the last bastion" is just a cynical flourish to associate this sentiment with a saying that has value to people on its own merits.
> cope
And this is twitter/online addiction. With an opposition like this, Trump will be president until the heart attack kills him. Addicted to self-regard.
2 replies →
[flagged]
1 reply →
I'd say if I have to chose between a moron and a corrupt moron, I'd say let the whole thing collapse. The "world burning" because one of the two parties can't get elected is a bunch of bs. The whole thing is a sham and trying to get people to vote because the other party is worse just shows how bad you are.
Both sides support genocide, under Biden even more Black people died in america.
Both truly are the same (ignoring DSA and extreme MAGA, but the centrists of both are doing the same politics)
5 replies →