Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 18 2026 19:43 Geiko wrote: I still didn't get an answer from oBlade
What's the best tariffs for Switzerland ? 30% because that's what the trade deficit is ? 39% because Trump didn't like that swiss woman ? Or 15% because swiss business men gave Trump a 1kg gold bar and a rolex ?
Wow that's a lot of numbers to choose from, plus more if we add other numbers like 4, 18, 21, 27, and I'm sure we could think of other numbers. Clearly we can't be 100% certain any one of this ever-increasing set of options for numbers is the exact mathematically perfect answer.
Therefore the correct answer must be 0% by default! Woohoo!
On February 18 2026 19:43 Geiko wrote: Is more tariffs good ? Less tariffs better ? How do the American people benefit from these changes ? Is it ok to choose trade policies based on whether or not someone annoyed you or whether or not someone gave you gifts ? Are you ok with bribery?
So many questions
Going from 30% to 39% because someone doesn't cooperate is exactly right.
They didn't go from 39% to 15% because of a Rolex. Swiss business leaders were not perpetrating an unscrupulous act of open bribery as you imply. This hasn't been some lifelong ploy by Trump to get another Rolex. Literally everything dwarfs a Rolex. These people don't get out of bed for a Rolex. Physical gifts are transferred to the government. If he wants to keep it, he buys it back.
They went from 39% to 15% because Swiss companies pledged to invest $200 billion in the US, $67 billion this year, especially in engineering and pharmaceuticals. And Switzerland recognized US car standards. That's the benefit.
Are you disputing that Trump is corrupt and can be bought or are you disputing that a Rolex + a Goldbar are enough?
There is not a snowballs chance in hell that US car "regulations" will be accepted in Switzerland, if our goverment would actually try to change our laws to accept that, the referendum would get enough signatures to start before Trump could even try to change the deal again. The 200 billion most likely come from the same place as the EU deal. Investments that would have happened anyway (but are in jeopardy due to Trump) or lalaland.
Our child molester president is so weak that people just lie to his face "yeah we're putting $9 trillion into the U.S." when that's like four times their country's GDP and he believes them. I don't know what's sadder, that people still support him despite this or the ones that actually fall for it.
yeah having a manchild President that has a 1815 understanding of economics putting tariffs in a totally erratic way when he is upset is definitely great for the world economic stability and the prosperity of the United States, oblade. Nothing screams investment like not knowing if the toddler in chief will impose you to pay a 30% tariff on whole segments of your supply chain because someone insulted him on X.
On February 18 2026 19:43 Geiko wrote: I still didn't get an answer from oBlade
What's the best tariffs for Switzerland ? 30% because that's what the trade deficit is ? 39% because Trump didn't like that swiss woman ? Or 15% because swiss business men gave Trump a 1kg gold bar and a rolex ?
Wow that's a lot of numbers to choose from, plus more if we add other numbers like 4, 18, 21, 27, and I'm sure we could think of other numbers. Clearly we can't be 100% certain any one of this ever-increasing set of options for numbers is the exact mathematically perfect answer.
Therefore the correct answer must be 0% by default! Woohoo!
On February 18 2026 19:43 Geiko wrote: Is more tariffs good ? Less tariffs better ? How do the American people benefit from these changes ? Is it ok to choose trade policies based on whether or not someone annoyed you or whether or not someone gave you gifts ? Are you ok with bribery?
So many questions
Going from 30% to 39% because someone doesn't cooperate is exactly right.
They didn't go from 39% to 15% because of a Rolex. Swiss business leaders were not perpetrating an unscrupulous act of open bribery as you imply. This hasn't been some lifelong ploy by Trump to get another Rolex. Literally everything dwarfs a Rolex. These people don't get out of bed for a Rolex. Physical gifts are transferred to the government. If he wants to keep it, he buys it back.
They went from 39% to 15% because Swiss companies pledged to invest $200 billion in the US, $67 billion this year, especially in engineering and pharmaceuticals. And Switzerland recognized US car standards. That's the benefit.
Trump doesn't return all the foreign gouvernement gifts he receives even though he is required to. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/donald-trump-foreign-gift/ He technically doesn't have to return private gifts so he can claim everything is. We're also not talking about a Rolex but about a Rolex + a 1kg gold bar worth over 150k.
Do you not agree that accepting very valuable personal gifts in the middle of trade negotiations is akin to bribery ? Do you think the swiss business men would have given him the gifts if there were no negociations happening ?
In general, how would you explain the very high value of gifts given to trump compared to other presidents ? Apple's 24k gold base, Qatari's 400M jet, etc. Is Trump just a likable guy ?
On February 18 2026 22:08 Velr wrote: Are you disputing that Trump is corrupt and can be bought or are you disputing that a Rolex + a Goldbar are enough?
There is not a snowballs chance in hell that US car "regulations" will be accepted in Switzerland, if our goverment would actually try to change our laws to accept that, the referendum would get enough signatures to start before Trump could even try to change the deal again. The 200 billion most likely come from the same place as the EU deal. Investments that would have happened anyway (but are in jeopardy due to Trump) or lalaland.
There’s not really any point to rationalise this behaviour because the Trump Administration does a whole load of signalling solely meant for domestic media. It’s like how Apple/Tim Cook has for like a decade appeased Trump (and Biden iirc) by promising to bring back factories to the US with record breaking investments…only for them to continue to invest in China and elsewhere because Apple isn’t stupid. The US just doesn’t have the infrastructure to provide what they need and China/Chinese media know this.
Remember when Australia got slightly better tariff rates after lifting US beef import restrictions? I have no idea who did the trade negotiations but Australia got away like a bandit by giving the Trump Administration a meaningless win in return for lower tariffs.
US beef is an amazingly uncompetitive product in a market flooded with cheaper, higher quality domestic beef at the lower end and comparably priced and even higher quality Japanese A4/A5 beef in the high end. No Australian or Australian business is touching US beef because it just doesn’t make financial sense. In fact, Trump reduced the tariffs on Australian beef imports in November 2025 because US beef shortages were putting so much price pressure on domestic beef products.
I imagine a similar sort of situation will happen with the Swiss “recognising” US car standards. Like you highlight, Swiss politics and bureaucracy will stall the “recognition” of US car standards for so long that the idea might as well not exist. A normal administration would probably be aware of this but this administration doesn’t give a shit so long they get the headline to sustain the aesthetic of “winning”.
I posted, a 10 or so pages ago, when someone else was trying to do the "NATO is stronger because of Trump and Trump is good for NATO" shtick a very easy to read and obvious graph:
Military spending in EU as a % of GDP started to go up and above before Trump came into power and after Russia seized Crimea. Over his first term it was roughly the same and it only really started going up to 2 % after Russia invaded Ukraine.
NATO as an organization has never been weaker because it has a belligerent moron threatening to seize territory from a member state while he and his toadies are insulting the soldiers who died for NATO.
EU has been growing stronger militarily because they realized that yes, a land war in Europe is possible after WW2 because insane narcissists like Putin and Trump exist, so they began spending accordingly.
None of that is something Trump can take credit for, even as "centrists" such as oBlade who doesn't really have a coherent political identity other then "I like whatever Tucker Carlson told me to" twist themselves into knots to try to prove otherwise.
I‘m surprised a phrase like abab - all billionaires are bastards hasn‘t established itself yet.
In light of how hard they meddle to interfere with the release of the files it should be a given at this point.
They even meddle in Europe or straight up corrupt politicians and target citizens who oppose them and it‘s absolutely insulting to let these guys even close to our soil.
As if it were a secret that they do it to undermine our democratic system because of some fucked up beliefs they follow.
There‘s literally no guarantee that what my country has been doing hasn‘t been total horseshit for years because there‘s a guy in Germany with ties to this billionaire and this chancellor with ties to that billionaire. It‘s a literal swamp.
On February 19 2026 00:32 Vivax wrote: I‘m surprised a phrase like abab - all billionaires are bastards hasn‘t established itself yet.
In light of how hard they meddle to interfere with the release of the files it should be a given at this point.
They even meddle in Europe or straight up corrupt politicians and target citizens who oppose them and it‘s absolutely insulting to let these guys even close to our soil.
As if it were a secret that they do it to undermine our democratic system because of some fucked up beliefs they follow.
Calling them "the Epstein class" seems to have some effect. The average person is evidently not very good at visualizing very large numbers like a billion dollars, but emphasizing they're above the law, and so bored and nihilistic that they have to do taboo things like traffic children just to get their kicks--that's something that disgusts everyone except for diehard MAGAts.
I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another.
The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this:
In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams.
They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck).
Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25.
I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud:
Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened.
By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at.
I asked a simple question and it required a simple answer. Instead I get ignored because of course, the answer is inconvenient to the arguments being made.
Keep on pontificating
Boris Johnson is on record saying Putin would not have attacked Ukraine if Trump were in office
On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote: I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another.
The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this:
In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams.
They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck).
Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25.
I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud:
Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened.
By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at.
The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes.
One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society.
It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why.
Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that.
No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them.
On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote: I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another.
The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this:
In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams.
They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck).
Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25.
I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud:
Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened.
By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at.
The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes.
One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society.
It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why.
Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that.
No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them.
Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump.
This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going.
Some of the crazy weirdos that support everything he said during his campaign are prolly upset. For any pragmatist Mamdani's policy reversal is the right move.
it is unfortunate 16 people had to freeze to death to bring Mamdani to this practical common sense measure.
I can't wait for the "fast and free" buses. I wonder how he is going to make the buses fast? LOL
He's been mayor less than two months and he hasn't solved homelessness yet. What did I even vote for? I mean, it's not like he promised to end the Ukraine War in 24 hours after election night or something.
On February 19 2026 03:00 Jankisa wrote: Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that.
No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them.
You‘re not safe from them or the buddies they pump with money or information even abroad. That‘s honestly what gets me going the most.
US billionaires and the mountains of lies they spin with help of their subsidiaries oversea are a security hazard, nothing less.
If they consistently break the law behind their corporate wall, that should earn them more than a fine or several, it should correctly label their companies criminal organizations.
Of course they can force acceptance of their presence on our soil here with all the threats the president issues and the coverups he does for them.
On February 19 2026 03:42 LightSpectra wrote: He's been mayor less than two months and he hasn't solved homelessness yet. What did I even vote for? I mean, it's not like he promised to end the Ukraine War in 24 hours after election night or something.
do you read this stuff or just gloss over the headlines? None of the winter time measures enacted by Adams or Mamdani is employed to "solve" the homeless problem. Eric Adams enacted these policies to stop homeless people from freezing to death. Mamdani temporarily abandoned those policies. 16 people froze to death. Then, Mamdani abandoned his promised policies made during the election and went back to the Adams approach.
On February 19 2026 01:42 Jankisa wrote: I like the Epstein class; it does seem like, especially in the US, where the problem of money influencing politics, well, not just politics, everything is the most extreme, almost all of these tech oligarchs have some connections with Epstein, one way or another.
The other thing that connects them is their utter lack of philanthropy, a very good article on this:
In total, the nation’s top 25 philanthropists have donated $275 billion so far in their lifetimes, an uptick of $34 billion over last year. That’s a huge sum but represents just 14% of their combined fortunes, the smallest percentage since 2021. One notable fact: six of the top 25 are solo women; another 11 are husband and wife (or ex-husband and wife) teams.
They don't care, at best they will give their wives some money to throw around (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Zuck) who will then basically give this to schools or programs trying to cure diseases they had someone in their families suffer from (Sergey Brin) or their pet "AI will solve everything" projects (Zuck).
Musk, of course, despite being the "richest" on paper, doesn't even break the top 25.
I think that one of the reasons why AOC triggered our "centrist" compatriots here and why they went on to attack her so rabidly is because she has the balls to go after the real enemy and say it out loud:
Basically, everything most of us agree is the issue for most people, no anti-trust, money in politics, companies and individuals having more money than nation states. Of course, they went after her and decided to go on the attack; they felt threatened.
By them, I mean the Fox News and the rest of the media, both social and legacy, which, of course, our resident "centrists" lapped up and came here to attack, because that is the level they operate at.
The ones in the top 25 also mostly just give the money to themselves. Basically, they donate to charities they functionally control to avoid that money being given to the government in taxes.
One of the things exposed in the (shamefully underexposed) Panama and Pandora Papers was that the US is basically one of the best places in the world to hide your wealth from the rest of society.
It's a bipartisan problem, but "Dynasty Trusts" (which I presume most people have never heard of) might be among the most preposterous examples of why.
Oh, absolutely, I mean, I'm aware of this, I believe most people are, some are just way worse about it, and some don't even care enough to try to project a philanthropic image to even do that.
No one disagrees that billionaires are a bipartisan issue, the difference is that, just like Musk doesn't even pretend to care about anyone other than himself, Republicans dedicate their whole party platform to protecting them and shoving as much money into their coffers as they can, while Democrats at least try to pretend like they don't and some of them are even openly opposed to them.
Both parties (or the capitalist uniparty) leadership disagrees. That's part of why one of the worst (and longest) offending states is the political home of the last Democrat president. Nevermind the Clintons, Haiti, and "charity"/"Friends of Bill". Or them partying with Epstein and Trump.
This compulsion to "But the other party?!?!" and to incessantly mock and gawk from Republicans and Democrats is part of how this scam keeps going.
Every time you go on one of these, I'll just post this, because, well, they are executing people in the streets, kidnapping them and taking them to concentration camps:
On February 19 2026 03:42 LightSpectra wrote: He's been mayor less than two months and he hasn't solved homelessness yet. What did I even vote for? I mean, it's not like he promised to end the Ukraine War in 24 hours after election night or something.
do you read this stuff or just gloss over the headlines? None of the winter time measures enacted by Adams or Mamdani is employed to "solve" the homeless problem. Eric Adams enacted these policies to stop homeless people from freezing to death. Mamdani temporarily abandoned those policies. 16 people froze to death. Then, Mamdani abandoned his promised policies made during the election and went back to the Adams approach.
The third paragraph of the article you claim to have read:
"The encampment sweeps will be an interagency effort led by the Department of Homeless Services; under Mr. Mamdani’s predecessor, Eric Adams, the sweeps were led by the Police Department."
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3ymAHlX.png)
![[image loading]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/1832F/production/_88391199_bojoonazipwire.jpg.webp)
![[image loading]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/003/208/785/977.jpg)
