Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Mekh]

I'll quote you:




I'm sorry that you feel this way, and I think I covered my perspective in previous posts as to why this is wrong, dangerous, and anti-historical (particularly ACLU of 60s and 70s).

I see the deft switch to "physically assaulted" here, like depriving people you call Nazis of their civil rights implies that it's now legal to physically assault.

I don't really know if you're fully come to terms with first calling members of this very forum "Nazis" and then saying "Nazis don't deserve civil rights." Do you have to be the target and personally affected before you realize the issue?

I will clothe myself with the ACLU of the 60s and 70s that doubled down on defending the civil rights of Nazis, and proved America will defend the rights of citizens against whatever government or groups seeks to take it away.

You don't want to declare that certain citizens of the country forfeit their civil rights based on ideology. You're handing your enemies the biggest bazooka imaginable. Apparently without realizing the exact same thing happened to different groups all over history.

You know who are the new Nazis, who are worse than the Nazis, and similarly deserve censorship, fines, and jailtime? Just pick your favorite opposition politician and party, and hand them that power. You're doing it blindly, apparently.

So why exactly do you think holocaust denial should be legal?

[Breccia]

This should be a very big and exciting day for the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Press Conference at The Oval Office, 10A.M. Thank you!

Trump is pushing whatever deal this is hard with multiple tweets and yelling at the camera. And 10AM is pretty specific. Translation: this is all hype, intended to float the market. The UK has a 10% tariff, pretty light by Trumpian standards. This will probably turn out to be "they said they'd buy some cars" and that's it.

Incidentally, on April 6 Trump claimed the tariffs had forced 50 countries to make trade deals with the USA.

Five days later, this becames 70. At no time did he say which countries, and chroincally desperate FOX News came up with a dozen countries only that said they would try. *ding*

Today marks the only deal Trump has actually announced. He lied at least 49 times. Plus, again, calling it now, this deal is minimal at best, probably won't remove the 10% tariffs, and is done at 10AM just to create a stock market jump.

Trump is announcing he has nothing. And he knows he's failing. He changed his tune two days ago when the posts above were thrown back in his fat senile orange retarded face:

Ever since Trump announced he was slapping hefty tariffs on countries across the globe, he has been predicting they would force trading partners to sign major deals beneficial to the United States.

But on Tuesday, with the Canadian prime minister sitting beside him in the Oval Office and no new trade deal between the two countries achieved, Mr. Trump had a different message for the public: “We don’t have to sign deals.”

“Everyone says ‘When, when, when are you going to sign deals?’” Mr. Trump said, at one point motioning toward Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary. “We don’t have to sign deals. We could sign 25 deals right now, Howard, if we wanted to. We don’t have to sign deals. They have to sign deals with us. They want our market. We don’t want a piece of their market. We don’t care about their market.”

Within days of the April 2 announcement of the widespread tariffs, White House officials said around 70 countries were already calling to strike deals. Mr. Trump’s trade adviser predicted there would be 90 deals in 90 days.

One.

He has one.

But more than a month later, no such deals have materialized. [EDITOR: This was written two days ago. The NYTimes was accurate.] And the clock is ticking.

Mr. Trump predicted the first deals could be signed this week. But administration officials also made that prediction the week before that, and the week before that.

On Tuesday, Trump told the members of the press gathered around him that he would have an important announcement soon, but cautioned that it might not be a trade deal.

That's likely the UK deal. Or, he just said something and then desperately floundered to fit that statement.

“You keep writing about deals, deals, ‘when are we going to sign?’” Mr. Trump said, sounding annoyed at reporters’ questions.

At another point he vented, “I wish they’d stop asking how many deals are you signing this week.”

Yes, Trump got angry when reporters asked for that thing Trump said was happening.

Then Mr. Trump seemed to change the very definition of a deal from a two-sided agreement into a one-sided demand.

In the next two weeks, the president said, he would sit down with his top aides and make unilateral “deals” that the administration would announce without the participation of other countries.

To put this in perspective: this would be like me promising to moderate this forum, and then just ignore @Endus and claim I'd done it.

I will admit, "I was caught in a lie so I'll change the definition of the term itself" isn't typical Trumpian strategy. That's more of a "Bill Clinton caught with intern" thing. Trump kind of just makes shit up most times, whether it's founded on reality or not.

“One day we’ll come and we’ll give you 100 deals,” Trump said.

Trump must be desperate for anything at all that is in the same zip code as a win, if (a) he's changing the terms instead of just pretending he never said it, and (b) @tehdang has spent most of his last posts saying "Sweden!" instead of more standard Trump-based hypocrisy.

But, hey, he'll create a small blip in the stagnation that's been the stock market, patiently waiting for Trump do to something else fatally antieconomic so they can lose trillions more dollars.

[tehdang]

For being such an ardent defender of people's equal rights, how come is it that you're not seen defending the equal rights of, say, trans people that your führer attacks constantly? Gays? Women?

None of that. Why is it you're defending civil rights when it comes to nazis and other such hatemongers?

You can read the discussion rules for the forums and learn those discussions are banned. I've never seen a mod elaborate that the "equal rights of, say, trans people" is a free topic of discussion.

I'll note, for the record, that you haven't given your opinion on whether you can defend rights for all without being called a "whiny Nazi" or "protect childpornographers and nazis." Maybe you should begin by offering your opinion on that basic problem.

My second note, for the record, is that I am criticizing people that are taking Trump's side on the issue, so you should change your post to "their führer." If you're going to use that language at all, that is. You should probably drop it in the interests of civil discussion and constructive dialogue, because I don't think my fellow forum posters like being identified with a führer of any kind!

[Mazza]

Apparently the US embassy has sent out a questionaire to Flemish (that's in Belgium) universities regarding their DEI practices.

“The survey includes questions about international ties, risk management, diversity programmes and the universities’ policy on freedom of expression,” Flemish MP Brecht Warnez, of Christian democrats CD&V, told Flemish Parliament’s Education Committee.

Points will be awarded based on the answers, which the US government will monitor in order to implement “programme provisions”.

Demir, the Flemish minister for education is not happy with it

“The developments in the US are worrying,” she said. “Outside interference is unacceptable. Our universities are a beacon of free thinking. Even in difficult times, we must defend that message in a democracy.”

The linked article is a translated one and is sadly incomplete. Translated (by me, I tried) from the original article:

What's in the questionaire?

VRT NWS has looked at the questionaire. Universities are explicitly asked if their projects contain elements of diversity, equal opportunity and inclusion (DEI). They are also asked if they work on climate justice.

On top of that they are asked if they have ties to countries like China, Russia, Iran or Cuba. In the questionaire they have to indicate that they reject communism or anti-American ideology

Furthermore, insititutions have to confirm they protect women against "gender ideology." In line with the Trump governements policies there's also questions about supporting "patriotic values", respecting national sovereignty en limiting migration.

Finally, standing out are questions about institutions contributing to the flow of synthetic drugs like fentanyl into the US and if they take enough anti-terrorism measures.

I mean... if you respects national sovereignty, you don't send a questionaire like that to institutions OUTSIDE your own country to begin with. But most of the contents of that questionaire seems to be a conspiracy addled bigots fever dream.

[Endus]

You can read the discussion rules for the forums and learn those discussions are banned. I've never seen a mod elaborate that the "equal rights of, say, trans people" is a free topic of discussion.

I'll note, for the record, that you haven't given your opinion on whether you can defend rights for all without being called a "whiny Nazi" or "protect childpornographers and nazis." Maybe you should begin by offering your opinion on that basic problem.

My second note, for the record, is that I am criticizing people that are taking Trump's side on the issue, so you should change your post to "their führer." If you're going to use that language at all, that is. You should probably drop it in the interests of civil discussion and constructive dialogue, because I don't think my fellow forum posters like being identified with a führer of any kind!

Yet again, the discussion was not about anyone's civil rights. No one's civil rights are infringed by anti-Nazi laws in Germany.

Arguing otherwise is to utterly fail to understand (or intentionally lie about) what civil rights even are. If your actions aren't protected under the law, you don't have a "civil right" to engage in that action. By definition.

And changing that legality changes what the people's civil rights are.

That's how civil rights work. Everywhere.

If you're going to keep lying to people's faces like this, that's why we can't have "civil discussion and constructive dialogue" with you involved. You're the problem.

[Breccia]

Rarely do I see such unhinged logic that I find so professionally offensive.

This client runs a distributorship of automobile parts, and Trump’s tariffs have put him in quite a pickle. He’s looking at price increases of anywhere between 5 and 15 percent on the products he’s buying. If he passes this price increase directly to his customers, he could lose business. But he’s smart — he does the math, and realizes he doesn’t have to.

Suppose there’s a 10 percent increase on a certain product he buys. Previously, he would buy this product for $70 and sell it for $100, making $30 and a 30 percent profit margin. To weather tariffs, one might think he needs to raise prices to preserve that 30 percent margin. But that’s not true — he will be doing just as well if he keeps making $30 per sale. That means he only needs to raise prices by about 7.5 percent, instead of the 10 percent he would need to sustain the same percentage margin.

Translation: prices will still go up by the same dollar figure, and it's great because it's a lower percentage! The percent isn't as bad, it's only a smaller one!

This pathetic attempt to defend Trump, "prices won't go up as much as you think", is the most desperate convoluted failure I've seen defending Trump since @tehdang yelling "Sweden!" into the camera for ten posts in a row.

- - - Updated - - -

So Trump got to his own meeting an hour late, the call lasted about four minutes, and no details were disclosed. The UK guy on the other end of the phone said it would be truly amazing, and perhaps some day we'll see what it was.

Or, Trump will change his mind.

Or, it was nothing.

From TheHill's live tracker:

Trump told reporters Thursday that the final details of the new trade framework with the U.K. will be cemented and released within weeks.

While Trump touted agreements regarding U.S. agricultural and manufacturing exports, along with other measures to “open” up the British economy, the exact terms have not yet been released.

- - - Updated - - -

Laura Loomer goes after Trump pick for Surgeon General.

"You already posted that. Trump with drew that nomination and replaced her."

Loomer is attacking the new one already.

This is honestly insane. I do not believe for one second that Donald Trump made this decision. I refuse to believe it.

"What's wrong this time?"

She's a "Marxist Tree Hugger".

"...that's it?"

Yeah, that's it.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Yet again, the discussion was not about anyone's civil rights. No one's civil rights are infringed by anti-Nazi laws in Germany.

Arguing otherwise is to utterly fail to understand (or intentionally lie about) what civil rights even are. If your actions aren't protected under the law, you don't have a "civil right" to engage in that action. By definition.

And changing that legality changes what the people's civil rights are.

That's how civil rights work. Everywhere.

If you're going to keep lying to people's faces like this, that's why we can't have "civil discussion and constructive dialogue" with you involved. You're the problem.

The analogy that came to mind for me, when I saw tehdangs latest set of handwaving, is that if you've got a convicted pedophile, they would be prevented from holding a position in a school. Nobody would argue that would be a problem, or an infringement of civil rights. Their specific conviction excludes them from holding that position, because the laws broken relate to being in a position of power over children.

And German law, as it pertains to Nazis, is that any person or organisation that embraces or endorses Nazi ideology, has to be prevented from taking a position of power over the country. They legally cannot be allowed into a position of power, because Germans have very good evidence of what happens when you allow that. Which means as soon as the legal parameters are met, the party (and any members of said party) are excluded from holding office. And I don't think anyone sensible would disagree with that approach, on the same basis as the pedophile.

And before anyone argues that I'm drawing comparisons between the two groups in a way that's pejorative, I'm going to hold my hands up and agree. It's not strictly fair to compare the two groups. Because pedophiles are generally born with the predilection for children, while Nazis are making a conscious choice to follow a hateful dangerous ideology. From where I'm sitting, Nazis are worse.

[Breccia]

The NYTimes apparently caught something I did not. Trump is lowering tariffs on the UK in exchange for...uh...nearly nothing. I think the UK said it will import some Boeing planes, but when the topic of food came up, the UK guy said they would not change their import standards of food quality and inspection, which the US famously isn't great at.

They spent most of the meeting saying how great they were, how historic this was, how nobody else could have made this $5 billion deal.

"Five billion? How much did the UK import in 2024?"

About $100 billion.

"So...this huge, historic deal that Trump was an hour late on and said was the start of many great things to come...is like five percent."

Yes.

"And we still pay 10% more in tariffs."

I hear it's closer to 7.5%.

- - - Updated - - -

For added fun in the "the party of grift" category, this extensive Bulwark article features Myles Morell, former Daily Caller journalist and failed Spider-Man character, and his attempt to have a Trump-filled $2500 ticket price gala at the Kennedy Center.

He got fired yesterday because nobody came. The article is hilarious, for example:

But then the problems started. The first came when Trump announced a rally in Michigan to mark his first 100 days on the same night as the event.

Having lost their maybe headliner, the party organizers then lost their venue. Just days before the event, they announced that the Kennedy Center contract had been canceled.

McMillan told me that the Kennedy Center, recently taken over by Trump allies, called off the event because of a contract violation, but declined to specify what it was. The Kennedy Center didn’t respond to requests for comment about why the contract was canceled.

[Fugus]

I remember hearing that the US had a trade surplus with the UK anyways which made that 10% tariff just that much dumber.

What agreement could he possibly come up with that would be better than what we already had before he screwed it up?

[Doomcookie]

I've heard all about how real freedom is throwing people in jail for memes and banning opposition political parties. Yes, I'm used to all the arguments that twist around in a pretzel. And the pathetic lashing out with racist is entirely expected. That's fine. It's medicine, and you're overdue. I just hope it's not too late for the patient.

The harsh truths hit the worst. And maybe it does take a foreigner to say them, since he has less fear of being arrested for the speech.

You want to throw people in jail for being brown.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure, as more moderate than this forum (says really nothing), that you can hold two things in your head at the same time. Europe's record is bad, and it should be decried, and I'm glad Vance did it. You can also point out whatever you think indicates a decline of the US--tariffs we would likely agree on, even--and it wouldn't change one single thing about the former. None of it implies or ought to imply that when I point out one thing, I am rank ordering all the potential issues we might discuss.

It's a post on an internet forum. I'm not publishing a novel where I rate Europe's demonstrable decline alongside climate change, ICE deportations, AIDS in Africa, and the Russia-China-Iran relationship. I've been witnessing the decline of the US for over two decades. I think Trump is more a symptom of the decline than a cause of the decline. Maybe you think the same about the Sweden Democrats? But would we be able to talk about a group of countries, a single country, or a single party without implying that we're literally comparing the relative worth of discussion topics?

I don't think you really can continue to believe this post if you would reflect. The sentiment, the true deep sentiment of "racists getting fined [for their speech]," is literally "gang members getting deported." We can all play the games of framing the issue, but they're really just games. I'm getting a little off topic from one yahoo that asked who wrote the land of the free, home of the brave line, so we can let it lie there. I wish you all the best on recognizing and reversing the state of affairs in Europe.

You publish novels all the time on this forum.

But, in all of that verbosity, there is not a single word of you condemning terrible things that your guy does.

- - - Updated - - -

Non sequitur. It would be like saying that the victims of criminal gang violence get to have an increased say in how the justice and immigration system treats criminals and illegal aliens.

Two quick things on who "gets to tell" people what to do, and which people "don't get the same rights as anyone else." First, I don't think you can attain a higher moral plane to dictate how rights are apportioned or re-apportioned. It won't work and it can't work. Second, the adage of victims having increased moral insight reminds me of other adages I think might apply in this case. The first would be a pendulum that swings back to center, and then passes that to skew far in the other direction. Faced with such destruction, the correction ended up in an overcorrection. A principled individual should identify that error as an error, and fix it.

You will always lose me when you claim that there are greater ideals that involve banning political parties and throwing dissenters in jail for speech someone deemed hateful and provocative. Nope. This is some real Soviet-style propaganda by stating that you are championing higher ideals while scrapping basic ones. You aren't the person standing in the way of the "higher ideals" today, but tomorrow comes. It's the far better choice to give up the censorship through fines and jail, than to unerringly pick perfect censors.

I don't really need to concern myself about your opinions on the rights of who you think are morally upright individuals who say things you agree with. I really have good cause to zero in on who you think are the worst citizens in your society, and what kinds of activities they might engage in that would cause you to want their money taken or their body jailed. I'll ask you about somebody you think is a Nazi posting an offensive image online, but to some other person, I'd ask them about somebody they think is a Jew posting an offensive image online. The next person, a Muslim.

I've never argued for special treatment, and I want your rights protected if somebody else has a different meaning when they repeat you, word for word, "they don't get the same rights as everyone else."

Injustice will continue to fuel the opposition. The character of the opposition doesn't matter. I'm observing gains in the far-right parties of Europe in the past decade, and I'm sorry to say you're giving them tremendous fuel. You've called me a fascist before in this forum, and others have called me a Nazi and racist. Aren't you making my case for me? That I should be glad I'm not governed by backwards laws that you support, because I'm one of the people not deserving of speech rights? I should hope if the roles were reversed, and you were the one being called a Nazi, fascist, and racist, that you would feel more of an attachment to which people "don't get the same rights as everyone else."

I know that the institution has drifted considerably since the , but there was one that "ke[pt] fucking doubling and trippling down on [their] defense of Nazis." It was the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU. Elder Millenial's allies were there, saying that it was permissible to violate their civil liberties because they were Nazis. Whether a march in Skokie (mind you, this was a half Jewish area, with tons of Holocaust survivors), or previously a planned assembly in Central Park, they were willing to double and triple down through multiple appeals. The ACLU's position was unpopular in the same way you're familiar with and do here: defending the rights of people invites attacks on the character of the people you're defending. The consequences of adopting a right-but-unpopular argument didn't persuade them to drop it. The point is to discover that no person or group (judge, legislator, NGO, intelligence agency) rightfully can decide which citizens get which rights, and the overall defense of them without regard to the unsavory character of the speech, political party, assembly, march is critical to sustaining the principle of rights. They include yours, just in case some opinions you have fall out of favor with the government censors.

I would have little reason to comment if there were not the history that binds Europe to the US in the opposition to Soviet Russia. The historical ties are real. If America's connection to Europe were the same as that to "Russia, China, or India," then who really cares? There wouldn't even be a Munich Security Conference to send J.D. Vance to!

This is about the relations between countries and recognizing when the previous ties have loosened, somewhat, from diverging political cultures. (I recommend Vance's speech for the real examples, since understanding them in their breadth is necessary to notice a theme and not unrelated instances. I won't repeat them in detail here.) I don't think there would be significant monetary and military support of Ukraine in its war of defense if this were a case of "respect[ing] the different ways other cultures handle things."

The flip side is also true: The EU and European states can decide Trump's two elections are just the proof they need that America doesn't share values with them and disengage from treaties, trade, security cooperation, and conferences. America talking smack about Europe is not an immunity to hearing it right back.

That's quite a novel you wrote, just to defend your support of actual Nazis

- - - Updated - - -

I can't force you to recognize the dissonance in calling me a fascist, racist, and Nazi, and then telling me I should have no qualms about laws depriving "Nazis" of civil rights. You can repeat it another 9 times if you'd like, but the gist of your argument is that no caution is necessary. I think that your Nazi exemption to civil rights makes you an enemy of civil rights in general. I have an issue with identifying and oppressing the bad in society, since your Nazi will be another's gang members, or religious extremists, or rapists, or whoever else the Elder Millennials of the world decide don't get civil rights. If you thought the road on your logic stopped at Nazi, you're wrong. You're just robbing yourself of weapons when you're the undesirable.

Why don't you think women, minorities, and gay people deserve civil rights?

- - - Updated - - -

I'll quote you:




I'm sorry that you feel this way, and I think I covered my perspective in previous posts as to why this is wrong, dangerous, and anti-historical (particularly ACLU of 60s and 70s).

I see the deft switch to "physically assaulted" here, like depriving people you call Nazis of their civil rights implies that it's now legal to physically assault.

I don't really know if you're fully come to terms with first calling members of this very forum "Nazis" and then saying "Nazis don't deserve civil rights." Do you have to be the target and personally affected before you realize the issue?

I will clothe myself with the ACLU of the 60s and 70s that doubled down on defending the civil rights of Nazis, and proved America will defend the rights of citizens against whatever government or groups seeks to take it away.

You don't want to declare that certain citizens of the country forfeit their civil rights based on ideology. You're handing your enemies the biggest bazooka imaginable. Apparently without realizing the exact same thing happened to different groups all over history.

You know who are the new Nazis, who are worse than the Nazis, and similarly deserve censorship, fines, and jailtime? Just pick your favorite opposition politician and party, and hand them that power. You're doing it blindly, apparently.

You have gone on the record regarding your support of the extra-judicial killing of children, as well as the rape of prisoners.

Care to revise your stance?

- - - Updated - - -

If you think due process guarantees to citizens by the US Constitution is a good thing, welcome to defending every child trafficker, MS-13 murderer, rapist, torturer. The current Republican administration does this all the time, intentionally linking Democrats to the defense of violent MS-13 members. I see a solid half dozen here sidling up to Trump and giving him a giant bear hug, while saying, "Yes, people that defend the rights of others are indeed trying to protect the worst in society!"

It is a little surprising to me to see such a union with Trump's rhetoric from people I typically see in total opposition. These are surprising times.

You are on the record stating that people do not deserve due process, if their skin color is not the proper shade.

[SAY HER NAME]

This has been lost in the sauce but Trump is naming Casey Means as surgeon general.

I dont think she is evil or whatever but her entire belief system is insane. She is basically a hippy from the 70s except she makes millions of dollars in being invested in companies that align with the health advise that she gives. She is a vitamin, seeds and wellness products peddler and doesnt believe in drugs prefering that you "fix your metabolism". And also doesnt believe in vaccines as the cherry on top.

[Doomcookie]

In that case, defending civil rights isn't defending Nazis. It's defending civil rights.

If you're going to defend due process rights for everyone, you're defending them for Nazis and MS-13 murderers. If you're going to defend civil rights for everyone, you're defending them for Nazis and MS-13 murderers.

I don't think we should be going about saying such and such a person is "efforts to protect childpornographers and nazis" simply for refusing to strip their rights away: due process, civil rights, and all the rest. Maybe you agree? Or maybe there's some rights you see fit to deny?

Once again, why don't you care about the civil rights of women, minorities, gay people, and children?

- - - Updated - - -

You can read the discussion rules for the forums and learn those discussions are banned. I've never seen a mod elaborate that the "equal rights of, say, trans people" is a free topic of discussion.

I'll note, for the record, that you haven't given your opinion on whether you can defend rights for all without being called a "whiny Nazi" or "protect childpornographers and nazis." Maybe you should begin by offering your opinion on that basic problem.

My second note, for the record, is that I am criticizing people that are taking Trump's side on the issue, so you should change your post to "their führer." If you're going to use that language at all, that is. You should probably drop it in the interests of civil discussion and constructive dialogue, because I don't think my fellow forum posters like being identified with a führer of any kind!

Are you willing to offer your opinion on supporting multiple rapists?

The silence has lasted quite some time.

[Tech614]

This has been lost in the sauce but Trump is naming Casey Means as surgeon general.

I dont think she is evil or whatever but her entire belief system is insane. She is basically a hippy from the 70s except she makes millions of dollars in being invested in companies that align with the health advise that she gives. She is a vitamin, seeds and wellness products peddler and doesnt believe in drugs prefering that you "fix your metabolism". And also doesnt believe in vaccines as the cherry on top.

Surgeon General who dropped out of their residency to practice alternative medicine. We're so beyond fucked with this clown and RFK running the health of the country.

[LeGin v4]

I remember hearing that the US had a trade surplus with the UK anyways which made that 10% tariff just that much dumber.

What agreement could he possibly come up with that would be better than what we already had before he screwed it up?

It depends whether or not you include services

Basic point is that UK-US trade was/is, broadly, balanced

It certainly won't be if UK film/tv production ceases

This one example:

The reason fewer film / tv / streamer music scores have been recorded in LA over the last thirty years is solely the responsibility of the AFM (American Federation of Musicians - equivalent in the UK is the Musicians' Union). Their refusal to give ground on waiving additional payments made on top of basic fees - pension, sickness & residuals (share of profits) - led directly to less scores being recorded in the US. They refused to give ground because it benefitted, hugely, a small number of professionals that operate a closed shop in LA. The AFM had no desire to increase the amount of recording work (despite repeated calls from musicians outside the circle), happy in the knowledge a small number of professionals were becoming extremely rich.

In London, we operate on a buy-out. We receive no pension, sickness, residuals. It's a flat fee that scales according to the budget of the production. It's infinitely cheaper than recording in the US. Sometimes, productions can't afford to record in London. So, they record in e.g., Prague, Bratislava, Budapest etc.

This is called the free market. Something, I believe, America has been pushing, very fucking hard, for a very long fucking time.

The upshot is this: if the 100% "foreign-made" film tariffs go ahead, films won't get made because they won't be profitable. It's as simple as. Because, although my example in post-production is music, much the same applies to other disciplines.

This swing to protectionism. Fuck me... get your own fucking house in order. The reason e.g., NZ, CAN, AUS, etc. attract investment in this sector is because of incentives. Tariffs will achieve nothing.

[Azadina]

You can read the discussion rules for the forums and learn those discussions are banned. I've never seen a mod elaborate that the "equal rights of, say, trans people" is a free topic of discussion.

I'll note, for the record, that you haven't given your opinion on whether you can defend rights for all without being called a "whiny Nazi" or "protect childpornographers and nazis." Maybe you should begin by offering your opinion on that basic problem.

My second note, for the record, is that I am criticizing people that are taking Trump's side on the issue, so you should change your post to "their führer." If you're going to use that language at all, that is. You should probably drop it in the interests of civil discussion and constructive dialogue, because I don't think my fellow forum posters like being identified with a führer of any kind!

If people don't like being identified with a führer of any kind, then perhaps they should not support one. Just a thought. But, very well, I'll make this concession and not refer to that word again, if it makes someone uncomfortable.

For your second note part, are you officially denouncing Trump? Is that where we're at?

I find it concerning by the way, that you used an excuse to avoid defending equal rights to any of the example groups I mentioned. Not even one. You were so eagar to defend peoples rights before, so what changed? Most puzzling.

[Mazza]

Rarely do I see such unhinged logic that I find so professionally offensive.

This client runs a distributorship of automobile parts, and Trump’s tariffs have put him in quite a pickle. He’s looking at price increases of anywhere between 5 and 15 percent on the products he’s buying. If he passes this price increase directly to his customers, he could lose business. But he’s smart — he does the math, and realizes he doesn’t have to.

Suppose there’s a 10 percent increase on a certain product he buys. Previously, he would buy this product for $70 and sell it for $100, making $30 and a 30 percent profit margin. To weather tariffs, one might think he needs to raise prices to preserve that 30 percent margin. But that’s not true — he will be doing just as well if he keeps making $30 per sale. That means he only needs to raise prices by about 7.5 percent, instead of the 10 percent he would need to sustain the same percentage margin.

Translation: prices will still go up by the same dollar figure, and it's great because it's a lower percentage! The percent isn't as bad, it's only a smaller one!

This pathetic attempt to defend Trump, "prices won't go up as much as you think", is the most desperate convoluted failure I've seen defending Trump since @tehdang yelling "Sweden!" into the camera for ten posts in a row.

It's also wrong. Not just his companies costs will go up. If everything becomes more expensive the value of the money he earns out of his business can be leveraged against LESS of w/e he buys with it IF he only increases prices with the extra costs. To keep the value of the profit he makes the same he needs to up his prices even more. Or TLDR, INFLATION.

[Nightmare Queen]

2) You voted for a child trafficker, just ask the Epstein logs he said he'd release and didn't.

Because his name is all over them and he knows it

[Poopymonster]

It's also wrong. Not just his companies costs will go up. If everything becomes more expensive the value of the money he earns out of his business can be leveraged against LESS of w/e he buys with it IF he only increases prices with the extra costs. To keep the value of the profit he makes the same he needs to up his prices even more. Or TLDR, INFLATION.

But we'll keep shitloads of money due to tax cuts. Which tax cuts? The Tax Cuts. The ones that haven't gone beyond yelling "Tax Cuts." The Tax Cuts promised by a serial liar with undefendable positions. Not TehDang. Trump.

Because the Tax Cuts, the ones that will have us keep a shitload of money, will do so. The money will come from the Tax Cuts, that haven't gone beyond yelling "Tax Cuts." That money was assured to us by a serial liar with undefendable positions. Not Trump.

[tehdang]

If people don't like being identified with a führer of any kind, then perhaps they should not support one. Just a thought. But, very well, I'll make this concession and not refer to that word again, if it makes someone uncomfortable.

For your second note part, are you officially denouncing Trump? Is that where we're at?

Let’s disentangle the childish criticism. He’s done a lot of stuff I don’t like, and will continue to do so. Even the things that are up in the air on what happened and why are partially due to a complete lack of relevant and specific White House messaging to the American people. That responsibility is ultimately born by Trump and his inability to recruit and incorporate good advisors into his team. He’s also going to do a bunch of ordinary Republican stuff that might be a quarter or third of his overall acts. I know that’s not comforting to the subset here that hates everyone from Reagan to today.

You’re still refusing to comment on the primary subject of the post, to whether or not it’s appropriate or germane to talk about someone who defends all people’s rights as a protector of Nazis, child pornographers, and the rest. I think I know why this is, but it’s still interesting to me.

I find it concerning by the way, that you used an excuse to avoid defending equal rights to any of the example groups I mentioned. Not even one. You were so eagar to defend peoples rights before, so what changed? Most puzzling.

I abide by the rules. It’s important as the bearer of a minority opinion in this forum to not give an obvious reason for those brigading for my removal to prevail. I’m sorry that you feel that the forum rules are an excuse, and I suggest you take it up with the people that made them.

[Endus]

You’re still refusing to comment on the primary subject of the post, to whether or not it’s appropriate or germane to talk about someone who defends all people’s rights as a protector of Nazis, child pornographers, and the rest. I think I know why this is, but it’s still interesting to me.

Because you're not talking about human rights. You're talking about civil rights. Specifically, of Nazis.

You're the one narrowing it down and playing defense for the Nazis in society, specifically. The rest of us are just pointing out that's fucked up.

I abide by the rules. It’s important as the bearer of a minority opinion in this forum to not give an obvious reason for those brigading for my removal to prevail. I’m sorry that you feel that the forum rules are an excuse, and I suggest you take it up with the people that made them.

You're not a victim. No is "brigading for your removal". You get an infraction when you break site rules.

Trying to be cagey and not speak your mind because doing so would fall under hate speech under site rules is nothing but an open admission of personal lack of character.

You're trying to hide behind site rules as why you can't explain yourself, but if your views weren't execrable bigotry, you could. You're confessing, not defending.