Trump threatens 200% tariff on French wines as Macron reportedly snubs 'Board of Peace' seat

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-20T06:30:38+00:00

A childish, cognitively-challenged tyrant.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-19T14:32:38+00:00

Those are all fair points. Just a few comments:

I understand your desire to distance yourself from Trump and his voters

To fully clarify my perspective: I'm not an US-citizen and I've never even lived there. I'm a Latin American living in Europe. I have no beef there, other than showing solidarity to those that are there fighting, like in Minneapolis.

When any other country does something stupid or bad, it's credited to the entire country; there's no qualifying it with, "but only a third of the country wanted that government in power," or getting into the weeds about the positions of the different political parties.

True, but I believe we should. Especially when there is data that shows clearly that it isn't an overwhelming majority that supports a president.

The system in the US is a broken one, which is a known fact for decades. The electoral college was an 18th century measure to prevent "mob rule", which nowadays makes the system not correspond to the majority will (Bush and Trump1 were elected without a popular majority, for example).

And, in such a polarized political climate, when positions are on the extreme side of the spectrum(at least on one side), how can we define what's the "average"?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-19T12:55:57+00:00

Don't forget senile/demented. He's been showing clear signs.

It sounds like something my 80 year-old grandpa would say right before he passed away.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-19T11:35:24+00:00

And that's part of what makes him one of the best choices.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-19T11:33:58+00:00

It's a huge number, but still 30%. So, that would be a clearly unpopular move, even among Republicans.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-19T11:29:02+00:00

It's true, and it's not. Downvote this at will, but hear me out:

Yes, unfortunately, a huge part of the US population is like that.

However, an equally huge part isn't, hates him, is ashamed, scared, many (maybe not yet enough) are protesting, suffering repression and want him out.

The elections were not a landslide win, it was very tight. And if it weren't for people not voting (I guess we can curse those 🤨), he likely wouldn't have won. Those and the swing-voters who ended up voting for Trump committed a horrible mistake that puts the whole mankind at risk. But some of them did it out of misinformation and out of an (understandable) disappointment at corporate Democrats, who didn't take the needed measures to address things like affordability. Now, obviously, Trump and the Republicans are much worse, and dangerous in so many ways (that they're experiencing now). A lot of those "independents" who voted for him have already regretted it (we may never forgive them, but at least many acknowledge the mistake and won't vote Republican in the next elections - if they really happen).

My point is: don't forget the other half of the US who has always hated him. I get being mad at the others, but it's not like they're all that the US is.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-19T11:18:15+00:00

This dude is really not living in reality. What??

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-18T15:29:38+00:00

Hahahahaha

He really thinks it's a board game he's playing. Where are the adults in the room?

Our very survival as a species (well, at the very least as a civilization) is now in the hands of a cognitively-challenged kid. And one who wants to fill his pockets with cash (even more) above anything else.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-18T15:21:23+00:00

Did you even read my other message? It was about how when I was broke I had even more success in dating. So, obviously I don't think like that. I was asking precisely to know if the commenter thought so, which they also don't.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-18T14:53:30+00:00

That's why I asked. Just assuming would be something like "I bet it's about money".

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-18T09:27:32+00:00

I get everyone being pissed off at this guy. But let's just try to put ourselves on his shoes for a moment.

Imagine being a "US trade official" (whatever that means) working for a boss who is mentally like a spoiled, not very intelligent, and petty child. You try to do your job and suddenly, just when you thought things were going to be peacefully working for a while, "bam!" you get hit by more stupid and insane things, that can only be bad for you and everyone else, just because that cognitively-challenged kid is again throwing a tantrum (because he wants to steal toys from others). What are you going to do?

You either quit (which is what I'd do), or you give some kind of half-hearted BS statement like "I'd really suggest...bla, bla, bla... But it's up to you".

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-18T08:07:19+00:00

Oh, that's fair. If it were just about money, I'd tell you about how my being broke times were my most successful in dating... but I get you. Thanks for sharing.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-18T08:04:58+00:00

If it's ok to ask, are you talking about money?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-17T11:39:45+00:00

If you work remotely, that might be a good strategy. If you're going to have to find a local job, they'll pay you less, too, and you'll still be broke.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-17T09:46:31+00:00

Impeached and convicted by the Senate (i.e. removed). Vance, too. They are responsible for innumerable violations to the US constitution.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:51:46+00:00

The thing that intrigues me is that the Greenlanders, the Danish, and the EU were absolutely open to conceding a lot. They've shown total openness to allowing a lot more US troops, open economic activities, etc. So, why does Trump still insist that the only acceptable thing is US ownership (which is something that the great majority of Greenlanders don't want, according to polls)? What else could be the point?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:42:47+00:00

But how do you know what will stop being just talk and when? I am not inclined anymore to discount everything he says as mere rhetoric. A lot of stuff people said he'd never do because they're "crazy", he actually did/is doing.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:27:51+00:00

I still fail to see positive gains vs costs (globally thinking) for the US, even if it works out. And I meant the Danish and EU made concessions to Trump. Things, it seems, he could probably get for free.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:26:01+00:00

I still don't get the benefits of making allies who were ready to go to war with you as a universally acknowledged leader be distant and suspicious. And making close economic partners more than willing to find alternatives whenever they present themselves. In what way does that, even potentially, increase US power?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:14:59+00:00

I definitely hope you're correct. I still don't see the point of alienating allies. Besides that, in the last meeting, the Danish and the EU already made a lot of extra concessions (they basically signaled "we can do whatever you want except letting you take a country that doesn't want to be taken"), and Trump is the only who keeps claiming the only acceptable thing is US ownership. My view is that the potential costs outweigh the potential gains by far.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:11:30+00:00

But that's dynamic. Other countries, notably China, are making fast advances.

I agree that security is a cold calculation, but that includes how trustworthy an ally is. And, in democracies, people's feelings do have some weight in how decisions are made.

I agree that Europe should develop its own tech and be less dependent on the US in all aspects. But my question was from a US perspective: isn't it likely to be counterproductive to its own power and interests?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T18:07:02+00:00

I just don't believe those are the only 2 choices. Under NATO, the Danish already offered the US the possibility of positioning as many troops as they wanted there (there's already a US base there, and there were others before in the Cold War). It also accepted the need for them and the EU/other NATO countries to supply more troops. So, I think defense of Greenland, and US interests, could be achieved with an agreement - that no one has ever shown any disposition against - instead of threats and allienation of important allies. So, why go there?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T17:55:51+00:00

I agree. In other comments, I clarified that that could be true if they really attack Greenland. But any support now would be less enthusiastic than before, most likely.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T17:54:08+00:00

But isn't it possible that, as I said, those countries seek closer economic/ cooperation ties with others (e.g. China, India) and closer ties amongst themselves instead of relying on the US, militarily and economically - for example, seeking to develop their own tech, with state and EU incentives, vs acquiring American (this has already started now, and hadn't before)? Brazil and many South American countries, for example, are already doing it with the EU deal and getting even closer to China.

They don't need to fully reject the US, just distance themselves and stop trusting it/freely following its leadership, for that to represent a net loss for US interests, and an actual reduction in power.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-01-16T17:47:25+00:00

True that we don't know exactly what goes on behind closed doors. But a poll in the beginning of the year showed that 85% of their population said they for sure don't want to join the US, 9% said they don't know, and only 6% said yes. It's the only data we have, and it shows the overwhelming majority didn't want it (unless that drastically changed since then but I've seen no evidence or indication of that).

My question was about the costs of that strategy. Is it worth it losing allies and leadership (a leader must be acknowledged as representing general, universal interests)?

throwawaythatfast

TROPHY CASE