Trump Neurosis Thread

[Oldcarpy2]

Where is the real-time security breach?

Well, mistakenly inviting a random journalist into a high level meeting where military operations were being discussed in detail as they were happening on an unsecure platform, with one participant being in Moscow at the time seems to be a real time security breach, no?

Here:

BBC News - Three sensitive messages from Yemen strike Signal chat unpacked and explained
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0q5r7ggnlo

"The idea this wasn't classified information at the time is inconceivable," Glenn Gerstell, the former general counsel of the National Security Agency (NSA), told the BBC. "

Please feel free to attack the source.

[putnam6]

Well, mistakenly inviting a random journalist into a high level meeting where military operations were being discussed in detail as they were happening on an unsecure platform, with one participant being on Moscow at the time seems to be a real time security breach, no?

Oh FFS so you believe the SIgnal Chat shared real-time actionable intelligence that could have been used nefariously by the Houthis. 

Jumping at shadows ...

[Oldcarpy2]

Oh FFS so you believe the SIgnal Chat shared real-time actionable intelligence that could have been used nefariously by the Houthis. 

Jumping at shadows ...

Well, feel free to disagree with the former General Counsel of the NSA, then.

And no, I didn't say I believed that but feel free to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

[Oldcarpy2]

Meanwhile, the World looks on aghast as Trump prepares to launch a stupid trade war on it's friends and allies.....

[putnam6]

Meanwhile, the World looks on aghast as Trump prepares to launch a stupid trade war on it's friends and allies.....

With all thats going on in the world right now, the world still finds the time to be aghast over tariffs. 

One man's tariffs is another man's opening salvo in negotiations, suggesting there is a trade imbalance that really shouldn't exist between allies and if we're going to continue to do business together the imbalance needs to be addressed.

Till the imbalance is addressed there will be tariffs...

for perspective, the US has had tariff "wars" quite a bit, when you research...

• Canada: 5 tariff wars (1870s, 1930s, 1980s, 2018, 2025).
  
• United Kingdom: 5 tariff wars (1790s, 1812, 1860s, 1930s, 2018), though some were less bilateral.
  
• Europe (EU): 6 tariff wars (1890s, 1930s, 1960s, 2000s, 2018, 2019).
  

If one reads through the history one will see these tariffs imposed and countered and then new terms are negotiated. 


https://x.com/i/grok/share/1FOETk0tMs80pqkANz5JpuuFl

The United States has engaged in several notable tariff disputes or "tariff wars" with Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe (often meaning the European Union or its predecessor entities) throughout its history. These conflicts typically involve imposing tariffs or trade barriers, followed by retaliatory measures, escalating into broader trade tensions. Defining a "tariff war" can vary—here, it refers to significant, reciprocal tariff impositions beyond minor disputes. Below is a historical breakdown based on key instances:
United States and Canada
Canada, as a close neighbor and major trading partner, has had recurring trade frictions with the U.S., often escalating into tariff wars:

1. 1870s - Post-Civil War Tariffs: After the U.S. abrogated the 1854 Reciprocity Treaty with Canada (then British North America) in 1866, the U.S. imposed high tariffs on Canadian goods. Canada retaliated with its own tariffs, leading to a period of strained trade relations until negotiations eased tensions in the 1880s.
   
2. 1930s - Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act: The U.S. passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, raising duties on Canadian goods like lumber and agricultural products. Canada responded with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports, deepening the Great Depression’s impact. This tariff war subsided with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.
   
3. 1980s - Softwood Lumber Dispute: Starting in 1982, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, alleging subsidies. Canada retaliated with duties on U.S. goods like books and chemicals. This wasn’t a full-scale tariff war but marked recurring tit-for-tat measures, with flare-ups in 1986 and beyond, resolved temporarily by agreements (e.g., 1986 Softwood Lumber Agreement).
   
4. 2018 - Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Under Trump, the U.S. imposed 25% steel and 10% aluminum tariffs on Canada in June 2018, citing national security. Canada retaliated with $12.6 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods like steel, whiskey, and maple syrup. This ended in May 2019 with the USMCA deal, but it was a clear tariff war.
   
5. 2025 - Current Tariff Conflict: Starting March 4, 2025, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian goods (10% on energy), prompting Canada to retaliate with tariffs on $20.7 billion in U.S. exports. This ongoing dispute, tied to immigration and drugs, qualifies as a tariff war.
   

• Total: At least 5 significant tariff wars with Canada.
  

United States and the United Kingdom
The UK, as a major historical trading partner, has had fewer direct tariff wars with the U.S., especially post-World War II, due to shifting global dynamics and the UK’s EU membership (1973–2020):

1. 1790s - Post-Revolutionary Trade Tensions: After U.S. independence, Britain imposed high tariffs and trade restrictions on American goods (e.g., via the Navigation Acts). The U.S. retaliated with tariffs under the 1789 Tariff Act and later measures, escalating tensions until the Jay Treaty (1794) eased them.
   
2. 1812 - Pre-War of 1812 Tariffs: U.S. tariffs and embargoes (e.g., 1807 Embargo Act) against British goods, alongside British trade restrictions, contributed to the War of 1812. This was more a prelude to military conflict than a standalone tariff war, but trade barriers were central.
   
3. 1860s - Morrill Tariff: The U.S. Morrill Tariff of 1861 raised duties on British manufactured goods. The UK, reliant on U.S. cotton, didn’t directly retaliate with tariffs but shifted trade elsewhere during the Civil War, limiting escalation into a full tariff war.
   
4. 1930s - Smoot-Hawley Again: The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff hit British exports (e.g., textiles). The UK responded with the 1932 Import Duties Act, imposing tariffs on U.S. goods, though this was more a global trade war than a bilateral one, as the UK prioritized its empire.
   
5. 2018 - Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: The U.S. imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on the UK (then in the EU) in 2018. The EU, including the UK, retaliated with tariffs on $3.2 billion in U.S. goods (e.g., Harley-Davidson motorcycles). Post-Brexit, the UK avoided a direct tariff war in 2021 by negotiating a deal with Biden.
   

• Total: Around 5 tariff wars, though some (e.g., 1812, 1860s) blend into broader conflicts.
  

United States and Europe (European Union or Predecessors)
Europe here refers to the EU (post-1993) or earlier collective entities like the European Economic Community (EEC, 1958–1993) and key nations before that:

1. 1890s - McKinley Tariff: The U.S. McKinley Tariff of 1890 raised duties on European goods (e.g., French wine, German machinery). France and Germany retaliated with tariffs on U.S. pork and wheat, sparking a short-lived tariff war until bilateral deals eased tensions.
   
2. 1930s - Smoot-Hawley Impact: The 1930 tariff hit Europe hard (e.g., German industrial goods, Italian citrus). European nations, via the League of Nations and bilateral actions, raised tariffs on U.S. exports, contributing to a global trade collapse.
   
3. 1960s - Chicken War: In 1962, the EEC raised tariffs on U.S. poultry. The U.S. retaliated in 1963 with tariffs on European goods like brandy and trucks (the latter still in place as the "chicken tax"). This was a targeted tariff war, resolved by 1964.
   
4. 2000s - Steel Tariff Dispute: In 2002, Bush imposed 30% steel tariffs on the EU. The EU retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods (e.g., oranges, motorcycles), threatening $2.2 billion in trade. The U.S. lifted the tariffs in 2003 after WTO rulings.
   
5. 2018 - Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Trump’s 2018 tariffs on EU steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) led to EU retaliation on $3.2 billion in U.S. goods. Tensions eased with a 2021 deal under Biden, but it was a tariff war for over three years.
   
6. 2019 - Airbus-Boeing Dispute: The U.S. imposed tariffs on $7.5 billion in EU goods (e.g., wine, cheese) over Airbus subsidies, authorized by the WTO. The EU countered with tariffs on $4 billion in U.S. goods (e.g., Boeing planes) in 2020. This ended in 2021 with a truce.
   

• Total: At least 6 tariff wars with Europe as a collective entity.
  

Summary

• Canada: 5 tariff wars (1870s, 1930s, 1980s, 2018, 2025).
  
• United Kingdom: 5 tariff wars (1790s, 1812, 1860s, 1930s, 2018), though some were less bilateral.
  
• Europe (EU): 6 tariff wars (1890s, 1930s, 1960s, 2000s, 2018, 2019).
  

These counts focus on major, reciprocal tariff escalations. Smaller disputes (e.g., ongoing U.S.-Canada dairy quotas or U.S.-EU banana trade issues) exist but don’t typically rise to "tariff war" status. The U.S. has a long history of using tariffs as leverage, with Canada and Europe frequent targets due to trade volume, while UK conflicts tapered off post-WWII until recent decades.

[Oldcarpy2]

The US UK balance of trade is pretty well balanced:

https://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/2024-s...ce%20hopes.

"ONS trade data reveals an increasingly balanced goods trading relationship with the US as 2024 records smallest trade surplus since 2001 amid President Trump tariff fears."

So why do we deserve a hit?

"One man's tariffs is another man's opening salvo in negotiations, suggesting there is a trade imbalance that really shouldn't exist between allies and if we're going to continue to do business together the imbalance needs to be addressed."

Or just plain bullying.

We don't really have much of a trade imbalance with the US.

[putnam6]

The US UK balance of trade is pretty well balanced:

https://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/2024-s...ce%20hopes.

"ONS trade data reveals an increasingly balanced goods trading relationship with the US as 2024 records smallest trade surplus since 2001 amid President Trump tariff fears."

So why do we deserve a hit?

"One man's tariffs is another man's opening salvo in negotiations, suggesting there is a trade imbalance that really shouldn't exist between allies and if we're going to continue to do business together the imbalance needs to be addressed."

Or just plain bullying.

We don't really have much of a trade imbalance with the US.

The UK doesn't Canada and the EU is another story...

FWIW The UK isn't freaking out and recognizes there are paths to negotiations and I quote "does not want to risk undermining a possible trade deal with Washington" , finance minister Rachel Reeves said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-...025-04-02/

UK won't rush tariff response, Reeves says
22 minutes ago
11:16 EDT

David Milliken and Suban Abdulla 
FILE PHOTO: Rachel Reeves in London, Britain, March 26, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay
Britain will not rush to counter any U.S. import tariffs because it does not want to risk undermining a possible trade deal with Washington, finance minister Rachel Reeves said.
"The government has been really clear that we are going to approach this in a clear-headed way and always represent the national interest," Reeves told lawmakers in parliament.
"It's why myself and the business and trade secretary met with big UK exporters this morning. They don't want government to rush into any response because the prize on offer is an economic agreement. We don't want to do anything that undermines that. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves."
Reeves said London would see how other countries respond to Trump's expected announcement of tariffs before deciding on any retaliatory moves.
The U.S. is Britain's top export market after the European Union, accounting for 21.2% of total exports in 2023, according to Britain's Office for National Statistics.

in other news...

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-eas...025-04-01/

[UltraBudgie]

FWIW The UK isn't freaking out

but but t-man grabbed their waifu by the s#horpe! it is a little over the line. that must be addressed.

Not hearing a single "thank you"?

this is true the raf nee feaf nee eic has been bombing yemen since the 1800s. biden could only hope to be so efficient.



edit: hmm this is what happens when i have a half cup of coffee, okay, please excuse

Gavin Belson: Audious, play John Lennon's Imagine.
Audious: (computer voice) Queuing John Wayne in a mansion.

[Oldcarpy2]

"FWIW The UK isn't freaking out and recognizes there are paths to negotiations and I quote "does not want to risk undermining a possible trade deal with Washington" , finance minister Rachel Reeves said."

Or "Rachel from Accounts" as Private Eye calls her.

We don't really freak out muchly. More like shake heads and "tut".

Let's see what the tw@t actually does.

[Maxmars]

When it comes to "Trade" I always thought that it seemed like a very complicated issue...
not because "I give you a bushel of lettuce, you give me three bucks." is complicated... 

But because once governments start to regulate it, someone else's incidental judgement about your "business" often becomes "the rule."

I don't claim injustice, just that injustice can easily be exploited, and if and when it is, who is to really know?  The public?

The public pays government to "hire" people to "make sure it is all accounted for."
So as long as their employees say "Everything's good!" we have nothing to worry about...
(Although usually, if you ask about the numbers they claim "trade secrets.")

Little by little the "trades" allowed and not "tariffed" (siphoned) become more and more shifted to benefit "some" citizens, rather than "all" citizens.

Suddenly in two countries... some (well-connected) organizations and business concerns are commercially blessed...
Given a finite amount of public funds to "use" that means some deserving support goes without this kind of "fair" help while others profit in earnest...
maybe even outperforming the competition.

And all of this because in some way, governments operate as if they were the 'point of business' instead of as the 'facilitators' of eliminating unfairness and abuse against citizens...
the citizens pay more... not because of a natural "function" of a "market," and the disharmony is only registered at the consumer-level... where none of the beneficiaries actually live.

I think that happens because out 'administrators' are "politically" appointed... they are traditionally drawn from "business prominence" and operate their affairs without perspectives of "public service."  Hence we have career academics in leadership, we have commercially successful big business leadership transplanted into out government, Economic and financial "operators" at play in the fields of the Lord.

Here we are... allowing the politicians to frame and sell narratives... most of which boil own to either the 'entity' "the market," or the ubiquitous "Who knew?" defense.

Yet most people just want grain, meat, and goods... which they are willing to trade fairly for...
There is definitely a fly in that ointment... and it's neither the seller nor the buyer.
Perhaps it's part of the people we allow to "represent everyone else."

Trump's tariff mania is largely a product of the political theater. 

This crap happens non-stop all the time. 
Hell, more than half the diplomatic core were demonstrated by their own communications  to be directly representing specific business concerns and operations...  
(...remember Snowden?  That was the information that get him where he is... that was the "big" secret....
that taxpayers were footing the bill for big business representation in other countries... Thank you political appointments.)

"Trade" is much misunderstood. 

When contextually applied to governments, it all about middlemen... and what grift, or graft, they can carry out and "get away with."