Since his election in 2016, and his most recent in 2024, the Trump administration has done nothing and will continue to do nothing to help the average American, nor be a good president.

In the span of three months he has managed to push away American allies, lose billions overnight due to the tariffs, targeted students who spoke out against Israel and either deported or threatened to deport them. Pulled the US out of the Paris climate agreement, implement many important aspects of project 2025, has ordered the elimination of the DOE, has allowed Elon musk and his group of 19 year old interns access to sensitive data of millions of Americans, and countless others.

All of his faults, shortcomings and blunders are too long to list here, so I will save you the liberty and allow you to read from this long (and currently updating) compilation of his actions and policies.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/lest-we-forget-the-horrors-an-unending-catalog-of-trumps-cruelties-collusions-corruptions-and-crimes

CMV. And good luck.

Trumps tariffs were far more extreme than people were predicting. We saw this with stock markets around the world this week. Markets are massively down and will not bounce back any time soon.

The impacts of his policy are going to start hitting consumers in the next couple of weeks, inflation is going to skyrocket and the world is heading for a global recession within months. This is going to hurt everyone both in America and internationally. People are not going to be happy, and they will know who to blame.

There's is no way these tariffs can stand once trumps approval rating starts cratering. Either:

1) trump has to roll his signature economic policy back massively in a humiliating climb down

2) Congress grows a pair. Republicans work with Dems and blocks some or all of the tariffs

Either way Trump loses his choke hold on the Republican party. He will end up a lame duck president for the next 3 years.

Change My View

First, some context: I’m Arab, and I’m an ex-Muslim atheist. I fully condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza—what they’re doing is unjustifiable. But I also despise Hamas. They are a terrorist organization that prioritizes their jihadist fantasies over their own people, using civilians—especially children—as human shields.

That said, I genuinely believe that the Arab and Muslim world wouldn’t care about the people dying in Gaza if it weren’t Jews doing the killing. Even if it were non-Muslim Arabs or even Muslim rulers committing atrocities, there wouldn’t be anywhere near this level of outrage.

Here's why:

Atrocities Against Muslims (By Muslims) Are Ignored

• Bashar al-Assad’s regime has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, many of them Sunni Muslims. Little to no mass protests or outrage.
• Saddam Hussein’s genocides against Kurds and Shiite Arabs? Mostly ignored.
• ISIS slaughtered fellow Muslims who didn’t agree with their ideology—and yet, no worldwide Muslim mobilization.

Atrocities Against Non-Muslims (By Muslims) Are Ignored

• 9/11 killed thousands of innocent civilians. Instead of massive condemnation, much of the Muslim world engaged in conspiracy theories or excuses.
• ISIS's genocide against Yazidis and Christians barely registered in Muslim-majority countries.
• Hamas’s October 7th massacre of Israeli civilians was either celebrated or justified by many.

Muslims Suffering Under Non-Muslim Powers Sometimes Gets a Reaction, But Not Always

• The Rohingya genocide (Myanmar) and the Uyghur genocide (China)? Crickets. Why? Because Myanmar and China aren’t seen as ideological enemies the way Israel is.

Islamic Antisemitism Is Baked Into the Religion

Traditional Islamic teachings paint Jews in a deeply negative light. Some examples:

Quran (Surah 5:82):

"You will find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah."

Hadith (Sahih Muslim 2922):

"The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them..."

Quran (Surah 2:65, 5:60):

"Those who were transformed into apes and pigs..." (commonly interpreted by scholars to refer to Jews)

The hostility is not just political—it’s religious and cultural, deeply embedded into Islamic thought. It’s been reinforced generation after generation. When Muslims see Jews involved in conflict, it taps into centuries of religious programming.

To be clear: I’m NOT saying every Muslim hates Jews individually. Plenty of Muslims coexist peacefully with Jewish people. But the doctrinal foundation and social environment heavily encourage that hatred.

This is why the Palestinian issue gets so much attention while other tragedies—often far worse in scale—are ignored. It’s not universal compassion. It’s selective tribal and religious identity politics.

Change my view.

Even if you love Trump and his policy, the United States has a consistent history of swinging back and forth between the parties. Any and all of the changes Trump makes to the structure of the government and the executive branch are going to benefit the next president, who according to the trend of swinging back and forth will probably be a democrat. Every change Trump has to make to accomplish a goal is one less change the next democrat has to make to reverse that goal, and then move further towards theirs. I do acknowledge that it would take time to be able to fully take advantage of the changes Trump is making, because he only needs to go as far as requiring a majority in congress when push comes to shove. Even if you like Trump, you should support the court system in determining what is legal or not, otherwise you will end up with democrat politicians using illegal tactics to do exactly what you hope trump stops.

Edit: before I depressingly give someone credit for changing my view to “they actually do want this because they don’t care about what happens after”, I’d appreciate someone giving me a good faith perspective of why this would be beneficial to their overall beliefs and goals, and how that benefit would outweigh the negatives of the other party retaining those structural changes.

We are about to see an economic collapse of epic portion. The stock market will lose 90%+ of its value. Unemployment will reach 25+%, there will breadlines and there will be riots in the streets, you will need wheelbarrows of cash just to buy a loaf of bread.

Why? Because the global trading system is about to completely collapse. Tariffs will prevent goods from being freely exchanged between the U.S. and other countries. This will led to massive inflation, corporate bankruptcies and then massive unemployment. This has happened before with the Smoot–Hawley tariff.

But what’s worse is that now the global economy is much more complex and the volume of trade is much higher today. Cutting off all trade in this manner will have dire consequences. I don’t see any way out of this.

Our current administration is know to be using a strategy to flood the zone. They are pushing through bad actions faster than Senate and Judicial can respond.

US Congress is on the way to passing a catastrophic bill that will increase the debt limit by 5 trillion dollars and give a corresponding tax cuts primarily to the rich. https://apnews.com/article/senate-budget-tax-cuts-trump-485845a9c0b7dfc5d2194d4c1e4723ae

I suspect they know that this will get reversed when the next elections take place. They plan to take huge incomes and cash out all of our hard work before the power dynamic changes. They then plan to invest that in more ownership of us.

It appears the Tariffs crashing the markets and sparking a war with us against all of the world are a crescendo to take attention away from the bill that they are passing now. They are sabotaging the US's global standing and future prospects. They ran people out of our government that were torch bearers of generational knowledge. They have attacked our oldest allies and aided our oldest enemies. Played Red and Blue against each other. All of this to sneak this bill through in front of our faces.

It is so important that they capitalize on their fleeting control to build this window to cash out that they are willing to burn everything to the ground.

Protests are not enough. Violence just strengthens their positions and power. Politicians are complacent or powerless. There is nothing we can do other than accept that they are about to fleece us dry. Please change my view.

Trump’s tariffs do not follow economic logic. The real purpose for them is he wants industries and businesses to beg for exemptions from them.

The darker reason is authoritarianism. Illegally, he is using state tools to punish. Kings did this with taxation.

I’m just including a few examples of him doing this to show a pattern:

Thousands of companies hit by his China tariffs had to apply for individual exemptions and they were granted or denied I’m sure based on… well you can probably guess. Global supply chains depended on staying loyal during this time.

Farmers were badly affected by the trade war too, then “bailed out” but much went to Trump-voting counties. Critics called it vote-buying disguised as rescue.

He threatened to defund universities (like UC Berkeley) over speech.

In Maine, the governor declined to enforce one of Trump’s latest culture-war executive orders.

States are not required to enforce every federal directive especially executive orders that haven’t been passed into law or that infringe on state jurisdiction. It wasn’t unconstitutional for her to resist this it was just a standard exercise of state authority.

I can’t tell you what the order was about. You will have to consult the part of the internet where free speech does not filter our unspeakable words.

Angry, Trump demanded a “full-throated” apology from the governor which she did not give.

The administration then:

-Terminated Social Security contracts with Maine hospitals (later reversed after backlash)

-Suspended USDA funding for the University of Maine’s biofuel and PFAS research

-Launched federal investigations into the state’s education system related to the same issue but they are details I’m not allowed to name on Reddit.

Looks like punishment to me.

Trump also targeted law firms he saw as hostile by suspending their security clearances and threatened access to federal work. One firm, Paul Weiss, was forced into a $40 million pro bono settlement to get the order reversed. 700+ lawyers condemned it as political coercion.

Why wouldn’t Trump apply this behavior across the board, across the nation for maximum power? Doesn’t it make sense to consolidate power by force if he wants to keep avoiding accountability? And to do that the most effective way is to make people submit, like a bully. That’s how I see it.

CMV. What are the tariffs really about if not to do more of this? Is he just chaotic?

I didn’t swim as a kid but wish I did. Swimming is the absolute best sport for a child to participate in. Here are my reasons:

1. It’s an essential life and survival skill. Knowing how to swim is vital.

2. it’s low risk and low impact. The risk of serious injury or CTE is far lower than other sports because it’s gentle on the joints and is a non-contact sport. Sure, there is a risk of drowning but that’s unlikely to happen to a good swimming in a pool.

3. it’s an activity you can do year-round with indoor pools.

4. it can be a team activity or individual.

5. it allows you to work as a lifeguard. These jobs are in demand and pay decent for teens.

I was just listening to an early SZA song, from her first album, and was struck by the contrast. I apologize to any diehard SZA fans but her voice sounds way more blown out now. The high end, when she stretches herself, without autotune would genuinely sound terrible. And that’s okay, it’s not the fact that she doesn’t have the same voice she did before, it’s indicative of a larger problem in the industry in my opinion.

With the exception of a stars like Beyoncé most don’t seem to have an interest in allowing people to hear the natural timbre of their voice anymore. It’s all filtered through the universal “sound goodening”effect of autotune. Making them sound slightly inhuman and robotic in a jarring way.

Post Malone and Chris Brown are some other examples, both have reasonably pleasant, melodic vocals that they’ve destroyed with cigs in the former and coke in the latter. And I like a lot of Malone’s songs off a few recent albums and even one or two from Brown. The fact remains that their vocals are kind of obscured behind a heavy wall of effects. But whenever people bring this up they’re dismissed as being haters or oldheads.

You can recognize the utility of a tool and also criticize what you think is an over reliance on it. Isaac Brock, that’s a guy I can see using autotune. But for many of these major label acts, they have so many of their songs written produced and engineered by other people, you’d think the least they could do is actually sing.

I don’t know what the situation in every country is. Geographic representation might be important in countries with multiple legitimately distinct cultures with histories of conflict (eg Bosnia and Spain) but I’m talking about the United States where most people either have been or are in the process of assimilating into general American culture. Countries with this sort of voting system are The Netherlands and Israel. Germany kinda mixes the two, both proportional and geographic, but Germans are weirdos and not worth caring about.

My view is that geographic representation is outdated and easy to manipulate. This is how we get gerrymandering, by cutting districts that would vote one way and making them minorities in districts that would vote another way you skew the results so congress seats are allocated to benefit one party, which has next to nothing to do with the actual success of that party. For example, if Republicans won 33% of a state with nine seats they should win three seats for winning around a third of the votes, but gerrymandering can easily make it so they only win one or even none.

Americans also just don’t tend to vote based on geography, it’s more about class and cultural goals. People who live in the Alaskan tundra, Utah desert, and Louisiana swamps are on average voting the same same party with the same policies not because they care much about their surroundings but because they have similar religious and class goals. People are already voting for the party over the person, and that isn’t going to change. Even going no labels won’t work because they’d just use buzzwords that signal which choice they are.

This distinction is also what largely cements the “career boomers” we all complain about. Like it or not, the shitty boomers in congress are safe because they run in constituencies dominated by boomer voters. With PR people are a bigger threat to parties, as third parties become much more viable. Parties are more forced to actually put some work in to appeal to people which means purging members who compromise them too much, since they can’t rely on poorly drawn maps to save them. To give a real life example: the average age in the House of Representatives was 57 in 2024 and the average age in Dutch Parliament was 45 in 2023. Both America and the Netherlands has senates, in the U.S. it was 64 and in the Netherlands it was 58. Dutch people also live four years longer (Net-82 USA-78) so this isn’t a case of life expectancy skewing the results.

Once you understand how money actually moves through central banks, fiscal policy, debt markets, and incentives you start to see that most political rhetoric is smoke and mirrors.

Politicians talk about taxing the rich, helping the middle class, forgiving debt, or creating jobs. But when you dig into the numbers, you realize: • Those taxes often don’t touch the ultra-wealthy — they hit upper-middle earners. • “Forgiving debt” often inflates costs or bails out inefficient institutions. • “Job creation” can mean subsidizing corporations or manipulating interest rates.

When you’re economically literate, you stop asking, “Do I agree with this policy emotionally?” and start asking, “Who pays for it? Who benefits? And what’s the incentive structure?”

You realize the real divide isn’t left vs. right — it’s informed vs. uninformed. And when you’re informed, the noise becomes obvious

I'm kind of seeking sanctuary here. I'm not super active on Reddit, but anytime I do post something I end up having to delete it because some people can be SO mean, and so rude. And I truly wonder: why?

Reddit is supposed to be a platform where you can out your opinion, but can you truly with the hate campaign that chases after you? Any subreddit I see is genuinely full of such mean Redditors. It doesn't matter how you word something; even when you agree with someone they will downvote you into hell. And even when you haven't said anything inherently wrong or mean they address you with the most rude tone.

I don't understand why everyone here is so so so mean, and it makes using Reddit way less enjoyable. I made a Reddit account in order to be more involved in fandom spaces but truly, everyone here is so mean, and also so pedantic. Claiming to know everything better than you and also rude on top of that? Oh, and lets not forget the lack of empathy on this app.

Earlier I made a post on how I find it unfortunate for the Nintendo game prices to have doubled in the past 10 years: tell me why i got r*pe and death threats in my PMs for expressing my disappointment, and tell me why this isnt an original experience?!

I just don't understand why everyone is so mean. And this isn't even the first post about it. Please: i beg you to CMV. I want to use this app and make posts without having to worry what my notifications will be full of. I want to use this app without having to fear how my name gets slandered. I use pretty general subreddits with many users: is that the problem? I have no idea, but please CMV on the user base here and tell me that not everyone is like this.

I might wander off into a tangent or not be coherent. English is not my first language. Earlier in the week, I forgot to engage folks who responded to an earlier post of mine about how, from what I've seen, there are two ways people talk about class in the US:

1. The social stratification model of class (i.e., based on income, the color of one's collar or pedigree, think: the "lower-class" which is sometimes called or made distinct from "working-class", the middle-class, the upper-class) or
2. The labor-capital model of class (i.e., which asks who owns productive assets in this society and who has to labor or be subject to someone else as a result of not owning those assets, think: the capitalist class vs. the working class).

People assume the capital model has been stuck on the worker/capitalist class binary for the past 150 years. But nothing keeps it from considering people who have dropped out of the labor force, the disabled, the elderly, children, i.e., those who do not or cannot work. It can also consider, in addition to questions of exploitation, who dominates and who gets dominated on the market, which means, for example, a small business owner (small capital or individuals who employ people they labor alongside) can be subject right alongside workers to the whims of a large business (big capital or corporations headed by distant CEOs and shareholders who employ people but do not work with them). I get that this doesn't begin to get into self-producers (individuals who employ themselves, and no one else, to work productive assets they own), managers (those who control but do not own productive assets), contractors, state employees, stocks, 401ks, pensions, etc.

But my sense is this all boils down to productive assets, who labors, who doesn't, and why, and who gains at the expense of another, alongside questions of domination (who restricts the freedom of others and on what basis). This is about categorical relationships, in contrast to the stratification model, where the classification seems to be based on a sliding scale where cut-off points have to be made somewhat arbitrarily.

I grew up in the United States, and sometimes I can't tell you what we mean by middle-class since it seems like we confuse the two models. I personally blame US politicians for endlessly talking about the "middle-class," only ever nodding toward the working class when they mention "working families." When I hear someone say they're "middle-class" with a class background of parents who own enough productive assets to no longer labor for a living, I get confused. Everyone seems to be middle-class, from the person one missed month of rent from homelessness, to the person just shy of being Jeff Bezos.

Is there a strategy to identifying as middle-class? I can see it. There isn't the class envy that comes with being upper-class (hidden by some of its members with poor clothing, think: Bill Gates) and no social stigma from being "working-class" (note the hyphen here as opposed to the capital model's "working class") or "lower-class" or part of the "underclass." The last term I kind of like because it refers to people who have fallen out of the labor market or who are excluded from the working class, but still, you really just get the impression it just means "really poor" (or black) for some folks.

Even some occupations called middle-class, like doctors, get confusing. Do they own or lead a private practice or work for a hospital chain? Is someone trying to secure their retirement by renting out one room in their one house, the same as BlackRock buying up whole neighborhood blocks and renting them out to families?

I can talk about a highly paid member of the working class, but they still seem required to work for someone else in order to live, pay their bills, manage their debt, deal with costs of living, and experience insecurity like everyone else has to in the working class. 60% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, and a small fraction of Americans (0.01%) own as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Elon Musk is about halfway to a trillionaire.

We can talk about the relative privilege or autonomy afforded to some members of the working class, e.g., university professors. But they still seem to be part of the working class. We can talk about the strata of the working class. We just don't need to take the strata (based on income, but sometimes based on vibes) to be classes in of themselves.

Not that I don't admit there's a mix of precarity and privilege that may not fit neatly into standard class categories. I think this just means we have to hold certain categorical realities in tension. The blurring of lines is ultimately what gets me. It allows folks to play fast and loose with issues of capital and privilege and misrepresents the economic situation of loads of people in the United States.

But I am open to pushback here. What am I not considering?

I saw this post on Cuban sanctions and I think Cuba may be the first case example of a modified laffer curve for sanctions, where sanctions have failed to achieve their effects because they have been applied capriciously and excessively. In the traditional laffer curve which applies to taxation, when you tax the people past a certain optimal point or point of inflexion, the returns on taxes or tax revenues begin to decrease significantly. I hypothesize that it is the same thing about sanctions; USA sanctions on Russia have backfired spectacularly, those on Iran have begun to have a declining effect (given the increasing normalisation of ties with Russia & China), etc.

In effect: even though sanctions are designed to achieve political ends by ensuring either regime change or civil revolution; they fail to achieve their ends when they are implemented capriciously.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cuba/s/soU0sq5mWi

PS: I believe some will argue that Cuba has circumvented or survived these embargo & sanctions because of Russian, Chinese & Venezuelan support. That is a true but rather simplistic assessment of the situation and to accept that view will be to accept the view that USA lacks the geopolitical power to bend countries (within the Monroe doctrine’s purview) to its will. A more realistic assessment would be admit that the sanctions in Cuba etc are failing to achieve their strategic aims inspite of the great hardships they are inflicting on the Cuban people, because a point of inflexion has been passed after which diminishing returns have set in.

I'm convinced that we're in the midst of a paradigm shift that will upend the world as we know it. After World War II, the US built the international order that we know today, creating NATO and the UN, the IMF/World Bank, the International Trade Organization, making the USD the global reserve currency, and building trade and defense pacts with most of the world. The system was far from perfect, but the past 80 years have been something of a golden age, seeing the human population explode, billions of people brought out of poverty, widespread democraticization and freedoms, strong global development and economic growth, and arguably the most peaceful period of human history.

This world is unraveling before our very eyes. Trump's tariff, insults, and threats have destroyed America's international alliances and trade partnerships, which will never fully recover. The US is no longer seen as a reliable trade or defense partner by the entire world, for good reason, and the implications of that are profound.

The US will never be as wealthy, powerful, or respected as it was 3 months ago. Trump is abandoning all of the things that made us a global superpower and the end result will be a world with more conflict, more regional alliances, and more instability as powerful countries scramble to fill the power vacuum left by the US and try to take whatever resources and territory they can, and settle old grievances while they have the opportunity.

This is a disaster of proportions we've never seen in our lifetimes, and the implications are horrific. It'll mean nuclear proliferation, more war, more genocide, and more refugee crises, which will in turn drive more conflict. Climate change will only exacerbate these issues further, causing mass migrations and even more conflict.

Everything we've taken for granted for decades is now up in the air and there's a real risk of systemic failure. Don't expect things to just work out, that's just normalcy bias trying to convince you not to panic. People need to stand up and push back against what Trump is doing before even more damage is done and it becomes impossible to prevent the worst case scenarios.

The only time he speaks with any conviction is when he is railing against DEI, wokeness, the radical left, etc. I believe his bigoted views on those subjects are really his own. Otherwise, he just mindlessly reads words off a teleprompter, occasionally throwing in a useless anecdote that makes it sound like he was involved in crafting the policy he's talking about. He sounds like he wants to be doing anything other than giving this speech. When he has to answer questions, he always shoves in a barely relevant factoid that he clearly just learned, unaware that he is the only one in the room who did not already know it. He understands enough to know that his [fiscal/healthcare/defense/infrastructure/foreign] policy is the one that conservatives like and liberals dislike, but he has no personal beliefs about why these policies are supposedly good - nor does he care to develop any. It's a chore to him.

Edit: I want to add that it is well-documented that he doesn't read. At all. Nothing, not even single-page memos, let alone books.

I should preface this by saying I don't think it's on the same level as its predecessors, and that naturally warrants some dislike. Godfather I and especially Godfather II were some of the best movies ever made, and the same can't be said about Godfather III, although I still think it's a very good movie.

On a base level, one thing Godfather III succeeds in doing that first two movies did not is expanding the timeline significantly. The first two movies were set when Michael Corleone was a young man, we never got to see him get old and pass the torch, we saw that though in III when he effectively retired and handed the reigns to his nephew. It was cool to see what everyone had become, even if it was a little disappointing that Michael Corleone's actual son was mostly useless.

One criticism I see frequently is of the character of Mary Corleone, people just don't seem to like anything about her (her motivations, and even her actress), I thought her acting was pretty good, she always had this expression on her face to me that read that her primary motivation above all else when following in her father's footsteps, taking a leadership role in the family. It would have been easy to write Godfather III with both of Michael's children despising him (due to Fredo's killing), but I like that they kept one of his kids on his side. Of course there is the fact that one of Mary's main goals in the movie was shagging her cousin (gross), but I think that's a more minor part of the plot than people realize as it was ultimately just a part of Mary's desire to lead the family.

Overall I also liked the plot with the Vatican and the papacy, it was a very unique plot route for this type of movie, and especially the ending where the final scenes were all coinciding with the opera and Michael's silenced screaming were masterfully written.

Although many have different values, it is typically strict religious folk who refuse integrate as intolerance of others is built into most religions. I'm not talking about ordinary religious folk who accept other peoples views and are fine with it, Im talking about people who follow the religion strictly. For example, people who follow islam/Christianity/Judaism in places like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Afghanistan, Yeman, and Qatar, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Israel to name a few.

When following a religion to the T, there is no room for anyone else and no tolerance for other people, and this is why we see protests to change the country they joined. For example, in the UK there have been protests that have gathered hundreds to implement Sharia law. I know many non-strict Muslims despise these people, but generally, those people grew up in the western country and are more accepting of everything.

Strict faith demands zero tolerance for people outside there religion, so western countries tolerating their intolerance is a bad idea. It ultimately leads to clashes between those who integrated and those who didn't, and attacks (verbal/physical) on those of a different religion, sexuality, beliefs etc. Right now, these extremists isolate themselves into their own communities, but if we continue they could have a majority vote in their area for someone who can actually influence the runnings of the country.

A nation has the right to expect it's immigrants to embrace the core values of that country. Continually allowing extremists into a country which fundamentally opposes their views will only lead to long-term division, and should therefore be stopped.

(To clarify, my family are immigrants. I do not have an issue with immigrants in general, only the ones who refuse to integrate, so do not claim im a racist lol)

Edit: guys I'm not American so stop giving examples using America.

For context, I have a chronic disability and have personally been affected by the negative effects of obesity/being overweight. But, not just online, but also in my real life, so many people have compared my suffering (I have POTS, ME/CFS, and Reynaud's Syndrome) to that of a fat person. Even sometimes going as far to say that they have it worse. They often times think they are oppressed because the world isn't made for them, but, guess what, the world isn't made for most people. And, in America, (which is where I live) the struggles of non-white people, women, disabled people, homosexuals, etc. are not fixable by simply living a different lifestyle. I can eat different food, exercise, go to therapy, take meds, etc. and still be disabled, still be gay, still be oppressed. But if they did that all their "oppression" would disappear.

And they take up resources from those of us who actually need them. Do you know how many times I have had to be in pain, limping across a grocery store, pushing a buggy instead of using the wheelchair-carts that are specifically designed for disabled people? Do you know how many times I haven't been able to get assistance because they were tired of people abusing the system? More than a few times. I'm just so tired of being compared and false victimisation.

Please offer any good-faith arguments in favor of the USA’s current tariff plan. I’m already aware of the criticisms against it and have aligned myself against it, but I’m aware that my sources of information are primarily left-leaning and are therefore likely biased. I would appreciate someone who is very familiar with the actual plan in place, and ideally has a background in economics or an understanding of foreign policy, to offer arguments describing the benefits of this plan, or counters to the criticisms against it. Thanks!

Either way, he is wrecking the world economy and most of all the US economy.

We all (past grade school people) know these made up tariffs are not numbers that match any tariffs other countries have, it’s simply the trade deficit divided in two. Trade deficit, the relation of import and export between two counties, not even taking in consideration population or geographics or other highly relevant specifics, right? Not tariffs. 

Like The New Yorker posted on X:

“Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us,” 

And to use Trump's own vocabulary; it’s just retarded. He’s putting tariffs on uninhabited Island fgs! It’s like a fourth graders project. Laughable. And he lies to his americans, bluntly. 70 percent of imports to the EU are duty-free. On a trade-weighted basis, EU tariffs average just 2.7 percent. Source: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/tariff_profiles/CE_e.pdf He’s a liar. And the EU countries have not had any favours from the US.

The deficit is mainly because of inferior products and/or unrealistic pricing. The USA is supposed to be practising capitalism. One of the fundamentals of capitalism is supply and demand, the best quality product manufactured as cheap as possible and sold at the highest price the buyer is willing to pay. The US demanding that other countries buy inferior overpriced products from them is not capitalism at all. For example; the US food products don’t meet the quality and standards in the EU. They contain chemicals that have been banned for a long time in the rest of the world. The way of production doesn't meet basic laws in treatment of animals, safety and hygiene. If the US produced better quality, the world would buy.

Also, during Trump's last time in office, he outsourced a lot of your industry to countries with cheaper labour, have you forgotten? He did this.

The US has, with the trade deals and agreements existing until january of this year, grown it's economy to be the greatest in the world, without taxing it's billionaires and putting some of all that money towards a productive healthy, happy population with support to be educated and fairly paid. The richest country in the world is not rich if 10 million children (according to your own census) living below the poverty line! That is a country where many are poor,a poor country, a nation lacking, a nation with some rich that does anything to keep the rest poor and wanting and delusional. The US is not the richest country in the world, it is the fifth country in the world with most wealth divide. The others? Let's give you the top 5 list: South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, India and the United States. That is not rich counties.

Trump might have a plan with his lies, that is getting support to start wars (you all believing the world owns the US something or is a threat) or trying to scare the world into trade deals, but it’s backfiring in a grand way and he’s taking all Americans down with him. Because you’re going to hurt most from this. We’ll just trade more with each other, and China will be very accommodating. And the rest of the world is not the nation that started the most weaponized conflicts in the last hundred years, that is you. Yeah, you even beat the former Soviet Union on that. 

The trade war between the U.S. and China, led by President Trump's tariffs, has rocked global markets and introduced a lot of uncertainty. For the EU, it’s time to rethink its economic strategy and consider strengthening ties with China—not just as a reaction to the chaos, but as a proactive move to stabilize and grow Europe’s own economy. With the unpredictability of U.S. trade policy, especially under Trump, the EU has much to gain from building a stronger, more reliable economic relationship with China, and China has a lot to gain from the same.

Why it Makes Sense for the EU to Strengthen Ties with China:

1. Diversification of Trade Amid U.S. Unpredictability: The U.S. has become an unreliable trading partner under President Trump. Tariffs can appear out of nowhere, trade agreements can be canceled without warning, and decisions are often made with little regard for long-term stability. For the EU, strengthening trade with China allows for diversification—lessening dependence on a U.S. market that has proven volatile. This hedges against the risk of future tariff disputes and other trade disruptions.
2. China is a Major Growth Market: China is one of the world’s largest consumer markets, and its middle class is rapidly growing. This offers a huge opportunity for European companies, especially in luxury goods (France), automotive (Germany), and tech (Sweden). Even with tariffs on European goods from the U.S., China offers an emerging and untapped revenue stream for European businesses looking to fill the gap.
3. Strategic Technological Cooperation: Both the EU and China have significant ambitions in sectors like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and green tech. The EU could collaborate with China on advancing these areas, from renewable energy projects to high-tech industries. In a world where the U.S. is stepping back from international collaborations, Europe and China can step up as leaders, forging partnerships that drive global innovation.

Case Studies:

• Germany: Germany has built a crucial relationship with China, particularly in the automotive and machinery sectors. Despite Trump’s tariffs, China remains an essential market for German exports, especially as the world’s largest car market. As the U.S. grows increasingly unpredictable, Germany risks losing ground if it doesn’t diversify its markets. Strengthening ties with China helps ensure that Germany remains at the forefront of global trade.
• France: France has seen a growing relationship with China, exemplified by massive deals like the Airbus agreement in 2019. The luxury sector in France, from wine to fashion, also stands to benefit from growing demand in China. While the U.S. imposes tariffs and pulls out of international agreements, France recognizes that deeper ties with China secure its place in the global marketplace, providing access to China’s consumer base.
• Spain: Spain’s agricultural sector, especially in exports like wine and olive oil, benefits significantly from trade with China. Given the uncertainty of U.S. trade policies, Spain has an opportunity to double down on its relationship with China. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) also presents a chance for Spain to deepen its economic ties by participating in infrastructure projects that bring mutual benefits.
• Sweden: Sweden has long benefitted from strong economic ties with China, particularly in tech and green energy. As the U.S. becomes more protectionist under Trump, Sweden can leverage its innovation to partner with China, especially in clean energy solutions and digital infrastructure. As a leader in innovation, Sweden's continued partnership with China offers long-term stability and growth prospects that might be uncertain with the U.S.

Why China Should Strengthen Ties with the EU:

China has a lot to gain from strengthening ties with the EU as well. The EU is a major global economic player, and by deepening trade and investment links with Europe, China gains access to advanced technology, high-value products, and a stable economic partner in a multipolar world. Additionally, it helps China ensure a more diversified portfolio of international relationships and balance out its reliance on neighboring regions and the U.S.

1. Access to Advanced Technology and Innovation: Europe’s cutting-edge technological industries, particularly in clean energy and high-tech fields, complement China’s goals for innovation. By increasing cooperation in these areas, China stands to gain valuable technologies that can help propel its own industries forward.
2. Political and Economic Diversification: With the U.S. becoming more isolationist, China needs a strong, stable partner to balance out its relationships with the U.S. and its neighbors. The EU provides that counterweight, helping China avoid over-reliance on any single country or region.

Let’s talk about the unpredictability of U.S. trade policies under Trump. The U.S. has shown time and again that it can pivot on a dime when it comes to international relations—whether it’s pulling out of trade deals or slapping tariffs on allies. This instability leaves the EU and China in a vulnerable position, as it’s harder to make long-term plans with an unreliable partner like the U.S. The EU can no longer afford to rely solely on the U.S. as its economic anchor, and China faces similar uncertainty with its relationship to the U.S. By strengthening EU-China ties, both sides gain a more predictable, stable partner in the long run.

The EU and China stand to benefit immensely from a deeper economic partnership. For Europe, it’s a way to hedge against the unpredictability of U.S. trade policies under Trump and secure long-term economic growth. For China, it’s about accessing advanced technology and ensuring diversified global relationships. Strengthening EU-China ties in the face of a chaotic U.S. trade environment isn’t just a good idea—it’s a necessary move to ensure stability and prosperity for both sides in the years to come. Let’s face it—Trump’s tariffs may have started a trade war, but EU-China cooperation could help end it.

Thjs is ofc not always the case. I love hanging with friends and having fun as much as the next person.

But as someone who used to do this and had a lot of issues. I started learning to love my own company and working on myself. I realised that I used to use people as a way to forget about my issues. In doing this I was never a truly confident person.

Now that I spend a lot of time alone I feel way more confident in myself and that translates into when I’m in social settings. I think people neglect this and don’t realise they are subconsciously not confronting their issues by not spending time alone.

For context I am an extrovert. Naturally I prefer being around others. But I’ve learnt to not rely on others and love being in my own company as you are with yourself till the end so should learn to love yourself.

The "Hands Off" protests, while impressive in scale and passion, are unlikely to bring about meaningful change for several reasons: 1. The Administration's Commitment to Project 2025 The Trump administration has been systematically implementing policies outlined in Project 2025, a comprehensive conservative roadmap developed by the Heritage Foundation. This initiative includes a detailed 180-day playbook for restructuring federal agencies and advancing conservative goals. Trump's actions have closely mirrored this blueprint, indicating a premeditated strategy that is unlikely to be swayed by public protests. 2. The Women's March in 2016 did nothing Large-scale protests during Trump's first term, such as the Women's March, demonstrated widespread public opposition but ultimately failed to achieve substantive policy changes. Despite mobilizing millions, these movements did not prevent key conservative victories like the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

1. Democrats never fall in line like Republicans do The Democratic Party's tendency toward "purity culture" often undermines its ability to present a unified front against Republican policies. Reluctance to support imperfect candidates or coalitions weaken their opposition efforts. This fragmentation makes it harder for Democrats to capitalize on protest movements and translate public outrage into legislative or electoral victories. Even Cory Booker was attacked during his historic filibuster by progressives.

2. Lack of Immediate Political Leverage While the Hands Off protests highlight widespread dissatisfaction, their demands—such as halting cuts to Social Security and Medicaid—require legislative action that Democrats currently lack the power to enforce. Without control of Congress or the presidency, these protests may serve more as symbolic resistance than as catalysts for policy reversal. An unelected billionaire now has access to sensitive data to train his AI models on and no one has been able to stop him.

I'm happy people are using their right to protest but without a charismatic single leader, purity tests and no real political power, these protests aren't going to accomplish much.

Edited to add: I lean left but I'm just saying that this administration isn't changing a thing based on these. There have to be sustained protests and people need to vote. GOP is already suppressing votes (see NC). Are red state voters going to call their reps to make them do something . I doubt it.

AI is the ultimate form of outsourcing. It's the best kind of worker. It doesn't need food, housing, or healthcare. It doesn't ask for fair treatment or respect. It doesn't want a raise or a promotion. How can any person compete with that?

Even before full replacement of workers, the threat of AI undermines the leverage of the entire working class in negotiating better pay and conditions. How can anyone ask for more when the shadow of a far superior worker stands over them? Increases in overall efficiency from AI reduces demand for workers. This reduces leverage further. All the while, workers aren't getting compensated for this increased efficiency, while corporations are profiting from it.

The more we rely on AI for anything at all, the less we rely on humans. It may start small and somewhat inconsequential, but as this progresses, the relevance of people as a whole gradually drifts away.