|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1338 Posts
On July 15 2026 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2026 01:28 Simberto wrote:On July 14 2026 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2026 23:00 Billyboy wrote:
Only if he dies before selling blanket pardons. Pretty sure the ICC doesn't give a shit about US pardons. Ofcourse the main issue is the US not recognising the ICC, and a Bush era law that the US declares war on the Netherlands if the ICC tries to enforce them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes. It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony.
To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly 
But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part.
This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire.
Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc.
I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'.
|
On July 15 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2026 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2026 01:28 Simberto wrote:On July 14 2026 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2026 23:00 Billyboy wrote:
Only if he dies before selling blanket pardons. Pretty sure the ICC doesn't give a shit about US pardons. Ofcourse the main issue is the US not recognising the ICC, and a Bush era law that the US declares war on the Netherlands if the ICC tries to enforce them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes. It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony. To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part. This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire. Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc. I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'. Trump's the one that asks how international norms and rules help the American interest and how much it's gonna cost. Past Republicans took it as given that free trade and international agreements would always help the US. The left fringe of Democrats ask how American laws can be subordinated to international bodies for the global interest. The moderate/center of the Democrats want increased foreign outlays and foreign agreements funded by the US, but are divided on state sovereignty.
|
Trump doesn't give the slightest fuck about American interests. The only thing Trump cares about is how stuff helps Trumps interests.
|
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote:
I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
|
On July 15 2026 15:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote:
I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved? I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers. You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Why are you arguing this as if Jankisa's criticism is about free trade absolutism? The point against tariffs isn't that they should never exist. It's that they were extremely stupid in the way Trump imposed them. And since SCOTUS overturned their blanket use and ordered them refunded the question is: where do those refunds go?
The people who paid those tariffs are American consumers. But the courts ordered the refunds to the companies. They will put those refunds in their shareholders' pockets rather than discounting their products. It's pretty much guaranteed to be a classic example of socialising the losses and privatising the profits. It'd be better for the American consumer if the government kept the tariffs and did something useful like spending it on those entitlement programs you hate so much, because the way this actually works it is a direct, government mediated extraction of wealth from the consumer class to the capitalist class.
|
On July 15 2026 13:51 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 15 2026 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2026 01:28 Simberto wrote:On July 14 2026 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2026 23:00 Billyboy wrote:
Only if he dies before selling blanket pardons. Pretty sure the ICC doesn't give a shit about US pardons. Ofcourse the main issue is the US not recognising the ICC, and a Bush era law that the US declares war on the Netherlands if the ICC tries to enforce them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes. It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony. To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part. This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire. Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc. I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'. Trump's the one that asks how international norms and rules help the American interest and how much it's gonna cost. Past Republicans took it as given that free trade and international agreements would always help the US. The left fringe of Democrats ask how American laws can be subordinated to international bodies for the global interest. The moderate/center of the Democrats want increased foreign outlays and foreign agreements funded by the US, but are divided on state sovereignty.
I mean it did? It wasn't exactly free trade to being with it's a framework that set up to favour the US but that is "fair enough" so other countries don't struggle to hard against it.
America owns disproportionately more assets abroad than the rest of the world through their companies, they export at lot of high margin products (today a lof of subscription based services and intellectual property) and of course the immense benefit of being the world reserve currency.
It's much easier to have international agreements and a "rules based order" to keep your junior allies in line. Otherwise they might get ideas about restricting national ownership or setting their own import restrictions or tariffs and you have to continually slap them down. It's like whack-a-mole on an international level.
Thing is you also have to take the occasional L once in a while even though the system is set up to your advantage. But Trump refuses to take any L and would rather uproot the entire system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
