Yah, I mean realistically, I can only really see tariffs working if a nation is trying to enter an industry. That’s not the case here, but even so, these tariffs differ from the ones you mentioned because they would be against Chinese imports rather than a specific product, so I can’t imagine there’s as much risk of that sort of market manipulation from happening again… but then again, I’ve got no idea.
Realistically though, that’s how tariffs just work. With products costing more, theoretically that should drive demand down and eventually lead to fewer imports. Of course, if there’s still no competing product or the product is a basic necessity, then it’ll likely just result in people paying more.
This has literally been a thing for like… 60 years
Not too strange of a phenomenon if one considers what populism focuses on, the fabrication of divides in order to drive tribal responses from it’s followers.Trump’s rhetoric is only one variety of it that happens to be very effective at creating that divide, those that are swayed shouldn’t really be seen as people that support all of his nastiest views, but as people that have been taken in by that sense of tribalism.
The loss of community is increasingly problematic for individuals in this day in age. There exists too many groups vying for our attention, many of which being communities that span across the globe. And with all these options, local communities may not always seem preferential to these global ones due to comparative size or accessibility. However, they still generally offer much more, and can prevent people from feeling isolated in their lives. Populist campaigns seek to take these people that are divorced from a community, often socially isolated people, and give them a group that seemingly supports them. So long as it’s welcoming, it doesn’t really matter who’s at the head of it, nor it’s beliefs.
I feel the fact that older people that aren’t quite retirement age and younger men being the people that are most likely to vote for Trump kinda speaks to this theory. I feel like these groups are the most at risk when it comes to developing rewarding communities, so a group like MAGA could be appealing to them.
Yah I mean, if your narrow understanding of what war is is Trumpets trying to take over the white house than yah, I guess one would hate the idea of using violence for the greater good.
Still, that sort of sacrifice should be expected if you want to make changes in your country (the US)
Lol. Us vs them mentality has stretched back since the beginning of the homo genus… probably before that. Racism is just an extension of that but with larger communities. It’s more accurate to say “The Christian Nationalist Views of Inferior People have Roots Stemming from the Concept of Race”. Which is kinda obvious and doesn’t make much of a headline.
I can’t see how relying on the preference from North Korea could possibly help one’s election campaign.
I hate pacifists, man. They always try to publicly shame you by making it seem like violence is never justified… stupid deontological thinking
While I’m sure there would be a net positive, it’s also a completely absurd hypothetical. To get rid of hateful and rightwing propaganda networks, you’d have to completely change the political donor system in the US. You’d have to change the political landscape, you’d have to change the population, the rules on election and numerous other things.
You can’t just get rid of something that’s so beneficial to those in power. You have to completely remove that power in its entirety.
What are you talking about dude? Have you read anything regarding the shooter?
Need a source on that or I’ll just assume you’re lying through your teeth. As literally every major news outlet is reporting he made that donation
If radical change is what’s necessary. Then civil wars should be on the table. Besides, I’m sure the shooter’s goal wasn’t to depolarize the masses.
I think, looking at what has been published on him, it’s pretty clear as to why he shot Trump. For one, his personality lended itself to a hero complex. He was really nice, shy, intelligent, informed, and helpful. He clearly had respect for the Republican party, but given the info on his friend group, it was likely due to peer pressure. This is mostly made obvious by his political donation to the Progressive Turnout Project he made. A project that no conservative really should want to encourage.
In all likelihood, this guy saw the direction the States was headed in and realized there was no way to stop it from imploding without resorting to extreme political violence. I imagined he was upset with the fact that he wouldn’t be able to do much through official channels in his life, so he made the ultimate sacrifice to will the change himself. That’s why this guy’s a hero in my books, not because he took a shot at Trump, but because he realized there’s nothing any of us normies can do about the States’ political situation through normal means, so he went above and beyond. He probably spent some time weighing the options as to whom to shoot, and realized Trump was the better pick.
I’m curious as to which side I was taking before I submitted this discussion. Because I think it’s quite clear that I simply thought this was just another battle in the middle east sparked by land and racial tensions, and despite one side being much better equipped for extermination than the other, it wasn’t particularly notable. My language doesn’t feel pro Hamas, maybe It could be seen as pro Israeli because of that though. But I feel like that’s exactly what everyone in this thread has been pointing out, that there aren’t just two sides, and people aren’t picking between Israel and Hamas (or even Palestine for that matter).
Heck I’m not even arguing with anyone here except you, so what do you think I could possibly be trying to achieve? Let me remind you the community we’re currently discussing this in is [email protected] .
Ah, I see. Given those numbers it’s pretty clear that Isreal is pretty much going scorched earth when it comes to Gaza. Good to know, thank you. I had just assumed the damages to infrastructure weren’t as extensive as they were.
Edit: I also hadn’t known about the active blocking of humanitarian aid, so that alongside some of those numbers really speaks volumes.
Edit 2: also no need to apologize, I mean I’m the one asking all the questions and you’re graciously taking your time to answer them. The fact that you’re splitting them makes sense to me. You’ve overall been very helpful and I can imagine that anyone that stumbles across this entire thread will likely also leave equally as informed as I have after reading most of it.
Alright, some of the side taking makes sense to me now.
Yes, I get that, but at what point do you start considering future children over the current children? Accelerationists are not deontologists, they are consequentialists. A child lost now is valued against the amount of children saved at some calculated point later.
No, the best way to convince an accelerationist that accelerationism is not the right play is to show that there will be no decently positive outcome. Which I’m inclined to agree with, since I can only imagine the continual election of populist figures such as Trump will only increase the divide between voters of the two parties. This’ll create more violence, possibly destabilize the US, and could destabilize large parts of the western world due to policy, military vacuum, and emboldening of alt right groups. Now measure all those consequences against the possibility of an improvement in the political system and multiply that by likelihood. This, to me, seems like a very low gain, for the high likelihood of increased losses. So it should be preferable for accelerationists to go with Biden, since he’s likely to bring about accelerationists goals too, but with less risk, but much slower.
Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s incredibly hard to vote earnestly rather than strategically.
Ok, from what I can tell, most of what people care about regarding the current conflict doesn’t really involve around belligerents. So I think we can safely put that on the back burner. At least for the current wave of side taking. My one question after reading most of the comments is this, how many of Israel’s violent actions against civilians directly target civilians vs targeting Hamas and have civilians stuck in the crossfire? Because I’ve heard of Hamas using civilian areas as staging grounds as an attempt to ward off enemy fire. Is Israel going and killing civilians outside of these instances?
Slightly unrelated question, are many people taking sides in the general occupation of Palistinian land, or is this newest wave side taking mostly focused on the civilians in Gaza vs Israeli force.
Are you an idiot? I just can’t see the fricken future, so I don’t know the result.
I’m not even arguing either. I didn’t dispute any of your points, and you didn’t make it clear this is a similar scenario, so I used your information to inform my next statement. I’m stating what I believe tariffs to be for and whether or not the purpose is different from last time.
Also, I don’t think you’ve engaged me on any of my points with what you’re even saying here. Are you saying that because washing machines are tied to China, that all the products undergoing tariffs will suffer the same effect as washing machines had? Are you trying to say that, regardless of the tariff, cartels associated with the industry will increase prices for their associated prices? Stop beating around the bush and state your argument.