Trump Presidency

[fiksal]

the message with the tariffs is - don't trade with us as we won't trade with you.

the message internally - MAGA doesn't mind taxes as long as their king says so.

one can claim "protecting" local industries/farmers, but I know how it works, I lived in USSR a bit

[Chips]

The unemployment rate doesn’t tell the full story. Many of the lost jobs were manufacturing jobs—high-paying, stable, often union jobs. Those were replaced by lower-wage service-sector jobs. So yes, people may still be employed, but the quality of employment has declined for many. Some people have simply stopped looking for work altogether, and they’re not counted in the unemployment rate.

If China decided to invade Taiwan or anywhere, the rest of the world might as well just fold up their tents and go home. This is an incredibly precarious situation that economic and trade "experts', along with greedy corporations and stupid, lazy politicians have brought us to.

Are those manufacturing jobs still the "high paying" jobs though? A quick google (as what else can I do ) shows the average wage in automative industry of the USA is $28 an hour, which is approx $36 per hour for those employed before 2007, and $18 per hour for those after.

Average US wage overall is $32 per hour. Hardly high paying if it's below the mean... (in the UK I think that would indeed qualify as a well paid job... its above nurses, teachers, and even "junior" doctors).

It feels like the US has a president who looks backwards and wants to recreate the past. It's in the past for a reason...

[matthewfarmery]

A clown who has no idea how anything runs, even Musk is trying to distance himself from Trump over Tariffs. lol

[Incubi]

In 2020 81,283,501 people voted for Biden and 74,223,975 voted for trump. That was a total of 155,507,476 votes. There were 258.3 million people at voting age.
in 2024 75,017,613 people voted for Harris and 77,302,580 voted for Trump. That was a total of 152,320,193 votes. I can't get a solid number for 2024 voting age, but it is a larger number of voting ages than in 2020 while less voters total showed up.
Mostly because of the electoral college a lot of Americas feel that their vote does not count. And a strange thing happened in 2024, the left started to refuse to vote because it would contribute to a system that they did not believe in. I found this odd as the left has always promoted the idea of "get out there and vote, your vote matters" So here are my two reasons for blaming the left for Trumps election. The left stopped being reasonable and they did not vote. This meant Trumps opposition was not sufficiently fighting Trump in the election booth, or with intelligent debate.

So no, Americans did not want Trump, they just did nothing to prevent it. Propaganda is rampant and people are lazy.

I am going to go conspiracy theorist now.
We have all heard of how spies exist who create social unrest, America has them in Russia, Russia has them in America and Iran has them in Americ and America has them in your back yard wherever you are. And it is easier to plant them in the left than the right. There is also right-wing interest being performative on the left and I am sure vice versa as well. Millennials and Generation Z are more susceptible to propaganda because they were practically raised on it. We do not teach enough about how to deal with propaganda in our schools or even how to separate the good from the bad in propaganda. We also do not teach the more important aspects of communication until college. This makes society easy to control.

[clakclak]

Next on the, this time literal, chopping block are America‘s national forests. About half of them just got opened to logging. Sadly I could see national parks being next.

Spurce: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... n-logging/

[Incubi]

Next on the, this time literal, chopping block are America‘s national forests. About half of them just got opened to logging. Sadly I could see national parks being next.

Spurce: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... n-logging/

This one made me actually cry. There is one that I care about very much, Muir Woods, and it better not be touched! Of course I care about all of them, this one I have a very personal connection with.

[chew-ie]

Indeed - it's always sad to see the lifeblood of our species getting axed.

[Chips]

Erm, I'm not even American and I know logging is allowable in US National Forests and has been supported for a century or more. They provide licenses and specify how much, where and what can be taken - as they balance the use/purpose of forests. It's like this is a brand new thing... it isn't. Just a change in how much can be taken. Query if the new quotas are sustainable, and are they taking old wood rather than the "grown for crop" style forests they also manage/have?

If it also reduces wildfire chance and spread, then it could even be a positive. As much as people hate the idea of logging, the reality is an unchecked wildfire will have a far far greater impact than increased, well managed, yet dispersed, logging could ever have...

Always found it ironic that a major corporate coverstory over climate action is "carbon offset" via planting trees... which give them free reign to do sod al about their emissions under the cover "but we grow trees brah". Meanwhile, forest fire goes burrrrrrrrrn through that carbon capture and releases it all as it's horrifically poorly managed (or worse, as with most road projects in the UK that plant trees next to them as an offset... they all die as they stick them in ground, take the money, look good to the public... and ignore. See road near Cambridge where they planted half a million trees as offset, of which the overwhelming majority, like 98%, are dead... as they just stuck in ground and left).

There's more nuance than just a headline.

[Terre]

Cambridge where they planted half a million trees as offset, of which the overwhelming majority, like 98%, are dead... as they just stuck in ground and left).

Auto Shenanigans covered that mess of a project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUR-TQg99pg

[felter]

The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act is an interesting read, and it will be interesting to see if there is any kind of comparison with the Trump tariffs. One of the main outcomes of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was at the next midterms the Republicans lost 52 seats and then 101 seats in the next election, and it didn't get better for them for the next 60 years.

[Incubi]

50% is not a sustainable or well thought out number. This has nothing to do with forest sustainability or responsible logging or safety. Yes, there is a logging process that is even good for a forest, my own beloved redwood forest benefits from this. But that is not what this is. It is just reckless.

[Observe]

50% is not a sustainable or well thought out number. This has nothing to do with forest sustainability or responsible logging or safety. Yes, there is a logging process that is even good for a forest, my own beloved redwood forest benefits from this. But that is not what this is. It is just reckless.

Typical Republican slash and burn. If it moves, kill it. If it grows cut it down. That's been their general policy for as long as I can remember.

[burger1]

Trumps eyeing up using the insurrection act against americans

A bit of a blurb by Bernie Sanders which lightly covers some stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70nHmlapu7w

Trump fires the three aid workers sent to Myanmar to help with earthquake relief. The US could only send three aid workers due to previous firings. China is leading the aid effort.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-a ... rcna199886

trump wants $78m+ military parade.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/politics ... index.html

trump wants to build f-47 fighters that will cost over 300m each

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/politics ... index.html

A blurb from the link: When Lockheed Martin was awarded the F-35 in October 2001, the weapons maker said the program would cost approximately $200 billion. The company’s CEO promised the F-35 would be “capable and affordable” and be produced “on schedule and cost.” More than two decades later, the total cost of the program has exceeded $2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Scotus temporarily suspends a court order to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia who was deported to a terrorist prison in El Salvador. It allows trump to deport people to foreign prisons without due process, etc...

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/politics ... index.html

Former U.S. attorney who opposed trump was found dead of a heart attack at 43

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fo ... rcna197665

trumps trying to blackmail countries in trade war. Wants EU to buy $350b usd of US energy. Likely in a bid to get Canada out of the oil/gas market to put pressure on Canada financially. US might impose port fees on Chinese used freighters.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald- ... ff-relief/

the below would put some ship builders in the US out of business (not that tariffs might not do that anyways).

from another article: THE UNITED States government is considering imposing new fees on Chinese-built vessels operating in US waters. These proposed charges, which could range between US$500,000 and US$1 million per port call regardless of vessel size, are designed to reduce reliance on Chinese-made ships and promote the use of domestically built vessels.


Some products face multiple tariffs on the same item. For example a single product might get one tariff at 25% then another tariff at another 25% since it's covered by more than one tariff.

The cost of manufacturing stuff in the US should skyrocket. Computer repairs, computer sales, etc... will go up by quite a bit.

US might depend on resellers outside China or China's manufacturing plants outside China?

US makes up about ~14.7% of Chinas sales. Asian countries and EU beat that by quite a bit each. ~14.7% is the sales volume not the profits.

trump imposed tariffs on Ukraine but not russia.

There's minimum tariffs. So a $1 item might have a $50 tariff on it. Meant to specifically target sites like shein, temu, etc... that sell cheap Chinese goods/parts.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariff ... 150101d686

From link above: A White House fact sheet said small packages of Chinese products sent through the international postal network will be subject to a duty rate of either 30% of their value or $25 per item, an amount that will increase to $50 per item after June 1.

US is trying to extort the world while robbing it's citizens.

[clakclak]

Erm, I'm not even American and I know logging is allowable in US National Forests and has been supported for a century or more. They provide licenses and specify how much, where and what can be taken - as they balance the use/purpose of forests. It's like this is a brand new thing... it isn't. Just a change in how much can be taken. Query if the new quotas are sustainable, and are they taking old wood rather than the "grown for crop" style forests they also manage/have?

If it also reduces wildfire chance and spread, then it could even be a positive. As much as people hate the idea of logging, the reality is an unchecked wildfire will have a far far greater impact than increased, well managed, yet dispersed, logging could ever have...

Always found it ironic that a major corporate coverstory over climate action is "carbon offset" via planting trees... which give them free reign to do sod al about their emissions under the cover "but we grow trees brah". Meanwhile, forest fire goes burrrrrrrrrn through that carbon capture and releases it all as it's horrifically poorly managed (or worse, as with most road projects in the UK that plant trees next to them as an offset... they all die as they stick them in ground, take the money, look good to the public... and ignore. See road near Cambridge where they planted half a million trees as offset, of which the overwhelming majority, like 98%, are dead... as they just stuck in ground and left).

There's more nuance than just a headline.

Yeah that is the explanation the White House gave. I do not believe for a single second that this about wildfire prevention. Here is why I don‘t believe them.

[Chips]

Yeah that is the explanation the White House gave. I do not believe for a single second that this about wildfire prevention. Here is why I don‘t believe them.

Entirely fine to be sceptical, and fire prevention is not the only reason; the reason was to also increase timber production. That's almost certainly the main, primary, reason.

I'd just point out the questions - as everything is being seen as a huge negative "omg they cut down our national forests..."

1) Wood production - where is it being imported from otherwise? Do they have good woodland management; are they sourcing from old growth natural forests or cared for plantations. Or is this export only, and if so, where do the countries importing it otherwise source their wood from.

2) Is managing the woodlands sustainably and responsibly not maintainable with the increased amount of timber production? Is it currently sustainable and responsible either? Could it even increase the amount of land for national forests/woodland as well?

3) Is a side effect about fire prevention not an acceptable side effect if there's been a negative elsewhere? Should it therefore all be abandoned because there's a negative elsewhere?

While "cutting down more trees!" is seemingly contra to how most of us view things like environmental protections, it needs more examination. I'm all for sourcing more wood in my own country if it's ethically sourced (grown, maintained etc) rather than imported from nations that are illegally felling rain forests to flog the wood from and shipping it to us instead; that may even be causing desertification and damage beyond measure. But it'd need examining.

Similarly, the knee jerk "well, you did X so therefore you can't claim the reverse..." is really not valid either; i'll extrapolate out an absurd example... "You're cutting department(s) A/B/C/D budgets, but boosted spending elsewhere for Department Y. So therefore CLEARLY cuts aren't required and none should be made anywhere, your reasoning is invalid I don't believe they're needed!!".

Things are nuanced. I'd definitely want to know wayyyy more before the blanket "omg this is awful!". It *sounds* awful, but I'd want to know way more and dig way deeper to be sure rather than bandwagon. Of course, i don't for one second believe (1) or (2) played any part in a Trump-led decision. But I'm more interested in the impacts... not reasoning.

[matthewfarmery]

I would call this an act of war,

Trump Weighs Drone Strikes on Mexican Cartels

“The Trump administration is considering launching drone strikes on drug cartels in Mexico as part of an ambitious effort to combat criminal gangs trafficking narcotics across the southern border,” NBC News reports.

Sure, Trump is likely using this as a distraction over the market chaos. But I don't think these cartels, will be too happy with this move, plus civilian casualties will be high. More madness ontop of more madness.

[Alan Phipps]

... or it makes open and official what may probably have already been happening anyway. Who really knows the black operations history - maybe not even Trump and his team? Hopefully the targets were/will be the cartel organisation and not the coerced mules.

[jlehtone]

I would call this an act of war,
...

Doesn't Israel do similar things and call it "justified means in justified war"?

[clakclak]

Yeah that is the explanation the White House gave. I do not believe for a single second that this about wildfire prevention. Here is why I don‘t believe them.

Entirely fine to be sceptical, and fire prevention is not the only reason; the reason was to also increase timber production. That's almost certainly the main, primary, reason.

I'd just point out the questions - as everything is being seen as a huge negative "omg they cut down our national forests..."

1) Wood production - where is it being imported from otherwise? Do they have good woodland management; are they sourcing from old growth natural forests or cared for plantations. Or is this export only, and if so, where do the countries importing it otherwise source their wood from.

2) Is managing the woodlands sustainably and responsibly not maintainable with the increased amount of timber production? Is it currently sustainable and responsible either? Could it even increase the amount of land for national forests/woodland as well?

3) Is a side effect about fire prevention not an acceptable side effect if there's been a negative elsewhere? Should it therefore all be abandoned because there's a negative elsewhere?

While "cutting down more trees!" is seemingly contra to how most of us view things like environmental protections, it needs more examination. I'm all for sourcing more wood in my own country if it's ethically sourced (grown, maintained etc) rather than imported from nations that are illegally felling rain forests to flog the wood from and shipping it to us instead; that may even be causing desertification and damage beyond measure. But it'd need examining.

Similarly, the knee jerk "well, you did X so therefore you can't claim the reverse..." is really not valid either; i'll extrapolate out an absurd example... "You're cutting department(s) A/B/C/D budgets, but boosted spending elsewhere for Department Y. So therefore CLEARLY cuts aren't required and none should be made anywhere, your reasoning is invalid I don't believe they're needed!!".

Things are nuanced. I'd definitely want to know wayyyy more before the blanket "omg this is awful!". It *sounds* awful, but I'd want to know way more and dig way deeper to be sure rather than bandwagon. Of course, i don't for one second believe (1) or (2) played any part in a Trump-led decision. But I'm more interested in the impacts... not reasoning.

You made a good argument here, I am willing to concede that I should have done more research into the topic and that my method of going about this was flawed.

[burger1]

Trump looking at drone strikes on Mexico.

104% tariffs on China. Once prices go up they won't come back down.

EU puts up some tariffs.

Oil price decreases to a very low price. US is #1 supplier of oil and gas.

Scotus says there must be due process in deportations in a 9-0 ruling.

Election results overturned by 2-1 (2 republican judges 1 Democrat judge) in a vote. 68000 votes by the military tossed. Trump new illegally made voter rules should make this more common. Lower courts ruled the other way.

Trump actively looking into deporting US citizens.I

Tariffs on cheap drugs from India coming soon. Might include other countries.

Musk is freaking out due to having a lot of assets in China. And the drugs of course.