



China just put all Boeing deliveries on hold. No dollar number yet. I assume several billions.
Trump grumbles about China’s ‘lovely meeting’ with Vietnam, saying they’re discussing how to ‘screw the United States of America’
You pushed them there. US/Vietnam relationship was improving under Biden. There were even talk of joint military exercises. No mention of any of that now. Trump just handed China the key to the rest of the world. Arrgh! Freaking frustrating. All for trade concessions from countries with economies smaller than the typical neighborhood Wallmart stores.

Is he planning to bail them out just this one time? Or year after year after year? He does realize that US farmers are not likely to get the Chinese market back even after we settle all this BS. We were just starting to regain the market share back under Biden till he mucked it all over again.
Last edited by Rasulis; 2025-04-15 at 05:57 PM.

Trump thinking he could bully China is the dumbest fucking thing he ever did and he has done a lot of dumb shit.
Nah, last time in two years Trump spent roughly 60 billion dollars bailing out farmers as a result from his tariffs thing. Famers are subsidized but these are bailouts so they dont go into bankruptcy. They will still go into bankruptcy just like last time.
Thats the annoying part of this. We are having a repeat of the last time but even dumber. Who knows how long these payments will keep going.
Yes, but nowhere near as much as they said they would, and every estimate they gave was wrong.
Simply put, they did end some contracts and fired thousands and thousands of people. If your definition of "saved money" is "didn't spend money" they objectively did. Did they help the American people or the government? Probably not, no. Firing IRS workers in early April is about as stupid as an exploding car.
Or the long suite of results other than what you're looking for in Google that also come up, particularly marketing links. These algos are pushing what they think you'll engage with; it isn't an expression of "what the platform wants you to see" beyond the platform wanting to keep you watching content you engage with, because the longer you watch, the more money they make. It's still just basically search results, just including a history of past content you and other similar users have also engaged with as the search parameter.
You know Google results are personalized, right? Location data, IP, among other factors. Same is true for most search engines. Because if I search for "fast food near me", I probably don't want fast food chains based in Sri Lanka and the Phillipines and Lesotho coming up, unless I'm actually in those places.
You can't be serious. All these companies are keeping profiles of users, even without an account. They're tracking IPs and cookies and all kinds of stuff, unless you're taking significant measures to prevent such things. Unless you're actively purging your PC, those tracking cookies are profiling you for these, and many other, companies, not to mention whatever they may be doing internally with your IP and data entered."More like this" is not personalized. There is no profile of the user.
So charge the people who posted that Tiktok with reckless endangerment and whatever else you can throw at them.I don't think you hold the rigid standard for this that you portray. There are videos on TikTok that trick people into combining household chemicals in ways that can kill them. If TikTok set their site so that every user saw one of those videos when they log in, would Section 230 protect them?
I'm not arguing against consequences for criminally harmful content. I'm arguing against destroying hosting platforms as a viable system in the name of that cause, because it causes far more harm than it actually protects against.
You can doubt the strength of the evidence all you like, but you are actually very foolish if you think that means you can say "that means his membership in MS-13 is a lie." If you're going to argue absence of compelling evidence, you should know that it doesn't imply that there's evidence of lying.
It only resembles asylum in the sense that 1 country is not eligible for deportation. Which is to say, it's nothing like asylum. He was a deportable alien with no legal right to remain in the country. An illegal alien.They also stated he was in the country illegally, which he wasn't as of 2019, due to an immigration judge granting him a form of asylum
I recognize the truth as the truth, and it exists as the truth regardless i fit benefits Trump, Garcia, or the worst murdering gang member you ever saw. This is an elementary point in criminal defense: even the guilty are afforded protections, even if those protections help the guilty get off.This administration has lied about pretty much everything involving this and here you are defending them.
Good news: Neither your former post nor my response to your post had anything to do with the most recent Trump arguments. You said "If the Trump administration really believed he was an MS13 member do you know where that evidence could have been presented? In 2019, when he was having hearings for his withhold of removal," when, in fact, the opposite is true: they needed to present no such thing for the simple matter of denying him bond (from an even earlier trial, referenced in that trial as "the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.") The trial, mind you six years ago and another trial even earlier, wasn't for criminal offenses done for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with MS-13 (to borrow a phrase). Therefore, the government was not under the burden to present evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, if you really think what Trump said in the past week affects what the government should or shouldn't have done six years ago, then I will raise and eyebrow and expect something astonishing. If, instead, you're dropping your argument about the 2019 case (I would say this is wise) then state so.
Last edited by tehdang; 2025-04-15 at 05:58 PM.
I mean, it's worse than that. He tried the first time, too, and all he did was widen the trade gap.
America’s trade gap soared under Trump, final figures show
Not only is it a dumb idea, he knows it's a dumb idea, because he did it before and it didn't work.The combined U.S. goods and services trade deficit increased to $679 billion in 2020, compared to $481 billion in 2016, the year before Trump took office. The trade deficit in goods alone hit $916 billion, a record high and an increase of about 21 percent from 2016.
I saw a jokey take of this: I bought a bagel from the bagel shop for $3 and now I have a trade gap with the bagel shop of $3 so now I'm putting punative tariffs on the bagel shop. Now my bagel costs $7 and this is what winning tastes like.
@Rasulis posted that "screw the US" meeting, and quite frankly, that's a worthwhile goal right now. It was a completely foreseeable situation to everyone who isn't Trump.
- - - Updated - - -
It's called "reasonable doubt". That's how the legal system works. We know you don't like it, that's why you voted for a known fascist dictator and approve of this.