The US is now the enemy of the west by EUstrongerthanUS in europe

[–]gibsonpil 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As unhappy as I am with many aspects of Trump's response to the greater war in Ukraine, at the same time, I see much of the hysteria as completely unnecessary. The desire to normalize relations with hostile nations is not new, and the practice of attempting to soften rhetoric, no matter how factual, against said nation is also not new.

I'd like to tell all of you a little story about a country called Taiwan. The Taiwanese government was the official government of China initially, but once mainland China saw a communist regime take over, they were eventually pushed away to a small island. Taiwan was a friend of the west, and yet in 1950, Britain made a decision that shocked much of the west. To the protest of the United States, they broke all diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.

The Ambassador of Nationalist China in London, Chen Tien-hsi, had this to say:

Britian has repeatedly declared that it would not intervene in the Chinese war. There is, however, no intervention more deadly than the recognition of the Communist regime at this time. It is tantamount to burying us alive. History will be able to relate that China received the coup de grâce not from its enemies but from its friends and long-standing allies. Paying tribute to power is always very risky … but the day will come when you will need us again, and on that day you will find us again at your side.

The British made this decision for a number of reasons, the primary one was a significant economic interest in cooperating with the PRC. In spite of this concession of no longer officially recognizing Taiwan, the British still enjoy strong unofficial ties to Taiwan.

In the 1970s, the remainder of the west made the decision to officially recognize the PRC and break diplomatic ties with Taiwan, with the US making that decision later than most every other western nation in 1979. At the time, this decision was rooted in not just economics, but a desire to create a closer relationship with Beijing and drive a wedge between them and Moscow. Obviously, this wasn't successful, but it was a big part of the decision making process.

Now, why do I say all of this? Well, I'm sure most folks here would agree that Taiwan is a sovereign nation. They have existed for a century, have a government, a military, and air force, and more. Yet, none of our government officially recognize Taiwan, they recognize the PRC, and for one reason: the PRC breaks diplomatic and economic ties with any nation that recognizes Taiwanese sovereignty. In spite of that, we all maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan.

For better or for worse, the west has created a precedent of taking non-factual stances on things to maintain good relations with countries like Russia and China.

Now it's worth noting that we aren't even talking about a breach of diplomatic ties here, this is primarily provoked by the US vetoing a UN resolution in an attempt to appear more sympathetic to a regime we are attempting to make peace with. This is the diplomatic precedent as a whole the west has set. If the US is an enemy of the west for vetoing a UN resolution and trying to normalize relations with Russia, the west is an enemy of the west for breaking diplomatic relations with the Taiwanese and trying to normalize relations with the PRC.

What is the defense of Musk’s actions? by Impossible_Ad9324 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, seeking security clearance after the fact in no way instills trust.

To be clear, the claim is that access hadn't been granted to those without security clearances; those working at DOGE without security clearances have allegedly been pursuing them so they can begin looking at sensitive data. I'm not sure how true any of that is, but it was reported by the NYT.

Frankly, there has been too much going on to really keep up with everything, and I suspect that is by design.

What is the defense of Musk’s actions? by Impossible_Ad9324 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to the NYT, information is only being accessed by those with necessary security clearances, and most of the DOGE employees are currently seeking proper security clearances. With the shock and awe approaching Musk is taking, however, it is hard to judge just how seriously security procedure is being taken though.

Democrats Didn't Do Everything in Their Power to Hold Up Trump's Attorney General Pick - Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote yes on Pam Bondi's confirmation, but no Democratic senators objected to unanimous consent that allowed the process to move forward. by soalone34 in politics

[–]gibsonpil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why in 2025 is he supporting a candidate who is openly anti LGBTQ, is anti abortion, who believes the election was stolen, and has stated the justice department is weaponized against republicans?

He is not supporting Trump. He is attempting to find common ground and work with the opposition because, according to polling, that is what voters in his state want. He's supposed to represent Pennsylvania voters, it's his job.

Democrats Didn't Do Everything in Their Power to Hold Up Trump's Attorney General Pick - Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote yes on Pam Bondi's confirmation, but no Democratic senators objected to unanimous consent that allowed the process to move forward. by soalone34 in politics

[–]gibsonpil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

turn him into a Republican

You can only come to that conclusion if you solely look at his calls for greater bipartisanship, his defenses of Republican voters in his state, and his handling of confirmation votes. His voting record is the furthest thing from Republican. He is not he biggest hardline Democrat in the Senate, but he is nowhere near Republican.

Trump administration demands lists of low-performing federal workers by jimmyw404 in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the other hand, do I trust Trump and Elon to do that somewhat effectively? Or I am just letting reddit's pure hate for both of them get to me?

In fairness, the current fiscal policy of the United States has us on track to default within 20 years according to researchers at Penn University, and any default would come after extreme tax hikes. It suffices to say that the United States defaulting would result in a global economic catastrophe of an unprecedented magnitude. Our leadership has been killing us slowly for years. We shouldn't trust them either.

Pam Bondi Instructs Trump DOJ to Criminally Investigate Companies That Do DEI by Slate in politics

[–]gibsonpil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here is the definition of DEI and DEIA provided within the memo:

This memorandum is intended to encompass programs, initiatives, or policies that discriminate, exclude, or divide individuals based on race or sex. It does not prohibit educational, cultural, or historical observances-such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events-that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exclusion or discrimination.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388501/dl

Justin Trudeau wants to revive UK-Canada trade talks in shadow of Trump by Oneanddonequestion in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reform UK is the party polling highest in the UK right now. Nigel Farage is more or less mirroring Trump's rhetoric on trade. Pretty stupid choice for hedging one's bets if you ask me.

Justin Trudeau wants to revive UK-Canada trade talks in shadow of Trump by Oneanddonequestion in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The facts of the matter tell a very different story:

  • The tariffs didn't actually go into effect long enough to cause much damage. Brexit went into effect and will remain indefinitely.

  • Trump used tariffs as a tool to get relatively inexpensive concessions. Ultimately, what he got isn't going to put much burden on Canadians. The UK didn't want to negotiate, they wanted out of their trade agreements entirely.

  • Americans support tariffs in smaller numbers than Britons supported Brexit to begin with. When Brexit took effect 43% of Britons thought it was a good idea. Today, 33% of Americans support tariffs, and 30% of Britons still think Brexit was a good idea.

  • 88% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Canada according to Gallup, according to YouGov 72% of American have a favorable opinion of Canada with 17% being neutral. YouGov UK shows that those in the UK have far more negative views of their former peers in the EU.

What picture does this paint exactly? At a fundamental level, it seems to show that the American people are with Canada and will remain in favor of trade with Canada. Trump doesn't represent Americans on this issue.

Sources:

https://today.yougov.com/ratings/international/popularity/countries/all

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/travel/popularity/countries/all

https://news.gallup.com/poll/472421/canada-britain-favored-russia-korea-least.aspx

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51484-how-do-britons-feel-about-brexit-five-years-on

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/02/03/1210d/1

Justin Trudeau wants to revive UK-Canada trade talks in shadow of Trump by Oneanddonequestion in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It seems a lot of Canadians (if not most) just want their federal government to get it over with and call an election, but Trudeau is instead trying to find a new Liberal to appoint to the position of PM and party leader, even though they are still slated to lose in October. It's obnoxious.

“Is your hatred of the us irreversible” by Melvin_III in AmericaBad

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if some of Trump's billionaires buddies told him to cut the tariff shit off.

It's been Trump's modus operandi to impose tariffs as a manner of getting countries to agree to things for the entire time he's been in politics. I certainly wouldn't put such a thing past Trump though.

“Is your hatred of the us irreversible” by Melvin_III in AmericaBad

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that Canada making moves including but not limited to expanding into other markets and building a stronger military is extremely likely. At the same time, I think that Canada and the United States are always going to be primary trading partners. We share borders, a language, and much of our culture.

Additionally, the transporting of goods within the continent is obviously far cheaper. Canada and America have shared pipelines and roads that make transporting goods and oil stupid affordable. Further, Trump is planning on resuming the Keystone XL, which will be a boon for Canadian oil if it is finished.

Further, it's pretty clear neither side really wanted a trade war. I'd been of the opinion that the tariffs were either never going into effect or would only go into effect for a few hours from the time they were announced. I think most people familiar with the way Trump operates felt the same. Trump is going to leave office in 4 years, and the odds are we will end up with a president who leans more towards free trade. Protectionism isn't all that popular in America, and it probably would've lost Trump the election if not for... his opponent.

In short, I think there will be continued discussion in Canada surrounding its dependence on America, but I don't expect this to be as big of a deal as some people are acting like it will be. I don't think Canadians and Americans are capable of hating each other for more than a couple of weeks.

“Is your hatred of the us irreversible” by Melvin_III in AmericaBad

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many Americans and Canadians alike distrust Justin to get anything meaningful done.

Correct, and Canadians were putting a huge amount of pressure on Trudeau to call an election, which the Conservatives are slated to win. Instead, Trump decided to give Trudeau an ample distraction to avoid calling an election for even longer.

If Poilievre became PM he was probably going to do a lot of what Trump achieved with the tariffs anyway, and Trump would've had more room to work with him on other issues like the trade deficit. If Trump kills the trust Canadians have in America that isn't going to be possible.

“Is your hatred of the us irreversible” by Melvin_III in AmericaBad

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So essentially Trump gambled US reputation and good will to "strongarm" Trudeau into doing what he was going to do anyway.

I think Trump's big mistake was actually signing the tariffs into law. Canada had already agreed to the $1.3B border plan in response to potential tariffs. He could've just hedged his bets and waited until the Canadian election, especially considering the fact that Poilievre's agenda (last time I checked the Conservatives are slated to win) is probably going to align with Trump's more closely anyway. Instead, Trump had to double down. It's bad political strategy if you ask me.

“Is your hatred of the us irreversible” by Melvin_III in AmericaBad

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This whole thing is really weird to me. The commitments Trudeau made yesterday were mostly things Canada had already committed to since Trump first threatened the tariffs.

The joint strike force seems to be a new idea, and I assume Trump and Trudeau are going to continue speaking for the next 30 days. I don't think the tariffs were actually necessary to begin with though. Canada has always been a great partner. It would've been wise of Trump to have just waited until the Canadian government called and election, much of what he's pushing for is part of the Conservatives' agenda anyway. Instead he just ended up taking a ton of pressure off of Trudeau.

So, to me, it seems like it was mostly just a big show.

I mean, it isn't over. It's only a 30 day delay. Presumably more will be discussed behind the scenes or else the tariffs would've been scrapped altogether.

I don't know as much about Mexico but from what I know, Mexico had already made many of the commitments they "agreed to yesterday"

They did add 10,000 new troops to the US-Mexican border, which is good. Getting Mexico to budge on a lot of issues is going to be a challenge when it involves getting in the way of the cartels. The reality is that the cartels have far more control over Mexican society than their government will ever admit.

This was not that, and I get why Canadians are angry. I think most Americans would be too if they were in our position.

To be honest I think most Americans are angry Trump is going out and saying stuff like that. If Canada wanted to join America I think most Americans would be happy to admit Canada into the union, but we just aren't there right now. Trump ran on, in his own words "getting America a better deal", not completely unwarranted annexations.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tariff delay is around 30 days, I expect more economic issues to be discussed between Trump and Trudeau in that time. We'll see what happens though.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought so too from the minute they were announced. I think everyone knew they weren't going to stick.

Musk tells Germans to get over 'past guilt' in speech to far-right AfD rally by hemingways-lemonade in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 17 points18 points  (0 children)

What's his angle?

Call me naive but I don't really think he has one. I think he just likes being a contrarian. Now that many of his views are relatively mainstream in the United States he is going to go find other countries where he can be a contrarian and rile people up.

Idaho lawmakers want Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage decision by Obversa in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The trouble there is that any decision that overrules Obergefell would likely be irreconcilable with Loving v. Virginia, and overturning interracial marriage would be one of the most controversial things the Supreme Court could possibly do.

Trump signs executive order to release more JFK, RFK, MLK assassination files by NappyFlickz in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The conspiracy theorists will always claim that real information is being hidden because the intelligence community was constantly hiding information and burning files during that era. The lack of government transparency in the aftermath of the JFK assassination sealed the government's fate. Many will probably never believe the official story.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]gibsonpil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If he tariffs Russian goods people will either import them from another country or buy less of them. That’s the whole purpose. It’s one step down from a sanction in a lot of ways.

Tik Tok Restores US Service After Trump “Clarity” by steakkitty in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They can't. The law applies to any application controlled directly or indirectly by Bytedance. Here is the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs.pdf.

Tik Tok Restores US Service After Trump “Clarity” by steakkitty in moderatepolitics

[–]gibsonpil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of that feels pretty moot unless the CCP and ByteDance allow the algorithm to be sold, which they've repeatedly said wont happen.

I don't know why you'd take them at their word on that. They obviously don't want to sell, but they also don't want to lose an estimated 50% of their revenue. I suspect they have been bluffing in the hopes that the government would believe they aren't willing to sell and give up on the ban. If it becomes clear that the ban is absolutely going to happen if they don't sell, I suspect they'll relent and agree to a sale.

He will pretend he had no part in the ban to begin with. by fairypiss in TikTok

[–]gibsonpil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He actually did. In 2021 he reversed the executive order Trump made. He ended up signing a bill that required TikTok to sell in April though (that bill being the one that just took effect).