More than 50 countries have reached out to the President to begin tariff negotiations

[UltraBudgie]

Mr Bill played flirty flirty with China...

That is genius! He actually got China to pay for their own economic poison, compromised them as potentially interfering in foreign elections, bundled money for his campaign, and he managed to do it all while receiving a judgment of no wrong-doing from the US legal system??? Wow!

And has anyone actually gone back to investigate how many exploits, backdoors, and hidden vulnerabilities may have been in that tech that Clinton "let leak" to China? Last time I checked, US Space Force still owns LEO...

I am finding it very fun to retroactively justify Clinton using modern political methodology. It is scary how easy it is.

[putnam6]

That is genius! He actually got China to pay for their own economic poison, compromised them as potentially interfering in foreign elections, bundled money for his campaign, and he managed to do it all while receiving a judgment of no wrong-doing from the US legal system??? Wow!

And has anyone actually gone back to investigate how many exploits, backdoors, and hidden vulnerabilities may have been in that tech that Clinton "let leak" to China? Last time I checked, US Space Force still owns LEO...

I am finding it very fun to retroactively justify Clinton using modern political methodology. It is scary how easy it is.

Well as long as you enjoy yourself thats really all that matters...

[UltraBudgie]

Well as long as you enjoy yourself thats really all that matters...

As well as being fun it also evokes two things: first, how much the practice of politics has changed in recent decades, with what once required think-tanks of politicos devising marketing strategy now become the fodder of casual shitposts, and second, highlighting through partisan mirroring whatever hypocrisy in the projected umbra of demagoguery is still unapparent, separating image from reality via noting what remains when symmetric inversions are subtracted.

I may have had too much coffee today.

[putnam6]

As well as being fun it also evokes two things: first, how much the practice of politics has changed in recent decades, with what once required think-tanks of politicos devising marketing strategy now become the fodder of casual shitposts, and second, highlighting through partisan mirroring whatever hypocrisy in the projected umbra of demagoguery is still unapparent, separating image from reality via noting what remains when symmetric inversions are subtracted.

I may have had too much coffee today.

I need you to explain it like they explain a crime to Ice T on Law & Order....


but generally, because I lived it, the think tanks' ideas were funneled through Hilliary and guys like Carville and the other douche larue whose name escapes me now I'll add it back later. Hillary knows her shit though, she was like that during the Whitewater stuff if 1/10th of that is true Bill's was the face and voice but HRC was/is the brains, and being a repeatedly embarrassed and shamed woman she might be a little unbalanced and way back then she was mean as shit. Whitewater is where she learned to accuse her accusors of exactly what they were accusing you of.  The first time it's used it cuts into the credence of the original accusor if it's done and repeated and  enough media outlets pick it up the story becomes the perceived truth.

You think a newspaper or TV station is going to turn down an interview with the First Lady of Arkansas repeated enough sleepy Arkansas begins to believe, and the Clintons' methods are scalable and mesh with DC

[RickyD]

Are we going to look back and say Clinton was an economic genius? In the 90s he gave Most Favoured Nation trading status to China, prompting them to reconfigure their entire economy. They enjoyed a few decades of prosperity, in return for becoming beholden to the market of the United States for their economic health. Clinton got them to write a cheque they thought would never be cashed. But Trump has, riding on Clinton's coattails. What genius! He really knew how to play 47D chess, that boy from Arkansas.

Mean while he sold us out and handed China the keys to influence the US...China...an actual totalitarian dictatorship...like the one everyone tries to say Russia is. Clinton sold us out to enrich himself...also was probably compromised. Not sure how much further back it goes but he was the one to sell out the US.

[RickyD]

That is genius! He actually got China to pay for their own economic poison, compromised them as potentially interfering in foreign elections, bundled money for his campaign, and he managed to do it all while receiving a judgment of no wrong-doing from the US legal system??? Wow!

And has anyone actually gone back to investigate how many exploits, backdoors, and hidden vulnerabilities may have been in that tech that Clinton "let leak" to China? Last time I checked, US Space Force still owns LEO...

I am finding it very fun to retroactively justify Clinton using modern political methodology. It is scary how easy it is.

Are you daft?!?! Meanwhile the US sold out all its manufacturing...barely make our own steel or most components for anything these days. Medicine...well you can get fucked if China says so we dont manufavture any precursor chemicals in quantities needed. This became apparent during covid when they heavily throttled what they gave us access to.

He was a selfish imbecile who sold us out for personal gain. His wife is even worse...thank god we dodged the bullet of that evil hag ever being the POTUS...

[UltraBudgie]

I need you to explain it like they explain a crime to Ice T on Law & Order....

Yeah the second bit got a bit wordy. Well, you know how when, like, something happens or there's a situation, one political party will figure out behind closed doors how to pitch and present their take on, their version of events. "Truthful", in that it will be consistent with what can be seen of reality, but not really open and honest. This is their "projection" on it. Similarly, the other political party will do the same thing. So we end up with two "projections" of the situation being sold, matching two different world views. If those two projections match and are the same, it isn't news. Usually, the press ignores it. If they're different, the press will pick up the story, some outlets focusing on one projection, some on another. They'll each try and shoot holes in the other's projection, showing inconsistencies, "fact checking".

Now, these projections of the situation see to be most stable, in balance, when they each provide a basis for symmetric inversions of reality. Hypocrisy. One side will build a narrative of whatever the thing was that accuses the other side. The other side builds a reflection of that blame, inverting the guilt. Who is to blame? Well, who is really to say? It depends on what news outlet you read, and what projection they adhere to. One side is guilty of what they accuse the other of, and so is the other. "You're fascists!" "No, you're the fascists!"

The key point is that these two projections are all we end up seeing, as far as context to build our worldviews in which we place objective facts. We can't really know what the "true" situation is. In fact, it may be like an onion, with layers inside layers. The media act as the outer layer of the onion, casting the projections onto the cave wall of popular perception.

What to do? Well, notice the dynamic, of opposing projections and hypocritic accusations, generating news churn and movement until they come in balance. Read both sides of the issue, try and understand them equally, and subtract both sides of the generated gloss from set of purported "facts". What's left may be as close as we get to finding truth.

So practice modeling the spin, left and right, it helps see what's underneath if we can distinguish what is a result of them glossing it over.


Edit: My apologies, I seem to have drifted off topic of tariffs. Anyway, there's an interesting symmetry between the story and objections to eliminating China tariffs in the 90s, and the story and objections to imposing them today.

[putnam6]

Yeah the second bit got a bit wordy. Well, you know how when, like, something happens or there's a situation, one political party will figure out behind closed doors how to pitch and present their take on, their version of events. "Truthful", in that it will be consistent with what can be seen of reality, but not really open and honest. This is their "projection" on it. Similarly, the other political party will do the same thing. So we end up with two "projections" of the situation being sold, matching two different world views. If those two projections match and are the same, it isn't news. Usually, the press ignores it. If they're different, the press will pick up the story, some outlets focusing on one projection, some on another. They'll each try and shoot holes in the other's projection, showing inconsistencies, "fact checking".

Now, these projections of the situation see to be most stable, in balance, when they each provide a basis for symmetric inversions of reality. Hypocrisy. One side will build a narrative of whatever the thing was that accuses the other side. The other side builds a reflection of that blame, inverting the guilt. Who is to blame? Well, who is really to say? It depends on what news outlet you read, and what projection they adhere to. One side is guilty of what they accuse the other of, and so is the other. "You're fascists!" "No, you're the fascists!"

The key point is that these two projections are all we end up seeing, as far as context to build our worldviews in which we place objective facts. We can't really know what the "true" situation is. In fact, it may be like an onion, with layers inside layers. The media act as the outer layer of the onion, casting the projections onto the cave wall of popular perception.

What to do? Well, notice the dynamic, of opposing projections and hypocritic accusations, generating news churn and movement until they come in balance. Read both sides of the issue, try and understand them equally, and subtract both sides of the generated gloss from set of purported "facts". What's left may be as close as we get to finding truth.

So practice modeling the spin, left and right, it helps see what's underneath if we can distinguish what is a result of them glossing it over.


Edit: My apologies, I seem to have drifted off topic of tariffs. Anyway, there's an interesting symmetry between the story and objections to eliminating China tariffs in the 90s, and the story and objections to imposing them today.

Perhaps on some levels again all political parties and politicians have inherent flaws and they operate in a flawed system As the JFK stuff has highlighted (still the best for hundreds of millions of people), but it's difficult to resolve the Clinton's flaws so easily. Forget Bill's many dalliances and lawsuits, and Hilliary's Benghazi and email server stuff, the Clinton Foundation's financial explosion ALONE and thier introducing America to Soros is worthy of a whole shit load of skepticism. But yeah Trump did nothing since the start but perform market manipulation for personal gain

Trump has his flaws they have been well pointed out here and elsewhere, all I can say is that his predecessors were allowed to cook even with their flaws. Bill didn't catch much beef till his second term even then there were enough who didn't give a damn how much they made or how much tech they handed to China that till recently they both were DNC royalty.

What do I know? right, well all I know is it seemed better 70s and early 80s when the majority of the general public was skeptical AF of our leaders regardless of party affiliation. Now they have cheerleaders and are treated like rock stars, and I know I seem that way for Trump myself. My perspective though Trump is an almost billionaire and will likely be after his second term is over, every President before him has become incredibly rich it's part of the system. One becomes President of America which has to be stressful AH and they get compensated by being the button pusher. Let Trump push the buttons let's see if his way works and in what areas, instead he is hounded at every word or action unlike any President in my lifetime from LBJ on.

There's so much bitching moaning and complaining I just want to see if some of his stuff works, his prison reform bill first term was historic for any President before he could have implemented it didn't because the segment of politicians on both sides are enriching themselves through privately owned prisons, blocked it being discussed and likely cut those former Presidents in the deal. Gore was hugely invested in prisons and law enforcement because his dad another former Tennessee senator was too. The private prison lobby is also huge in not rescheduling marijuana as soon as those private prison politicians can figure out how to enrich themselves in the weed business in the bible belt it will be legalized. 

This is my truth my perspective, I may be wrong but for all anybody here knows I may be right, or   I just might be Billy Joel's lunatic  

This is all I want 

[xuenchen]

Clinton was a master fighter for Labor.........
for the Chinese Slave Unions  
 

Are we going to look back and say Clinton was an economic genius? In the 90s he gave Most Favoured Nation trading status to China, prompting them to reconfigure their entire economy. They enjoyed a few decades of prosperity, in return for becoming beholden to the market of the United States for their economic health. Clinton got them to write a cheque they thought would never be cashed. But Trump has, riding on Clinton's coattails. What genius! He really knew how to play 47D chess, that boy from Arkansas.

[xuenchen]

 Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs 

  

President Donald Trump’s administration exempted smartphones, computers and other electronics from its so-called reciprocal tariffs, potentially cushioning consumers from sticker shock while benefiting electronics giants including Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.

The exclusions, published late Friday by US Customs and Border Protection, narrow the scope of the levies by excluding the products from Trump’s 125% China tariff and his baseline 10% global tariff on nearly all other countries.

The exclusions would apply to smartphones, laptop computers, hard drives and computer processors and memory chips. Those popular consumer electronics items generally aren’t made in the US. Setting up domestic manufacturing would take years.