It's difficult to imagine lower quality comments. If you asked an AI to generate the lowest quality, most content-free comment thread possible I doubt it could rival the quality of comments on that website.
YC has an obnoxious habit of putting itself above other social networks when in reality its just a haven for spoiled little boys who were constantly told how smart they are and grew up into entitled assholes who think they are better than everyone because they can write some code.
> ... attracting high quality and thoughtful comments either.
Sadly, U.S. politics doesn't attract high-quality thought in general (especially in more recent years), so any discussion surrounding our little three-ring circus cult here isn't likely to be much better than the subject matter bein' discussed. It's all just too crazy to base any sane discussion around.
It is a good thing canadians are so nice. Dropping US alcohol is a tiny thing compared to some of the weapons canada might deploy. Look at all the back-and-forth deals in recent years and you will see an exemption for oil and potash. Think gas prices are high now? See what happens if canada starts shipping less crude. Think food prices are high? See what happens when there is no fertilizer because canada has restricted potash exports. And what will make Musk's head explode: canada is starting to allow cheap chinese EVs into north america. Canadians will be driving them around the US very soon.
> US mines produce roughly 500,000 metric tons of potash per year, only about 8 percent of the 5.9 million metric tons of apparent annual US consumption. The remaining demand is met through imports, producing a net import reliance of about 92 percent. Reflecting the high concentration of global potash production, most of that supply comes from Canada (79 percent), with smaller volumes from Russia (12 percent) and other producers (9 percent) including Israel.
It's a slow moving train wreck. I hope the consequences of these petulant actions scar the minds of voters for years to come. We're seeing the yield on treasuries creeping up, I think that's one of the consequences.
The sentiment here is that nobody wants U.S. citizens to be negatively impacted by trade restrictions or tariffs. We are figuratively and, in many cases, literally friends and family. (Aside, even if our provincial governments allow southern booze back on shelves, it'll stay there.)
It would be decidedly un-Canadian to leverage electricity, potash, or other commodities necessary for survival in trade negotiations -- despite what Ford may suggest. We're nice, but we won't bow to bullies. Elbows up, eh!
> You do realise it's the citizens that voted trump in?
When electing a candidate, not everyone endorses every specific policy of that candidate; casting a ballot does not imply total ideological alignment (nor even full knowledge of all policies), especially in a two-party FPTP electoral system. Many people vote based on broad messaging, loyalty, economic sentiment, or identity instead of in-depth platform analysis. To wit, Latino voters did not realise how helping to push ice-cold reds into power would affect their lives. They simply didn't know or understand. Now they do. Canada's next actions, counter-tariffs, and burgeoning global economic ties I hope will further open the eyes of mislead citizens.
Harris lost the popular vote by 1.5%, which does not a landslide make.
I want them to be negatively impacted. Maybe a couple family members spoke publicly about what’s happening, and the rest remain silent or indifferent. My cousins are too busy with their multi million dollar AI roles to even see us non-millionaires as human.
> nobody wants U.S. citizens to be negatively impacted by trade restrictions or tariffs.
As much as it pains me to say it as an American, little will change unless US citizens are negatively impacted. Trump is losing power and support in the US precisely because people are becoming more aware that he's hurting them.
I see the same thing in Russia. It seems like there is no such thing as a civilian target because getting your opponents citizens to uprise and while yours to support you is the key strategy now.
Except i think the American heart and minds campaign in Vietnam was lip service to a campaign that was measured by body count, and dead non combatants can’t litigate their combat status, so McNamara was befuddled the USA was “winning” and losing every square inch where there were not American soldiers in force. That there was no equivalent to insurgent Viet Cong embedded in North Vietnam says everything.
And what will make Musk's head explode: canada is starting to allow cheap chinese EVs into north america
Another Musk moment: most aluminum in the US comes from Canada. Most of Musk's vehicles are built with aluminum. These tariffs will directly increase Tesla manufacturing cost in the US, making them even less competitive.
Just one of about a billion reasons why annexation is inevitable (and, really, should have happened two centuries ago).
PS - It will make your head explode that Tesla has competed quite well versus the likes of BYD in China for some time. That's why Musk sought to renew the US EV subsidies; he calculated that Tesla would be able to survive in the post-subsidy market better than rivals, and that's turned out to be the case.
Annexation is inevitable. And no, I'm not talking about a military invasion (Trump explicitly ruled that out when speaking of annexation, instead stating "economic force"); I'm stating geopolitical inevitability. That you don't like it does not change my expectation, or the facts behind said expectation.
I forgot to add that, reading over the entire discussion as opposed to the subthread you linked to, about 0% of the hysterical nonsense people talked about actually happened. Canadians were not "hoovered" up en masse in the US and the US economy did not collapse (while Canada entered into a recession (sorry, "technical recession") in Q2). As for visits to the US, as of March 2026 <https://www.trade.gov/i-94-arrivals-program> (I haven't checked since), Canadian visits to the US were down yoy, but overall visits to the US are up 4% yoy for the month and are flat yoy ytd. So the rest of the world never did share in "elbows up".
Annexation is illegal and will not occur. A charitable interpretation of your comment is that you intended to use the word accession.
Accession was the likely inevitable outcome up until the reelection of the current President but after the American people expressed their continued support for a systemically corrupt gerontocracy and all that this entailed this kind of willing and amicable outcome has been taken off the table and likely will be for several generations. I get a sense that the general sentiment that Canadians are feeling regarding American attitudes and actions right now is outright betrayal and condemnation.
As for annexation it's important to keep in mind that this would be an illegal act of aggression against a peaceful ally and that it runs counter to everything that America claims to stand for. I'm skeptical that it would even be possible at this point, and I don't see a way that it could be done without military action.
Annexation is a pretty drastic thing to suggest too, how are you thinking it will unfold? Are you talking about something impending by the end of this decade or a multi-decade sort of thing? What happens if Canada resists? And what about other countries?
Something that I think is often overlooked is that there is a true appreciation in Europe for the Canadian sacrifices made in the World Wars and that these sacrifices have tied our countries together. I also think that you've underestimated the resolve of the Canadian people and how much they are incensed by these recent actions taken by America.
I'm sure you have a really neat and clean geopolitical analysis for why annexation is inevitable that factors in the geographic realities and economic / military disparities between the two countries and I'd love to read it but I'm quite certain that's likely to be just one big McNamara Fallacy.
Yes, let us look up the US law that prohibits annexing additional land or another country.
>A charitable interpretation of your comment is that you intended to use the word accession.
A charitable interpretation of your comment is that you think "annexation" = "hostile takeover of territory". (Hint: The US annexed Hawaii and Texas after their governments agreed.)
>As for annexation it's important to keep in mind that this would be an illegal act of aggression against a peaceful ally
Beyond your pointless repetition, as I said:
>I'm not talking about a military invasion (Trump explicitly ruled that out when speaking of annexation, instead stating "economic force"); I'm stating geopolitical inevitability.
(And no, Dutch gratefulness for Canadians helping to liberate their country in WW2 != waves of Dutch paratroopers landing on Halifax beach to help liberate Canada from Adolf Trump.)
If trade can be used to eliminate a nation's sovereignty, was that sovereignty ever real in the first place?
The US also provides healthcare to EU as they don’t bother with defense spending. The first step to universal health care is letting in millions of migrants.
There's a good opportunity to use that tariff money and subsidize critical exports to everywhere but USA. Europe gets cheaper minerals and Trump gets left begging China for scraps at insane prices.
If you want political gestures then impose heavy sanctions on Israel and declare that Latinos can get refugee status in Canada because of ICE. That would be an economic win too.
But the Canadian government wants to be the 51st state. They have rapidly defunded social services, expanded fossil fuels and will adopt US style militarization. In fact, purchasing those munitions from the only country that has threatened to take it over.
People here in Canada have not been sitting still. It is a truely fantastic oportunity, it's almost like 10% of the US market was suddenly transported to another country for free, and all we have to do is fill it.
You cannot negotiate with a country that doesn’t stand by its word.
All other issues aside, Trump and the Republicans love to boast that they aren’t bound by anything including their own promises. This is the end result of that.
You’d be mad to cut a deal with the US right now. The Trump Admin will just try to take another bite. They are dishonest and unreliable. Making America’s word mean nothing is the greatest long term damage done to the country and the surest indicator of the end of the American Century (80 years but we can round up)
It has to do with how America politically structured. The trade nego change every 1-2 terms. China is much more consistent in this, and will scrap all markets from America in the long term. I simply dont see America able to force a Plaza Accord out of this. Japan fizzled because of that. But China wont. And China now backed by Russia, world powerhouse of fossil and minerals. Russia has way more natural reserve than what Venezuela America and Middle East officially published.
At some point , looking at all the damage, it becomes hard to dismiss Trump as merely unintelligent and incapable. The other possibility is that the destruction deliberate, and the goal to end US hegemony. Would things proceed any differently if it were?
Much of the self-destruction flowed from the pages of Project 2025. You can't just blame Trump: you have to include the Heritage Foundation and the entire Republican party.
This is not a problem that goes away when Trump ultimately leaves office.
I'm willing to give his base some benefit of the doubt, given how heavily propagandized they are via Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, Sinclair Broadcast Group, etc.
On the campaign trail, Trump disavowed any connection to Project 2025 when it was leaked, and I suspect most of his base took him at his word. To anyone not trapped inside the right-wing media bubble, that is somewhere between naive and insane, of course, but people inside the bubble don't live in the same reality as the rest of us.
However, your response does remind me of an important point: two other rather large, looming threats which need addressing are media consolidation and money in politics.
We are leaving the time when trust allowed trade agreements that went beyond the maximum minimum with the US. Trust allowed countries to make agreements with the US that had obvious potentials for exploitation, but overall they were followed to the greater benefit of both. Trust enabled that. Now the US has decided to break trust and countries know it. That lost premium means a major loss in value to both sides but ultimately the US will be the biggest looser because the other algorithm here is tit for tat. In a world economy, countries that cooperate will thrive and those that exploit will fail. We are seeing completely uneducated, emotion driven, economic policy play out.
Everything the current US administration has done has been an unmitigated disaster. Tariffs are taxes. Manufacturing is still declining, not returning and a man who could not run casinos successfully is not going to change that. His economic and foreign policy are dictated entirely based on who flatters him the most. Add to that continued environmental damage, domestic policy dictated by a regressive religious minority and a lack of interest in performing the duties of the position in favor of caring about only what it can be leveraged for. A failing state operating on grievances and stupidity.
This is where the democrats need to smarten up. They should be hammering “tax and spend” Trump, 24x7.
The baseline Republican base doesn’t give a shit about the more extreme racist stuff, they don’t care about women being raped, etc they tolerate it. But they hate paying taxes above all else.
Trump closed the stretch IRA loophole in 45, and implemented the largest tax increase in recent history with the tariff regime. Only the really rich people and real estate folks get the big tax breaks.
If someone asks Chuck Schumer what the weather is like, he should say: “It’s a good summer day, but it would be a great one if tax and spend Trump released the Epstein files”
The weak kneed leadership will be getting replaced by the populist message of Trump but coming from the left, people like Mamdani, the DSA candidates, etc.
The people clearly want leaders who will say : we will use political tools to help the economic situation of the poor and middle class.
Everyone from Jon Ossoff to Angie Nixon has some version of this message and its resonating
DSA are not "democrats". DSA's agenda is socialism via the democratic process (vs. with a violent revolution, the way we typically get there). There is nothing between their agenda and principles and those of the traditional Democrats. The DSA wants to abolish the existing US democratic process.
Socialism (to contrast with social-democrats like some European nations which are primarily democracies, free markets, with a social component) is not a democracy those are opposing ideas.
> The DSA wants to abolish the existing US democratic process.
That reads as though you’re saying they want to abolish the democratic process, but as somebody living in a country with many of the democratic processes they’re proposing, looking in on what seems like a very dysfunctional democratic process in the US, it seems to be that they want to replace it with a much better version of itself.
You can't just go and change everything. There are always unexpected consequences.
The US process is far from ideal. I agree with that. I'm not American and looking from the outside there's a lot of head scratching I can do.
But- It's worked pretty well over the last few hundred years. You can't just take that and throw it in the garbage and replace it with some "workers will decide" socialist mumbo-jumbo.
Seriously. It doesn't work. You can't say let's take Germany's process and apply it in the US. It won't work. We should know better. There is a delicate balance of power (arguably already somewhat disrupted) and there is a culture and a history. That's why we also can't just bring "democracy" to non-democratic countries that easily.
The DSA are saying let's break everything and then figure it out. It won't work. We need responsible adults not revolutionaries to fix things with care.
I don't think so. I'm not an expert and I'm not an American. I did read their web site, I listen to what their candidates are saying and doing. I could very well be wrong. But when they say "socialism" there are two or three options. The first is they don't understand what that word means. The second is they do understand what that word means. The third is they've redefined this word. We already had a word for what people want, it's social-democratic, not socialism. So if they called themselves social-democrats and not socialists I would support them and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control."
What are they not saying? They are not saying things like we should raise taxes to fund social programs so we can be more like Europe. Europe is capitalist. Europe has free markets. DSA opposes capitalism. DSA wants to, in their words: "We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation.".
What am I not understanding? Barrack Obama wanted accessible healthcare for all, he was not DSA. That's an awesome idea for the US that Democrats rallied behind and partly failed. Show me in DSA's words, material and action, how they are really social-democrats who just want more vacation, healthcare, worker protection while still maintaining capitalist free markets - like Europe. I mean they want all that but not in that way.
The world has moved forward. There was slavery in many places.
I had a similar discussion in real life. Where we concluded it that Roe vs. Wade being overturned was the biggest step backwards. Most of the other stuff is noise but this one is a biggy that's hard to fix. It sucks for Americans (which I'm not but I was debating an American).
Nobody is saying we can't let workers decide. Most of us are workers. Most of us vote. We are deciding. The US has also made progress on workers' rights at the state level to my understanding. At the end of the day we still have to lean on the democratic process, we need to debate policies and we need to get people to think critically and think things through. This is very hard to do today given the public discourse and tribalism.
While many people find the Leftist route of saving the country, the right route makes more sense to me. Reduce taxes to near zero - eliminate minimum wage - it's a recipe for starting companies. The left's answer is to destroy all companies. People think a company will exist in a leftist controlled world, but they're dead wrong.
Clearly a social component can exist within a democracy, European nations are an example of this? Are there any proposals more radical than European-adjacent style social policies?
As a citizen of one of the European countries you mentioned, let me tell you: The DSA would run as a center-left party in pretty much the entire union. You have—respectfully—not a clue what socialism means, because the DSA agenda has absolutely nothing in common with communism in the first place.
I disagree. When I moved from Finland to the US, I was surprised to find how popular actual "abolish private property" style socialism was among young Americans. I hanged out with leftist people when I was a student, and I kind of knew many of the people who eventually ended up running the Left Alliance (the main left-wing party). My impression was that they had all accepted free markets as a necessary evil, rather than advocating for the socialism of their predecessors. But it looks like Finnish students have started adopting American socialist ideas in the recent years.
Bernie is probably the most well-known democratic socialist in the US, but he is not a member of DSA. By his political positions he would be either in the left wing of Finnish Social Democratic Party or in the mainstream of the Left Alliance. He would probably choose the Left Alliance, since it is more like a coalition of like-minded activists, while the party is the primary actor for the Social Democrats.
AOC, another well-known democratic socialist, would also fit in the Left Alliance. She is part of the moderate wing of DSA. But if you start looking into the ideological wing, you find plenty of actual socialists who would make Finnish mainstream leftists uncomfortable.
I would argue that the USA suffers from its bipartisan system in a lot of ways; among them the problem of two parties having to span an incredibly wide range of political positions that are often so far apart to be almost irreconcilable. I'm pretty sure you will find some people with uncomfortable positions at the fringe seams of the Left Alliance as well, they are just organised in a very different system compared to the US and do not have the momentum to rally around these positions right now.
Fringe groups tend to start new political parties in the Finnish system. There are still two communist parties left, both offshoots of the pro-Soviet minority of the original communist party. One of them even has the official status of a political party, but probably not for long, as it lost its last seats in the 2021 local elections.
DSA is its own party; DSA affiliated candidates only run as democrats because the US system basically all but disallows third party success. I guarantee you that DSA members would not associate themselves with neoliberal Democrats at all, given the choice.
I don't know enough about the Tea Party to confidently give my opinion, I am a bit too young to have been politically aware when they were in their heyday as far as I know.
Smartening up would have been the Democratic Party ejecting Swalwell because he was a known creep. Instead he was the front runner for the CA Governor until like a couple months before the election when scandal, NOT the party cleaning house, took him out.
> he populist message of Trump but coming from the left, people like Mamdani, the DSA candidates, etc.
Leading but honest question: Are those candidates the same as Trump? I do not see how they share anything other than strategy and spin, and those things don't make policy.
If that is confusing to you, you are probably not ready for politics :-) Politicians act with hypocrisy or twisted plans (where the most straightforward conclusion is not necessarily the truth) all the time. Random example from yesterday: the same person who said 19 T deficit is too much before being elected, contributed to moving the deficit to above 40 T.
However, I also highly doubt Schumer would be in Epstein files. People seem stuck on the meme that being in Epstein files is the main reason why someone acts one way or another. This degenerate over-simplification has to stop.
I really don't want people to be left with the impresion that this is Democratic Party incompetence. It is not. They are complicit in pretty much everything the Trump administration has been doing. They know what works. Just do what Obama did in 2008 and run on a populist economic platform. They don't want to do that. It's a choice, not incompetence.
If Chuck Schumer is asked about the weather, he'll first check with Netanyahu.
Just look at what Senatorial campaigns Schumer supports and doesn't. There's a lot of suspicion that Schumer (and the DSCC) is going to leave Abdul El-Sayed out to dry because he's anti-Israel, basically. Mandela Barnes got similar treatment in 2022. And yet you have blockbuster challenges like Jaime Harrison's, which spent $130M to oust Lindsey Graham. He lost by 10. Trump won by 12 so I guess he gained 2? Well done, everybody, the system works.
Oh and what did the DNC do with Jaime Harrison after he spent $130M to lose by 10? They made him the DNC Chair. The Democratic Party loves a loser. Just like Howard Dean.
The vast majority of sitting Democratic senators voted against funding for Israel this year.
The DSCC funding is a drop in the bucket of the overall funding in these races, and they have their own goals which may or may not be aligned with the party as a whole.
If your single issue is Israel funding (which it probably shouldn’t be but that is your choice), the Democratic Party and presidents did far more to reign in Israel’s behavior than republicans.
You need to realize just how performative most votes in Congress are. The Democrats, for example, will vote for all sorts of progressive policies when they know they won't pass. For example, Kamala Harris was a co-sponsor on a Medicare for All Bill. She didn't run on that in 2024. What's the difference? Well if she won in 2024, she might have to deliver on it. In 2019, Trump was in the White House so there's zero chance it would pass.
Republicans do this too. Two of the seats they're at most risk of losing are Maine and Alaska held by Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (respectively). They currently have 53 votes (well, 52 with Mitch McConnell MIA). That means they can pass things with 50 votes (and JD Vance's tie break) on anything that can get past or doesn't require cloture (eg approving judicial nominations, reconcilation). So, every time you have a controversial nomination or bill, you'll often find Collins and Murkowski vote no because their votes aren't needed. The leadership is insulating them from attack. But when their votes are needed, they're there (eg Collins's required vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh).
As for the number of Democratic senators who voted against weapons for Israel, it is significant because it never would've happened 5 years ago, but it's also mostly performative because there's no way it was going to pass.
As another example, Democrats did a rare move to invoke the filibuster last year to stop ICE funding. This resulted in a government shutdown and important programs being punitively defunded (eg there was a reserve fund for food stamps that was intentionally not tapped). What happened? The Republicans needed 60 votes to force a vote. There were 52 votes. 8 Democratic senators crossed the floor to vote with Republicans. That's so weird. It's the exact number required. What a coincidence. Whatever that number was, 1, 5, 8, 12, it doesn't matter. There will most of the time be that number of exact senators requried. This, by the way, is part of the rotating villain role within the Democratic Party.
This is how calculated it was. All 8 of those who crossed the floor were either retiring or they weren't up for re-election in 2026 so the voters couldn't punish them. John Ossoff, the current liberal darling, was going to be one of the 8 but he's facing re-election this year so Chuck Schumer whipped another vote to replace him.
Another classic example was the Epstein transparency act. Trump threatened members who signed the discharge petition. Mike Johnson actually shut down the House for 7 weeks to try and get those that did to change their vote. yet when the discharge petition got 218 votes (the minimum required), suddenly the votes in the House and Senate were almost unanimous. Well, if support was almost unanimous, why not just have a vote to begin with?
Mitch McConnell can really be credited with pioneering a new era of obstruction in the Senate. He realized there was a political cost to some votes. Some things were popular and he didn't want to pass them so he'd just make sure they never made it to the floor for a vote.
So my point is that imagine the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House in 2029 and that same Israel funding bill came up. Will all those Senators and House representatives vote for it when it might pass and become law? Nope.
I'd argue more largely that the right is a loose coalition of people with differing goals...whether it's conservatism, lower taxes, anti immigration, religious right, etc. I'm reminded how my econ professor would say that hardened bootleggers and hardcore Christians would pretend to be friends just long enough to vote to keep alcohol illegal.
I feel like the Dems should have an easy time in the next elections if they don't fumble it given the current state of things. On the other hand, they seem to purity test each other in ways that make such a coalition harder to attain.
The Republican base doesn’t give a shit about “tax and spend” either. For all their hand-wringing about deficit spending, Republican administrations have for decades been the party of excessive spending and ballooning deficits.
They’ve demonstrated over and over that their core principles don’t actually exist, and are simply maxims that they have heard often enough that they blindly parrot them back.
> The baseline Republican base doesn’t give a shit about the more extreme racist stuff, they don’t care about women being raped, etc they tolerate it. But they hate paying taxes above all else.
Honestly wild opinions to have. Watch 30 seconds of fox news. A significant chunk of their coverage is about protecting women and children from migrants/pedos/trans people. They want a tough on crime executive branch almost as much as they want low taxes.
I recommend this short piece, "The Missing Mood"[0]. It describes the concept that the motive and behavior of someone as it relates to a proposed set of actions is important. e.g. Someone proposing war might be correct, but one hopes a war hawk laments the need to go to war, vs. celebrating it and being bloodthirsty.
Fox News ideology may at times declare opinions that, in complete isolation, might seem reasonable. "Border control", "safe streets", "responsible government" etc. But they approach it from a place of exaggeration and lies, and an outright visceral anger and hatred toward migrants, trans people, etc. They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Such as ignoring GOP sex offenses, GOP bribery in the oval office, unconstitutional actions by their executive, or needless wars that cost half a trillion dollars and weaken the US' national security.
So I agree with your parent comment, that Fox News and many of its viewers pick and choose what to say they're angry about, either out of intellectual dishonesty or, in the case of the viewer, outright ignorance or deeper thought about the whole picture of the government and society right now.
I implore you to simply talk to a few conservatives living normal lives in the real world. I am related to many and grew up in the south. I assure you, most are not nefarious.
> They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Such as ignoring GOP sex offenses, GOP bribery in the oval office, unconstitutional actions by their executive, or needless wars that cost half a trillion dollars and weaken the US' national security
Conservatives, above all else, assume everyone in government is corrupt and terrible, hence wanting smaller government. That they can't reconcile that with their love of social security is a matter of self preservation, not malice.
I do know several, including my dad, who when talking to him about life, love, poetry or movies is a nice guy, and doesn't wish harm on the people he meets.
But he lacks empathy for groups of people he's never interacted with, and ultimately, if they vote for Donald Trump or his enablers, they either believe a lot of lies told to them by media claiming to be on their side, or they aren't as good of people as they themselves think they are.
Respectfully, my quote and your rebuttal have nothing to do with each other. Nice people can be hypocrites and ignoramuses, which is what one must be to willfully support the GOP in almost any race in the country at this critical time.
edit to add some stories:
---
I'm in Texas.
My relative tried delta 8 and liked it. He doesn't drink alcohol much anymore because of headache and urinary stuff. He took a little and he laughed more, relaxed, and enjoyed some movies. My mom took it for her body aches and she said it helped with pain and made cooking dinner a little more fun.
Now they'd both be felons. I told my relative that they would be felons for having any, and that I too would be one for using this cheap, safe drug. I joked that maybe he could at least vote Dem for Texas Lt. Gov. to kick out the moronic criminal who pushed the new law.
He said "No, I'll never vote Democrat". He talks about trans people being a problem. He's never knowingly met one. He says they should be left alone, but shouldn't in sports or adopt kids.
He has no idea what kinds of laws are being created to wipe trans people from legal existence across the country, and he's fine supporting felons and criminals and people who want me to be in jail for using delta-8. When I told him about one of Trump's proven criminal acts (taking $500 million from the UAE buying stock in his cryptocurrency clearinghouse) he said he didn't believe it. When I talk about Trump's sex trafficking scandals and Epstein, he's silent. When I ask about the Iran war, he's silent.
He would rather his nephew be a felon for a safe and decade-long-legal drug than vote for a Democrat, because of lies and hatred he watches on Fox news from his middle-of-nowhere plot of land where he interacts with about five people a year for the last two decades.
I could go on about how he rants about socialism as he considers using Meals on Wheels, or how his wife got Medicare-funded palliative care for almost no money out of pocket, or any other number of things. But he, living in rural Texas, mentions Mamdani's "communism" for considering opening a few publicly-operated grocery stores in a city of 10 million people.
---
I have to re-iterate: I know many GOP people are good people. I certainly don't hold them to the same individual responsibility for the ongoing coup of the federal government for which I hold the elected politicians. Many are duped by Fox News, and many more are checked out of the daily updates of crimes committed and norms broken. But that's what's happening, and I refuse to acknowledge any merit of an argument for supporting Republicans in elections until the threat from Trumpism is eliminated, the government repaired and patched against the vulnerabilities exploited, and the Democrats screw up royally somehow again.
Because they need SS and medicare, which is most spending at this point. The only choice in the last 40 years, that would have actually decreased spending, was Rand Paul, and he got crushed.
Huh? Check out the Twitter feeds of your favorite Republican or Republican-aligned personalities. It's racial or nationalistic dog whistles all day every day.
That's a part of the whole issue, isn't it? People have been trained to disregard (and disrespect) nuanced factual information un favor of political platitudes.
Many of the findings of mkultra and adjacent clandestine programs of the 20th century are about precisely how to steer the mindsets of large groups of people with psychological trauma.
This might stem from the simple fact that the average American is constantly getting screwed. It's just a sliding scale of how badly.
Both parties are against them, owned by oligarchs and mega donors that are actively trying to increase the wealth gap and make average Americans fight each other over the petty dilemma of the week, rather than the real fight of the whole country vs maybe a couple thousand ultra rich douchebags.
I don't think it's helpful to suggest that "both sides" are equal in American politics, but I do think you have to be a least a little understanding that the democrats aren't an attractive alternative to most Americans. I'm afraid a pretty large minority of Americans have landed in the lose-lose position of "if i can't make it better, i might as well make it worse faster".
My Bangladeshi immigrant mom and her sister are complaining on Facebook that they were "good Democrats" until "Obama, AOC, and Bernie" brought their "radicalism." Democrats wave away this stuff as "performative," but people feel it viscerally and it subdivides and splits the coalition.
Most people don't vote based on policies and data. They are naturally skeptical about whether your five-point plans are actually going to have the intended effect. Instead, they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are.
> they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are.
You can't really simplify it to such a degree. I believe humans are creatures of action. We like it when things happen. Sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, our morals are downstream of that desire to "be effective". We will align ourselves, no matter the violence we have to do to our own senses, with what is useful.
Specifically, their willingness to skeptically engage with your five-point plan demands that you're actually able to execute it. If you categorically can't make anything happen, then people will cling to an explanation and a morality that can. American democracy has been at a standstill for upwards of 30 years, If the American people have to believe that all their politicians are pedophiles to get some sort of movement again. Then that's what they are going to believe.
Kind of funny that most Republicans wouldn't even consider you or your parents to be Americans while your family is concerned about "radical Democrats."
According to polls democrats are the worse side, they are the most unpopular party maybe in history and are at an extreme low in terms of their approval rating. Trump is almost 20% more popular than the Democratic Party and they are polling below AI and ICE, they are right around the same approval rating with the American people as Iran.
And still they refuse to back down on a number of policies that have been proven to be extremely unpopular.
Part of that is because progressives also hate the Democrats for being hypocritical and/or ineffective. Doesn't mean they're going to vote for an R, though.
Not based on the special election results the past year, and primary turnout along with gains in polling numbers of Democrats compared to their Republican counterparts. Just look at Texas, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, even Kansas. Bunch of red seats in play.
This is definitely a problem the dems seem unable to rectify, and for good reason. I'm very left, and i think the democrats are awful at their jobs - or good, if it benefits them right? And that's the rub, most leftists don't like the democrats because they tend to align with business interests and their own enrichment. It very much feels like "well of course we do that, everyone (with a D or R) does it!" and that's pretty deflating for people who want _better politicians_.
I want to vote for someone who sticks to their plan, who is as honest as possible, who actually cares about Americans instead of saying some catchy phrases and looking good on camera while shaking hands with lobbyists and harmful industries - it's ludicrous!
I agree with the sibling comment that the dems rank lower because their base is made of people who begrudgingly vote for them when the time comes and spend the rest of the time being frustrated that it's our best option.
Also known as right (upper) vs left (lower). The biggest myth is that out of the two parties, the one which is left of the other must also be left on the absolute scale. It isn't - they're both right. Actual left is people like Bernie, AOC and Mamdani, who are an extreme minority of politicians.
Voters don’t go and actually look at the data themselves. They rely on pundits and the news to tell them the salient points.
The problem is that the media has essentially lost most of its usefulness as a bulwark against the most egregious excesses of crony capitalism and cozied up to it instead. It feels like the Gilded Age again, but the people are somehow more insufferable. “The light of human consciousness into the stars” apparently requires we create CSAM generating machines powered by nitrogen oxide belching gas turbines. Even the folks at non-profit news outlets like Pro Publica have leadership that refuses to understand that it is difficult to prevent AI errors at scale. Nobody reviews drafts with such detail, we make a lot of assumptions, we trust that the person/machine is not feeding us trash.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that a lot of people in the US now get their news—similar to folks in India via WhatsApp (that became such a problem that Meta was forced to curtail the number of forwards you could do in the app)—by passing trash, hate fueling articles around on social media.
In essence we took the grand market place of ideas, and then let it get completely owned by a few firms.
The media, where it isn’t outright compromised, is dying to survive on any revenue stream. local news outlets which are the backbone of solving actual Issues for citizen are not profitable and dying.
We have platforms, which instead incentivize for the largest viewer count, so local content is sacrificed at the altar of the zeitgeist.
I'm not sure how old you are, but shortly after Obama took office in 2009 there was quite a bit of reporting claiming that the Bush administration had been so disastrous and young people had been so thoroughly poisoned by Republican policies, that it would likely be a generation before the Republicans had the chance to win the presidency again. Remember, Bush left office in the depths of the Great Recession. Instead, it took less than 8 years for us to get MAGA.
In the 2024 election, Trump's strongest margins appear to have been with Gen X, where he was roughly +10% over Harris, even stronger than his results among the Baby Boomers.
I don't know how old you are, but the MAGA movement is an offshoot of the Tea Party movement which, although begun under Bush, became massively popular under Obama.
Sure, lots of people were not happy with Bush dragging the country into two wars, but most Republicans remained Republicans, and the angst (based on facts or otherwise) against Obama is what made the Tea Party Movement so big.
(Of course, there was the whole social media thing that became huge around the same time, but the design of social media doesn't favor one side over another...)
They won't. I have industrial clients who are financially eating shit from all this and they have posters of Trump hanging on their office wall while extolling his antics. The workers think the same way. We're boned unless these morons wake up (they won't.)
It's all cultural. It's pretty bonkers that you can tell who someone voted for in 2024 with a high degree of accuracy just by the shape of their sunglasses lenses.
They like the way his administration has been terrorizing brown people. Dig in with any of these ~simpletons~ undecided voters and it’s literally that simple.
They will never say that, though - you have to infer it from their behavior and what they do say. Which requires a lot of observations. Meanwhile they can quickly refute it by having a black friend.
They honestly believe Trump is telling the truth, is doing the right thing by America, trying to help them. IMO, the problem is a lot of these people are well intended, and in many ways good people, but they lack critical thinking (I'm being nice here.) I certainly think they can be changed but it takes a very careful, gentile approach. No one likes being told they're wrong -- you have to let them come to that conclusion, not beat them over the head with it.
I despise this current administration. Yet, when I talk to people, I treat them with the same respect as I would my own parents -- don't matter who they are. I have had fun conversations with near toothless factory workers, literal walking stereotype caricatures of MAGA guys, who really aren't bad. They're just trying to live life and keep their lives together yet here's the world, changing all around them. Then this big mouth assures them it will be all right if you vote for him. They get worked up about things like DEI, LGBTQ, foreigners, etc. Sure it sounds stupid but it is what it is, you deal with it using tact. And here I am, born and raised NYC who was a minority at my public high school (may time the only white kid in class), dated the rainbow, and have a lot of experience with a lot of culture. I usually have a hard rock/heavy metal look so I fit in and they feel comfortable. I just tell them fun or funny stories about cultures and all variety of people I knew. These stories help to clear up misconceptions. Like literally the dentally challenged MAGA fellow I mentioned before told me on my way out that he enjoyed my stories and that he learned something new about people. That's the magic -- story telling and gentile nudging of opinions. Rome wasn't built in a day.
I'm actually hopeful in my own way, but the current political environment is being shaped by adult aged children on both sides and it just gets worse. Though they always say, it gets worse before it gets better. Keep nudging that knowledge.
Here's the problem: as bad as republicans are, democrat governments have the tendency to let most everything they did in place, and even add more as a way of playing a "bipartisan" game. The result is that democrat governments don't change the economy in any substantive way that can give a reason for people to support them.
> Economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in July for the seventh consecutive month, say the nation’s supply executives in the latest ISM® Manufacturing PMI® Report.
The report was issued today by Susan Spence, MBA, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee.
“The Manufacturing PMI® registered 55.6 percent in July, 2.3 percentage points above the June figure and the highest reading since May 2022 (55.9 percent). The overall economy continued in expansion for the 21st month in a row.
Every founder I know in manufacturing is thankful for this admin. There is a ton of invested interest in not having tariffs or a pro-manufacturing industrial policy as a lot of people got rich shipping it overseas. For some reason this is all ignored because the president is a very unpopular person (for obvious reasons)
Everybody I know in construction, especially larger scale, is losing their minds because nobody can bid on jobs without risking loosing their shirts. Tariffs could hit somewhere between the bid and the time the job starts and could increase material costs by 150-200% and could cause more delays. It's been like this for 2 years or so and they're losing their minds.
Tariffs have been hell for marina renovation work I'm associated with. Things paid for well in advance have exploded way past their budgets thanks to all the raw material costing so much more. Thanks to Trump.
Even the MAGA folks I have to deal with are bitter about it. They still voted for Trump but they can't deny the cause and effect. I think they'd still vote for Trump though. I don't understand how they manage to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
I'm certainly not alone in trying to make sense of it all without completely destroying my faith in averaged-out humanity.
A hypothesis: The "spite" is secondary to their insecurity and fear of not belonging to a "safe" group, in a world they assume has vicious and unavoidable hierarchies or cruelty. Seeing the out-group hurt (or even just baffled dismay) is in service of that.
Professing and supporting stupid beliefs is "loyalty", an expensive (and therefore prominent) signal of membership. Like tattooing Dear Leader's name on one's forehead.
I find that focus on insecurity and loneliness and fear—and the reward of belonging—a bit more comprehensible than spite without purpose.
> They still voted for Trump but they can't deny the cause and effect.
I'm sure fox news will give them some Olympic tier training in mental gymnastics and they'll be blaming - with certainty and conviction - brown people, democrats, trans people and/or women in no time.
> I don't understand how they manage to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
A family friend recently sent me this and it's been helpful to wrap my head around some of the naked hypocrisy:
```
The reason they aren’t more bothered by Q constantly getting things wrong, why they aren’t more bothered by the extreme inconsistencies and outright contradictions, by the claims that are just materially wrong, is because it gives them power over others who are bound by something as weak and flimsy as reality.
They claim to be against corruption while hanging their hopes on an openly corrupt man, and that naked hypocrisy is the point.
They will effortlessly carve out an exception because it makes them exceptional. They engage in wild hypocrisy as an act of domination, adhering to something demonstrably untrue out of spite, because they believe that power belongs to those with the greatest will to take it, and what greater sign of will than the ability to override truth?
Their will is a hammer that they are useing to beat reality
itself into a shape of their choosing, a simple world where reality is exactly what it looks like through their eyes, devoid of complexity, devoid of change, where they are right and their enemies are silent.
I think it's simpler. He hates the same people they hate and he's willing to ignore the constitution to bring pain to those people. As long as that's true they'll put up with the corruption.
I think you’re ascribing malice where stupidity would suffice. Raw tribal stupidity.
And of course there’s those that know exactly how wrong and awful this is, but support it out of self interest anyway (eg: Marco Rubio). That’s even worse.
it's remarkable how much presentation can distort ppls judgment .. they'll actually admire narcissistic behaviour as long as its wrapped in a polished and presentable package (the ex PM of cananda) and yet label the less polished, ill mannered person with common sense as the narcissist ..
really ? one resigned after turning his country into a dumping ground through disastrous immigration policies .. while the other restricted immigration .. put his own citizens first .. and generally shook up a complacent West .. and you think ther are not in the same ballpark? Let me ask you, in what ballpark would you put Trump in ? up there wkth Hitler ? Stalin ? You would wouldn’t you ?
What are they manufacturing? It must not involve any metal. Due to the tariffs on metals manufacturing costs have increased significantly for anyone using them.
As someone who grew up in a machine shop, still in manufacturing, and have my own hobby shop, its gross how much raw materials cost. I can get finished parts shipped from China cheaper then I can buy the raw material here in the US. I almost wept looking at over $500 for a simple 2x4 foot sheet of 1/2 inch thick 6061 aluminum.
Inconel is through the roof and I know a few aerospace clients who are MONTHS behind due to shortages and bonkers material costs. Like holding up the military supply chain which is ludicrous. This admin is brain dead.
It is going to get worse. Iron/steel and aluminum are some of the most common elements on the planet. They are literally everywhere. The cost is in the energy for production, and to a lesser extent transport. But energy is not only going to become more expensive but actually hard to get (thank you again AI). Canada has energy, from empty land for wind/solar/hydro, to oil, to enormous piles of uranium ore. That is not an enemy worth making.
It would, but smelting is not a process that likes being started and stopped. Once furnaces and other bits and pieces are up to temperature they want to stay there. Thermal expansion is a thing, but also letting them all cool down is throwing energy away. And iron workers don't like sitting around "on call" waiting for energy prices to swing enough to justify going to work.
Same too with customers. The people buying bulk metal need is when they need it. They don't want to wait around, literally, for the winds to change.
Or perhaps people are thinking longer than you and realize it’s a problem America isn’t domestically producing these things? I can not stand that trade offs and thinking about domestic production cant be done because otherwise smart engineers pretend like the economy is black and white and thus if a price goes up due to a lack of domestic supply that will always be the case. Industrial policy is designed to fix that, it will not be magically fixed overnight but neither will it be fixed if we do nothing and call people idiots when they try things.
Then every founder you know has no idea how policy should be done. There’s a difference between having a pro manufacturing policy and applying tariffs and trade wars ad hoc based on how you feel slighted and giving no warning to any businesses nor having any sort of stability to your plans for any sort of appreciable time in the future. Also, the whole announced news on Friday changed it on the next week so that whoever is betting on the stock market can make some money also is not great for a pro manufacturing base. It’s all a grift and your buddies are dupes to believe in it.
Policy is about trade offs, you can disagree if they’re worth it but that isn’t what people do. They instead dig in their heels and pretend policies designed to incentivize local production don’t work because local production doesn’t exist without them. That’s the point of them, and it takes time.
Are you saying PMI is a survey of 400 manufacturing executives about the status of manufacturing, and you don't think it carries meaningful signal about the status of manufacturing? I wonder what you think _would_ carry meaningful signal, if you're not satisfied by asking the people that are doing said manufacturing?
Executives aren't exactly the ones doing all the manufacturing. If you want to look at employment in manufacturing, the most you can say is that's it's stabilized after the first year of this administration: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1XUKx
Manufacturing has never really declined in US, not in absolute terms.
It's simply facing the same fate of agriculture: automation.
Politicians want to sell to people they can bring back manufacturing jobs, but it's not like in china they making cars or batteries or chips by hand. It's all automated everywhere.
Have you seen that SmarterEveryDay video about trying to make a grill brush in the US? That obviously would’ve been possible in the US 50 years ago but is borderline impossible today because every manufacturer laughs in your face and just says “make it in China, we can’t help you”
> Manufacturing has never really declined in US, not in absolute terms.
Is a factory making 2GB RAM chips twice as productive as one making 1GB RAM sticks?
Because if manufacturing output is merely constant while chipmakers’ output has skyrocketed (on paper, as PCs went from 32MB RAM to 32GB over a few decades), other manufacturing output must have fallen a great deal.
> it's not like china they making cars or batteries or chips by hand
That was true a while back but less so now. Chinese companies are moving to "dark factories", which can function autonomously without humans (hence no need for lighting).
Tariffs are only regressive on the collection side. The redistribution side can be as progressive as you want, more than offsetting regressive collection if you wish.
Tariffs are a tax that buys you (at least) three things, all of which are difficult to quantify, and usually overlooked by economists:
1. Security. You make your own bullets. You're able to make and maintain your own military hardware. When another country cuts supply lines in their own self interest, you have options to advocate for yours, either through trade, making it yourself, or, yes, even force.
2. Economic opportunity for your children and grandchildren. And no, not just "factory jobs" as is commonly sneered, but a community of experience and expertise. An engineer that gets to interact with the products they design in that kind of environment is a better engineer. A country that gets to see and interact with the products it makes has a sense of pride and better social cohesion.
3. Social buy-in and consequences for companies. A Chinese car manufacturer doesn't give a shit if cutting costs killed your grandfather. A local company has to, because the executives and workers are all members of the community. I was in Germany during dieselgate, and the sense of disgust at the company was obvious. They felt that.
These things are, imo, important to the health of any country, but they can only really be valued in retrospect. So yeah, tariffs are a tax, but some things are worth paying for even if what's being purchased isn't necessarily obvious or easy to quantify.
Yes those are all good things. Tariffs aren't the only and almost never are the most sustainable long-term way to get them. I'm not old enough to remember the protections against japanese cars, but I know they didn't solve the problems with US auto industry, for example.
I would guess the optimal course to those ends would include some targeted tariffs. I am damn near certain that the optimal course isn't tariff-centric. Every option in a global economy is coupled and never limited to the first-order obvious effect.
As a very simple example that I see ignored often on here: High paying jobs are good, but increase the cost of the ouput. Consumers are also people, they benefit from lower prices. You can never turn one dial independently. There are pretty magical dials though, like education and trade. Some dials are better than other. All dials treated coarsely are worse than dials treated as the multidimensional optionalities they are.
The only repeatable path to industrialization and the benefits thereof is the combination of protectionist policies -- be they tariffs or subsidies -- with a focus on exporting goods and competing in the global market. This is historically true, essentially without exception. You need both, because without global exports, protectionism makes companies lazy, and without protectionism, you risk exposing strategic national assets and supply chains to what is essentially unfair competition.
I mean, I admit that I'm not competitive with people desperate enough to work 12 hour days, 7 days a week, while the grandparents raise the kids in a 10 person household. But I'm probably capable of more sophisticated work due to my education and ability to specialize. Removing all barriers to trade essentially forces companies to offshore and train up nations that may not have your sovereign interests at heart in order to compete and provide a return for investors. It's a short term sugar hit that erodes the nation-state. This is why we strictly limit offshoring for certain strategic industries, but the truth is that all manufacturing industries are strategic to some extent, because they form part of a logistical web.
As for whether or not such a system is sustainable, it's worked for the world's manufacturing powerhouses for decades. The reason they're all falling to China now is because enough of the global supply chain has shifted there that it's now impossible to compete. Assuming those nations don't want to become services-based economies (which has been a disaster for Australia and the UK, neither of which can manufacture a tin of beans), protectionism is the only path forward. And indeed, China is utterly diligent in protecting it's own industries. This isn't fixed-pie-slicing, it's just pragmatic recognition that a government really does want to be able to fix the fighter jets when it needs to, and at some point, that means having enough industry in place to train the guy who does it. And economists, who don't really believe in or care about the problems of nation-states, probably aren't the right people to listen to when that's a concern.
I don't see how any of this works unless the rest of the world agrees to be less productive in the meantime. Apply what you want for the US to every country in the world. If your policy is the solution, then I'd assume all countries would copy it, and we'd have no one to export to. Or if they follow what I consider a more reasonable policy, they will quickly find cheaper places to buy shit, take advantage of basic things like comparative advantage vs. the protectionist stagnating(1) US, again leading to no exports.
The US is great, don't get me wrong, but the 1950-70s were based on an extremely fortunate combination of circumstances. It was almost certainly an exception rather than a norm to revert to. The resulting economy and middle class and mobility is aspirational, not easily reproducible. And I am certain not by pure protectionism.
I recommend to too many people the book "how the world got rich" https://a.co/d/0ehTVbK4. It's short. Growth is good for everyone and explains without much exaggeration all good societal progress. Just as one concept from here that explains an enormous fraction of global economic dynamics, look up " catch up growth". Sorry if this comes across as you not already knowing about this, I recommend it because I personally found it such a good resource.
(1) This is me inserting a projection, I don't know for sure. I would need a lot of convincing that protectionism and isolationism makes us more competitive overall. I completely understand all of your arguments about skill and knowledge and that other good stuff I already agreed was good. What I don't agree with is that your approach leads to us being to compete in a global market, especially given domestic political reality. It seems your system relies entirely on being able to export. The one thing we do export btw is services, the thing you shit on. And again, I wish we weren't so dominantly service based. I want all the good things you want that come with manufacturing and more domestic self-reliance. I just don't think you can will into existence of a manufacturing dominant prosperous middle class 60s economy that survives global competition, which you're export driven plan requires.
I just remembered this essay that kind of explains some of my thoughts on how to judge economic policy http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html. Not super relevant but kind of.
Sure, if every country did this for every technology, it wouldn't work. But in reality, they don't. Even ongoing industrialization isn't a given once it's been achieved, because the bar for what constitutes "developed" is always changing, and it takes effort to maintain. We even see deindustrialization, both historically and in the present. There will always be someone to sell to.
You're focusing on the US, when what I'm saying is historically true for essentially every nation that ever industrialized. Many of those countries are still industrial powerhouses today. The US had a great run from the 50s to the 70s, but it was the world's largest exporter by 1914 thanks to WWI, and didn't relinquish that spot until 2003. Similarly, Japan and Korea didn't have any such luck and still managed to both develop and maintain high living standards even through economic hardship, thanks to their industrial foundations. Taiwan uses its chip industry, again heavily export based, as a shield. China is following the same playbook today, first during China shock 1.0 20 years ago, and now with higher value goods. The only real exceptions to this rule are Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which exploited the fact that they were strategic waypoints in global shipping. Even then, Singapore is one of (if not the) largest oil refiners in the Asia Pacific region, and exports a tremendous quantity of refined petroleum products. Singapore isn't strictly protectionist, but it makes heavy use of cheap Asian laborers who will never, ever be citizens, and it engaged in massive skills transfers from other nations during the 80s and 90s (my own family was part of that wave). And of course, the major European powers all built themselves on the back of protectionism and exports. The erosion of that directly resulted in the crises we see today.
I have no issue with automation, and I agree that investors and business will always want to exploit cheaper economic conditions elsewhere. What I'm saying is that any government that wants to preserve living standards and maintain an industrial base needs to have the backbone to tell those interests "No". They are part of the social fabric of a country, and the backbone of it's defense. Investors will make less money, but I don't see that as a bad thing. They would actually have to allocate money more effectively within a country to turn a profit.
I'm not shitting on services, they're necessary. But services can't manufacture bullets when you need them, and countries always need them eventually. Not to mention, we live in a time when even services being offshored, so what's left? We build houses and make coffees for one another, while banks and mega corporations that are beholden to no border lord over us?
For what it's worth, I agree with you that economics is a captured discipline, and I applaud your devotion to testing your own ideas. But the stuff I'm pointing out isn't economics, it's history -- things that actually happened. In my opinion (and it is just that) any economic theory that is at odds with history is straight up garbage.
Thing is, absolutely none of what you’re saying applies to Trump’s tariffs. Because he’ll remove them two weeks from now if the right person flatters him the right way.
So there will be no build out of manufacturing capacity. You’d be a fool to spend tens of millions on that when at literally any moment the market will revert back to the norm.
This administration’s policy making is insane. I’m surprised folks are still trying to sanewash it.
I didn't say anything about politics. Whether or not industry believes this is a permanent state of affairs, or destined to end with this administration, has no bearing on whether or not tariffs can be a useful tool. My issue is with trivially wrong economic dogma.
>> Add that to the list of things I thought I'd never hear a conservative say.
Rayiner is a bad-faith troll who thinks he is being clever by doing the whole “oh, I thought you wanted to raise taxes, liberal??” thing. He does not actually think taxes are good.
Okay but that's not the type of tax we're talking about here. Tariffs are much more like a sales tax. And sales taxes are regressive: they take a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners like you. Based on what you said 7 years ago, you should be against tariffs, instead of defending them.
Sweden relies heavily on regressive consumption taxes. Moreover, the top 20% accounts for 60% of personal consumer spending. (And that’s not artificially inflated because it’s not like Jeff Bezos spends a million times more on consumer goods.)
I’ve been very consistent in favoring the Nordic tax structure, where you soak the top 40% but have low taxes on the super rich and corporations to prevent capital flight.
That tax structure is not part of the Nordic social democratic welfare system that you’re dishonestly clout chasing from, but part of a right wing / free market shift in Swedish politics from the last few decades.
That's like saying Clinton mind-controlled a bunch of Dukakis voters into suddenly wanting to cut the size of government. It's an underlying political realignment and reshuffling of voters.
There's no reshuffling of voters; that's what I find amazing. The same conservative voters who claimed "Taxation is oppression", "small government", or "no forever wars" are (or vote for) MAGA, even though Trump actions are a repudiation of their old claimed values.
Nuclear stuff. btw what's more probable - every single thing that has been done under this presidency is unambiguously negative, or it's mostly negative? It's so easy to just NOT take the most extreme stance, and almost certainly to like 10 9s more accurate. Yet I'm downvoted for it.
This is such a weird hill to die on dude. People are angry and it's been an embarrassing disaster filled with fraud on the highest scale, jumping on the fact that 1 out of 500 of his policies hasn't been bad just makes you look like you've completely missed the point
If the only good thing you can name is "nuclear stuff" it’s not a stretch to say it’s a complete disaster though. When people say "everything" they don’t mean "everything", it’s just easier than saying "everything except that 1 thing".
If someone were to list out all the things this admin's fucked up during this term alone we'd be here all day. Seriously; on his watch, there's been food poisoning and child imprisonment; transparent market manipulation; rolling back of various laws and policies which represented protections for workers, marginalized groups, endangered species and national parks; direct participation in the corruption of dozens if not hundreds of US federal agencies; extortion of both US states and foreign nations; threats of violence against strategic allies; waging actual wars of aggression; striking civilian infrastructure and populations during those wars of aggression; engaging in undeclared/irregular warfare; performing strikes against targets which were not clearly combatants; kidnapping a head of state; engaging in warfare and policy shakeups which are timed too perfectly to market close/market open for it to be anything other than market manipulation; engaging in IP infringement against the Nintendo corporation; pushing the morale of the crew of an aircraft carrier strike group so low that sailors were reportedly jumping overboard; engaging in chronic suppression of the press despite the first amendment right to press freedom; reducing or withdrawing the US presence from the ROC and ROK, threatening regional and arguably global stability in doing so; undermining the financial prospects of US beef farmers by federally subsidizing Argentine beef, blaming US citizens for accidents or crimes which in some cases Trump himself may have had a hand in, lying to constituents on a variety of topics (knowingly), deepening the political divides of a country that's already deeply divided, undermining the fairness of both the presidential election as well as threatening to do so to the midterms, supporting the increasing consolidation of US private media largely on the basis of friendliness to the current admin (often as expressed through donations)...
Half of these (or at least, instances of these) happened in the past week or two; most of the rest have happened in the past 2-3 months. I'm not even being exhaustive. You could
"Everything" is an understandable shorthand in this case and while technically hyperbolic it's really understood that it really means "most things that matter on a domestic and foreign policy stage."
Genuinely interested in understanding why you need this level of precision. To me it would seem you are removing some abstraction and getting to the details. If this something common in your line of work? E.g. in your peers? If that's the case, would you mind sharing the field you're active in? Do you have a hunch why you would need this level of detail e.g. Education, culture?
Because labelling all policies as negative by association isn't an actual evaluation of the merit of the policy. If you mark all policies as bad because they must all be bad, you're almost certainly excluding good policies from future consideration. Is not the goal good policies?
>His economic and foreign policy are dictated entirely based on who flatters him the most
Are you sure, it seems mostly based on illegal share trading. Murdering foreigners and sending soldiers to die is a lever Trump/his handlers keep pulling because they 'win' $millions every time.
Do people have no shame in attaching a minority group - who by the way by and away opposed Trump from a voting perspective - with ethnicity (the majority are secular) - and with a foreign government - Israel?
In any other normal sane world stuff would get called out, greyed out, and ultimately shot down. In THIS world, the responses (I bet, like this one) are the "greys."
It's a scary world we live in where the Left turns into the Right of the past.
That’s the point. He wants to crash the monetary market and he has allllll the investments in digital currencies, ai, data centers, energy, computation & weapons. Why prop up a system that literally tried to kill him and will wreck havoc on his family after he’s outta office stripped of power. Dude is operating on death ground right now.
> That’s the point. He wants to crash the monetary market and he has allllll the investments in digital currencies, ai, data centers, energy, computation & weapons.
I think you’re giving him too much credit. He is just a mouthpiece for various people, he can’t make a plan and stick with it, and never has.
Tariffs end up being worse than taxes. They get collected, passed on to consumers, overturned by courts, and then handed to the companies that raided prices.
I think they proved last year that most of the tarrifs were not going to consumers. It actually worked as an excellent business tax that did not get passed on. High tariffs are leftist ideology.
Pack it in everybody! This guy thinks they worked as intended, that’s all the evidence needed! Case closed!
Ignore the way everything is more expensive. Ignore the way everything on digikey has a dedicated tariff column. Ignore the general chaos and the rest of what your lying eyes see, a hackernews throwaway account is pretty sure that the new tax on imports is unrelated to imports being more expensive.
Food and rent are not affected by tariff money. Food is grown locally in the US more than nearly any country, so people will survive if their solar inverter is $205 instead of $200 (and the asshole that imported it is paying $100 instead of $50)
Food and rent are affected by everything else getting more expensive. Fuel is used quite extensively while farming - in case you haven't ever been on a farm - and with this idiotic war with Iran fuel costs have gone up massively. Tractors and farming equipment are not just domestically produced, they make heavy use of imported parts and raw materials. Now with these tariffs, imported metals and components are more expensive.
You don't have to take my word for it though! I don't even know why you're trying to make this argument when you can just go look through a grocery store and see how much more expensive food is now than just a few years ago.
They are worse in other ways as well. They reduce incentive for local businesses to be competitive. They also make it harder to be competitive because access to top manufacturing equipment becomes harder. To get incompatibility similar to Galapagos effect as tariffs remain.
Argentina and Brazil should be a warning example to everyone. The paper Argentina Paradox by Taylor gives good insights into how trade barriers played a fundamental role in hurting this once very prosperous economy.
> Everything the current US administration has done has been an unmitigated disaster.
I think the overall direction of your comment is somewhat correct, but you're really overstating the claim here. There are very few things in general that could be called an unmitigated disaster (Is the challenger? Is the hindenburg? I'm not even sure about those...), so claiming that _everything_ the current admin does is an unmitigated disaster is just too extreme. Your criticism would be more believable if it was more realistic.
A lot of people who voted for Trump aren't surprised by this. The didn't vote for Trump to win as much as they voted for Democrats too lose. What does it take to lose to Trump twice, and by some accounts three times?
Under Trump, the us governments signature might as well be in pencil. This is America’s high water mark. It has lost the trust of the world. And since OpenAI and Anthropic and NVIDIA are the bulk of the hope of the American economy… America is fucked.
Canada walking away from American Bullying will go down in history of the moment the empire’s descent accelerated.
Looking past the political posturing i cannot even find any objective information about what the terms were. I just wish they could say what was the state of the deal and why it broke down in some detail.
The Atlantic has just posted a piece about this [0] in which it argues many points echoed in comments here. Chief among them:
> The Trump administration has one big idea about Canada: The U.S. is larger, stronger, and richer than Canada, so Canada must sooner or later surrender to Trump’s demands. That one big idea is wrong.
> Yes, Trump can hurt Canada more than Canada can hurt Trump. That part of Trump’s thinking is true. But wars are not decided only by the question Who can inflict more pain? Wars are also decided by the question Who can endure more pain? Trump’s failure to accept this truth is why he lost the Iran war—and why he is losing his trade wars.
Even with rising economic uncertainty within Canada, the LPC is enjoying ever-growing support amongst the Canadian voting public including amongst conservatives.
Premiers are almost united (excluding Alberta's Danielle Smith) in their support for Carney walking away from trade negotiations.
The leaks surrounding the deal that was on the table earlier this week did not look promising. e.g. Locking in 15% tariff's on autos made in Canada would have resulted in slow death for the Canadian auto sector, not to mention hamstringing all of NA at a time when their only way to compete with Chinese auto makers is crushing tariffs or outright import bans. Something probably had to move here to get the deal done. Unbelievably, things went in the opposite direction.
Howard Lutnick strolled into the Whitehouse at the eleventh hour and told Trump he thought that they could get an even better deal with Canada than what was on the table[1]. Americans should probably remember this guy. His family runs Cantor Fitzgerald, who has been buying up rights to tariff refunds[2]. Companies hit by tariffs can gamble on them eventually being declared illegal, or they can sell the rights to their refunds for a smaller amount and have some degree of certainty. When tariffs are struck down in court, companies like Cantor Fitzgerald make serious bank. So, here Lutnick is again, whispering in Trump's ear, drumming up more business for his family.
Trump tends to listen to the last person who talked to him, whether it's an economist (This is unlikely, as Trump prefers not to talk to academics) or a bell hop. In this case, Lutnick got in last, Trump decided to move the goal-posts, the talks failed as a result, and now there are more tariffs that will probably be struck down by courts.
Meanwhile, in Canada, people actually seem to be happy that this deal failed. Carney has made multiple concessions over the last year and change while the U.S. has made none and just kept demanding more and more. The general sentiment was that it's time to get tough, even if that means tariffs. Reports are that the latest demands during these talks were for limits on Canada's ability to strike trade deals with other countries, exclusive U.S. access to Canadian critical minerals, and even meddling in Canada's French language laws. Any one of these things would have been seen as a deal-breaker during normal times. With the mood being what it was, they were unthinkable. The American contingent knew this, so we can only conclude they deliberately scuttled the deal.
Interestingly enough, Carney seems to have taken a page out of Trump's book by delaying retaliation until Sept. 8th, giving the Americans a deadline for a change. That leaves room for a couple of TACO Tuesdays. However, the messaging from the PM and premiers has been careful to point out that they are ready to hunker down and wait for Trump to leave office. Carney has solid support for this stance while Trump does not, even among republicans, plus the midterms are looming. Trump increasingly looks like the one without the cards.
A few months prior to the midterms is exactly the right time for this sort of action. If the voters keep seeing prices increase because of Trump's tariffs, it increases the odds that the republicans will lose the legislative branch and will be able to act as a check on Trump's power. Ideally some other countries will follow suit.
This will cause some short term pain for Canada, but hopefully they'll have a less insane trading partner after November.
Unfortunately I think the only usable big lever we have as Canadians -- wine/beer liquor imports and people choosing to restrict personal travel to the US -- has already been used. We cannot and will not exercise energy or potash restrictions. And import tariffs are unlikely to be substantially impactful enough for Americans to notice enough that it alters their decisions at the ballot box.
I would however urge my fellow Canadians to continue to or start boycotting goods from the US and travel to there, generally.
And likely encourage Americans to come visit here. Come ski here this winter. You're more than welcome here.
338 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 28.4 ms ] threadSadly, U.S. politics doesn't attract high-quality thought in general (especially in more recent years), so any discussion surrounding our little three-ring circus cult here isn't likely to be much better than the subject matter bein' discussed. It's all just too crazy to base any sane discussion around.
It really feels strange, odd, yet unsurprising that the US is going from a globalist leadership to selfish nationalism.
It’s worse than that. This doesn’t suit the US. It suits Trump (or at least, that’s what his addled mind thinks).
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/how-to-secure-the...
> US mines produce roughly 500,000 metric tons of potash per year, only about 8 percent of the 5.9 million metric tons of apparent annual US consumption. The remaining demand is met through imports, producing a net import reliance of about 92 percent. Reflecting the high concentration of global potash production, most of that supply comes from Canada (79 percent), with smaller volumes from Russia (12 percent) and other producers (9 percent) including Israel.
It would be decidedly un-Canadian to leverage electricity, potash, or other commodities necessary for survival in trade negotiations -- despite what Ford may suggest. We're nice, but we won't bow to bullies. Elbows up, eh!
And you don't have to ban them, just make them more expensive. Your US brethren did vote for tarriffs. With that comes higher prices.
When electing a candidate, not everyone endorses every specific policy of that candidate; casting a ballot does not imply total ideological alignment (nor even full knowledge of all policies), especially in a two-party FPTP electoral system. Many people vote based on broad messaging, loyalty, economic sentiment, or identity instead of in-depth platform analysis. To wit, Latino voters did not realise how helping to push ice-cold reds into power would affect their lives. They simply didn't know or understand. Now they do. Canada's next actions, counter-tariffs, and burgeoning global economic ties I hope will further open the eyes of mislead citizens.
Harris lost the popular vote by 1.5%, which does not a landslide make.
As much as it pains me to say it as an American, little will change unless US citizens are negatively impacted. Trump is losing power and support in the US precisely because people are becoming more aware that he's hurting them.
It’s Vietnam Hearts and Minds all over again.
Another Musk moment: most aluminum in the US comes from Canada. Most of Musk's vehicles are built with aluminum. These tariffs will directly increase Tesla manufacturing cost in the US, making them even less competitive.
As of 2025, 90% of Canadian crude and 100% of natural gas goes to the US. <https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...> In other words, Canada hasn't been selling to the US merely out of the goodness of its hearts, but because its infrastructure is built that way. As Paul Krugman wrote, Canada is closer to the US than to itself. <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>
Just one of about a billion reasons why annexation is inevitable (and, really, should have happened two centuries ago).
PS - It will make your head explode that Tesla has competed quite well versus the likes of BYD in China for some time. That's why Musk sought to renew the US EV subsidies; he calculated that Tesla would be able to survive in the post-subsidy market better than rivals, and that's turned out to be the case.
What a vile and predictable comment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43485649#43487443
Accession was the likely inevitable outcome up until the reelection of the current President but after the American people expressed their continued support for a systemically corrupt gerontocracy and all that this entailed this kind of willing and amicable outcome has been taken off the table and likely will be for several generations. I get a sense that the general sentiment that Canadians are feeling regarding American attitudes and actions right now is outright betrayal and condemnation.
As for annexation it's important to keep in mind that this would be an illegal act of aggression against a peaceful ally and that it runs counter to everything that America claims to stand for. I'm skeptical that it would even be possible at this point, and I don't see a way that it could be done without military action.
Annexation is a pretty drastic thing to suggest too, how are you thinking it will unfold? Are you talking about something impending by the end of this decade or a multi-decade sort of thing? What happens if Canada resists? And what about other countries?
Something that I think is often overlooked is that there is a true appreciation in Europe for the Canadian sacrifices made in the World Wars and that these sacrifices have tied our countries together. I also think that you've underestimated the resolve of the Canadian people and how much they are incensed by these recent actions taken by America.
I'm sure you have a really neat and clean geopolitical analysis for why annexation is inevitable that factors in the geographic realities and economic / military disparities between the two countries and I'd love to read it but I'm quite certain that's likely to be just one big McNamara Fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
Yes, let us look up the US law that prohibits annexing additional land or another country.
>A charitable interpretation of your comment is that you intended to use the word accession.
A charitable interpretation of your comment is that you think "annexation" = "hostile takeover of territory". (Hint: The US annexed Hawaii and Texas after their governments agreed.)
>As for annexation it's important to keep in mind that this would be an illegal act of aggression against a peaceful ally
Beyond your pointless repetition, as I said:
>I'm not talking about a military invasion (Trump explicitly ruled that out when speaking of annexation, instead stating "economic force"); I'm stating geopolitical inevitability.
(And no, Dutch gratefulness for Canadians helping to liberate their country in WW2 != waves of Dutch paratroopers landing on Halifax beach to help liberate Canada from Adolf Trump.)
If trade can be used to eliminate a nation's sovereignty, was that sovereignty ever real in the first place?
What a sick people.
If you want political gestures then impose heavy sanctions on Israel and declare that Latinos can get refugee status in Canada because of ICE. That would be an economic win too.
All other issues aside, Trump and the Republicans love to boast that they aren’t bound by anything including their own promises. This is the end result of that.
You’d be mad to cut a deal with the US right now. The Trump Admin will just try to take another bite. They are dishonest and unreliable. Making America’s word mean nothing is the greatest long term damage done to the country and the surest indicator of the end of the American Century (80 years but we can round up)
If Bob shows evidence of not sticking to deals, there's little point in Alice striking any deal.
This is not a problem that goes away when Trump ultimately leaves office.
On the campaign trail, Trump disavowed any connection to Project 2025 when it was leaked, and I suspect most of his base took him at his word. To anyone not trapped inside the right-wing media bubble, that is somewhere between naive and insane, of course, but people inside the bubble don't live in the same reality as the rest of us.
However, your response does remind me of an important point: two other rather large, looming threats which need addressing are media consolidation and money in politics.
The baseline Republican base doesn’t give a shit about the more extreme racist stuff, they don’t care about women being raped, etc they tolerate it. But they hate paying taxes above all else.
Trump closed the stretch IRA loophole in 45, and implemented the largest tax increase in recent history with the tariff regime. Only the really rich people and real estate folks get the big tax breaks.
If someone asks Chuck Schumer what the weather is like, he should say: “It’s a good summer day, but it would be a great one if tax and spend Trump released the Epstein files”
The weak kneed leadership will be getting replaced by the populist message of Trump but coming from the left, people like Mamdani, the DSA candidates, etc.
The people clearly want leaders who will say : we will use political tools to help the economic situation of the poor and middle class.
Everyone from Jon Ossoff to Angie Nixon has some version of this message and its resonating
clearly they are smartening up
Socialism (to contrast with social-democrats like some European nations which are primarily democracies, free markets, with a social component) is not a democracy those are opposing ideas.
That reads as though you’re saying they want to abolish the democratic process, but as somebody living in a country with many of the democratic processes they’re proposing, looking in on what seems like a very dysfunctional democratic process in the US, it seems to be that they want to replace it with a much better version of itself.
The US process is far from ideal. I agree with that. I'm not American and looking from the outside there's a lot of head scratching I can do.
But- It's worked pretty well over the last few hundred years. You can't just take that and throw it in the garbage and replace it with some "workers will decide" socialist mumbo-jumbo.
Seriously. It doesn't work. You can't say let's take Germany's process and apply it in the US. It won't work. We should know better. There is a delicate balance of power (arguably already somewhat disrupted) and there is a culture and a history. That's why we also can't just bring "democracy" to non-democratic countries that easily.
The DSA are saying let's break everything and then figure it out. It won't work. We need responsible adults not revolutionaries to fix things with care.
Isn't it clear to you that you're misrepresenting DSA's position?
"We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control."
What are they not saying? They are not saying things like we should raise taxes to fund social programs so we can be more like Europe. Europe is capitalist. Europe has free markets. DSA opposes capitalism. DSA wants to, in their words: "We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation.".
What am I not understanding? Barrack Obama wanted accessible healthcare for all, he was not DSA. That's an awesome idea for the US that Democrats rallied behind and partly failed. Show me in DSA's words, material and action, how they are really social-democrats who just want more vacation, healthcare, worker protection while still maintaining capitalist free markets - like Europe. I mean they want all that but not in that way.
Except form the million of black people living in the south of the US. For them, the USA is a democracy only since 1964.
And if you argue "yes but it got better", the Republicans are making everything to get back to before 1964.
Incidentally, your "we can't let workers decide" sounds a lot like "we can't let negroes vote" or "we can't let women vote". And is as much FUD.
I had a similar discussion in real life. Where we concluded it that Roe vs. Wade being overturned was the biggest step backwards. Most of the other stuff is noise but this one is a biggy that's hard to fix. It sucks for Americans (which I'm not but I was debating an American).
Nobody is saying we can't let workers decide. Most of us are workers. Most of us vote. We are deciding. The US has also made progress on workers' rights at the state level to my understanding. At the end of the day we still have to lean on the democratic process, we need to debate policies and we need to get people to think critically and think things through. This is very hard to do today given the public discourse and tribalism.
Bernie is probably the most well-known democratic socialist in the US, but he is not a member of DSA. By his political positions he would be either in the left wing of Finnish Social Democratic Party or in the mainstream of the Left Alliance. He would probably choose the Left Alliance, since it is more like a coalition of like-minded activists, while the party is the primary actor for the Social Democrats.
AOC, another well-known democratic socialist, would also fit in the Left Alliance. She is part of the moderate wing of DSA. But if you start looking into the ideological wing, you find plenty of actual socialists who would make Finnish mainstream leftists uncomfortable.
> The DSA wants to abolish the existing US democratic process.
So, getting into elected office by winning elections is wanting to abolish the democratic process?
I think I'm beginning to understand why the hardcore MAGA folks loves Trump so much.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/senate-representat...
You misspelled "Trump".
There is only one party making it harder for people to vote, and it is the Republican party.
I don't know enough about the Tea Party to confidently give my opinion, I am a bit too young to have been politically aware when they were in their heyday as far as I know.
Smartening up would have been the Democratic Party ejecting Swalwell because he was a known creep. Instead he was the front runner for the CA Governor until like a couple months before the election when scandal, NOT the party cleaning house, took him out.
Leading but honest question: Are those candidates the same as Trump? I do not see how they share anything other than strategy and spin, and those things don't make policy.
Wag the Dog (movie) came out like 3 decades ago
However, I also highly doubt Schumer would be in Epstein files. People seem stuck on the meme that being in Epstein files is the main reason why someone acts one way or another. This degenerate over-simplification has to stop.
If Chuck Schumer is asked about the weather, he'll first check with Netanyahu.
Just look at what Senatorial campaigns Schumer supports and doesn't. There's a lot of suspicion that Schumer (and the DSCC) is going to leave Abdul El-Sayed out to dry because he's anti-Israel, basically. Mandela Barnes got similar treatment in 2022. And yet you have blockbuster challenges like Jaime Harrison's, which spent $130M to oust Lindsey Graham. He lost by 10. Trump won by 12 so I guess he gained 2? Well done, everybody, the system works.
Oh and what did the DNC do with Jaime Harrison after he spent $130M to lose by 10? They made him the DNC Chair. The Democratic Party loves a loser. Just like Howard Dean.
The DSCC funding is a drop in the bucket of the overall funding in these races, and they have their own goals which may or may not be aligned with the party as a whole.
If your single issue is Israel funding (which it probably shouldn’t be but that is your choice), the Democratic Party and presidents did far more to reign in Israel’s behavior than republicans.
Republicans do this too. Two of the seats they're at most risk of losing are Maine and Alaska held by Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (respectively). They currently have 53 votes (well, 52 with Mitch McConnell MIA). That means they can pass things with 50 votes (and JD Vance's tie break) on anything that can get past or doesn't require cloture (eg approving judicial nominations, reconcilation). So, every time you have a controversial nomination or bill, you'll often find Collins and Murkowski vote no because their votes aren't needed. The leadership is insulating them from attack. But when their votes are needed, they're there (eg Collins's required vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh).
As for the number of Democratic senators who voted against weapons for Israel, it is significant because it never would've happened 5 years ago, but it's also mostly performative because there's no way it was going to pass.
As another example, Democrats did a rare move to invoke the filibuster last year to stop ICE funding. This resulted in a government shutdown and important programs being punitively defunded (eg there was a reserve fund for food stamps that was intentionally not tapped). What happened? The Republicans needed 60 votes to force a vote. There were 52 votes. 8 Democratic senators crossed the floor to vote with Republicans. That's so weird. It's the exact number required. What a coincidence. Whatever that number was, 1, 5, 8, 12, it doesn't matter. There will most of the time be that number of exact senators requried. This, by the way, is part of the rotating villain role within the Democratic Party.
This is how calculated it was. All 8 of those who crossed the floor were either retiring or they weren't up for re-election in 2026 so the voters couldn't punish them. John Ossoff, the current liberal darling, was going to be one of the 8 but he's facing re-election this year so Chuck Schumer whipped another vote to replace him.
Another classic example was the Epstein transparency act. Trump threatened members who signed the discharge petition. Mike Johnson actually shut down the House for 7 weeks to try and get those that did to change their vote. yet when the discharge petition got 218 votes (the minimum required), suddenly the votes in the House and Senate were almost unanimous. Well, if support was almost unanimous, why not just have a vote to begin with?
Mitch McConnell can really be credited with pioneering a new era of obstruction in the Senate. He realized there was a political cost to some votes. Some things were popular and he didn't want to pass them so he'd just make sure they never made it to the floor for a vote.
So my point is that imagine the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House in 2029 and that same Israel funding bill came up. Will all those Senators and House representatives vote for it when it might pass and become law? Nope.
I feel like the Dems should have an easy time in the next elections if they don't fumble it given the current state of things. On the other hand, they seem to purity test each other in ways that make such a coalition harder to attain.
They’ve demonstrated over and over that their core principles don’t actually exist, and are simply maxims that they have heard often enough that they blindly parrot them back.
Honestly wild opinions to have. Watch 30 seconds of fox news. A significant chunk of their coverage is about protecting women and children from migrants/pedos/trans people. They want a tough on crime executive branch almost as much as they want low taxes.
Fox News ideology may at times declare opinions that, in complete isolation, might seem reasonable. "Border control", "safe streets", "responsible government" etc. But they approach it from a place of exaggeration and lies, and an outright visceral anger and hatred toward migrants, trans people, etc. They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Such as ignoring GOP sex offenses, GOP bribery in the oval office, unconstitutional actions by their executive, or needless wars that cost half a trillion dollars and weaken the US' national security.
So I agree with your parent comment, that Fox News and many of its viewers pick and choose what to say they're angry about, either out of intellectual dishonesty or, in the case of the viewer, outright ignorance or deeper thought about the whole picture of the government and society right now.
[0] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/01/the_invisible_t.htm...
> They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Such as ignoring GOP sex offenses, GOP bribery in the oval office, unconstitutional actions by their executive, or needless wars that cost half a trillion dollars and weaken the US' national security
Conservatives, above all else, assume everyone in government is corrupt and terrible, hence wanting smaller government. That they can't reconcile that with their love of social security is a matter of self preservation, not malice.
But he lacks empathy for groups of people he's never interacted with, and ultimately, if they vote for Donald Trump or his enablers, they either believe a lot of lies told to them by media claiming to be on their side, or they aren't as good of people as they themselves think they are.
Respectfully, my quote and your rebuttal have nothing to do with each other. Nice people can be hypocrites and ignoramuses, which is what one must be to willfully support the GOP in almost any race in the country at this critical time.
edit to add some stories:
---
I'm in Texas.
My relative tried delta 8 and liked it. He doesn't drink alcohol much anymore because of headache and urinary stuff. He took a little and he laughed more, relaxed, and enjoyed some movies. My mom took it for her body aches and she said it helped with pain and made cooking dinner a little more fun.
Now they'd both be felons. I told my relative that they would be felons for having any, and that I too would be one for using this cheap, safe drug. I joked that maybe he could at least vote Dem for Texas Lt. Gov. to kick out the moronic criminal who pushed the new law.
He said "No, I'll never vote Democrat". He talks about trans people being a problem. He's never knowingly met one. He says they should be left alone, but shouldn't in sports or adopt kids.
He has no idea what kinds of laws are being created to wipe trans people from legal existence across the country, and he's fine supporting felons and criminals and people who want me to be in jail for using delta-8. When I told him about one of Trump's proven criminal acts (taking $500 million from the UAE buying stock in his cryptocurrency clearinghouse) he said he didn't believe it. When I talk about Trump's sex trafficking scandals and Epstein, he's silent. When I ask about the Iran war, he's silent.
He would rather his nephew be a felon for a safe and decade-long-legal drug than vote for a Democrat, because of lies and hatred he watches on Fox news from his middle-of-nowhere plot of land where he interacts with about five people a year for the last two decades.
I could go on about how he rants about socialism as he considers using Meals on Wheels, or how his wife got Medicare-funded palliative care for almost no money out of pocket, or any other number of things. But he, living in rural Texas, mentions Mamdani's "communism" for considering opening a few publicly-operated grocery stores in a city of 10 million people.
---
I have to re-iterate: I know many GOP people are good people. I certainly don't hold them to the same individual responsibility for the ongoing coup of the federal government for which I hold the elected politicians. Many are duped by Fox News, and many more are checked out of the daily updates of crimes committed and norms broken. But that's what's happening, and I refuse to acknowledge any merit of an argument for supporting Republicans in elections until the threat from Trumpism is eliminated, the government repaired and patched against the vulnerabilities exploited, and the Democrats screw up royally somehow again.
Both parties are against them, owned by oligarchs and mega donors that are actively trying to increase the wealth gap and make average Americans fight each other over the petty dilemma of the week, rather than the real fight of the whole country vs maybe a couple thousand ultra rich douchebags.
Most people don't vote based on policies and data. They are naturally skeptical about whether your five-point plans are actually going to have the intended effect. Instead, they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are.
You can't really simplify it to such a degree. I believe humans are creatures of action. We like it when things happen. Sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, our morals are downstream of that desire to "be effective". We will align ourselves, no matter the violence we have to do to our own senses, with what is useful.
Specifically, their willingness to skeptically engage with your five-point plan demands that you're actually able to execute it. If you categorically can't make anything happen, then people will cling to an explanation and a morality that can. American democracy has been at a standstill for upwards of 30 years, If the American people have to believe that all their politicians are pedophiles to get some sort of movement again. Then that's what they are going to believe.
And still they refuse to back down on a number of policies that have been proven to be extremely unpopular.
-Independent..
I want to vote for someone who sticks to their plan, who is as honest as possible, who actually cares about Americans instead of saying some catchy phrases and looking good on camera while shaking hands with lobbyists and harmful industries - it's ludicrous!
I agree with the sibling comment that the dems rank lower because their base is made of people who begrudgingly vote for them when the time comes and spend the rest of the time being frustrated that it's our best option.
The problem is that the media has essentially lost most of its usefulness as a bulwark against the most egregious excesses of crony capitalism and cozied up to it instead. It feels like the Gilded Age again, but the people are somehow more insufferable. “The light of human consciousness into the stars” apparently requires we create CSAM generating machines powered by nitrogen oxide belching gas turbines. Even the folks at non-profit news outlets like Pro Publica have leadership that refuses to understand that it is difficult to prevent AI errors at scale. Nobody reviews drafts with such detail, we make a lot of assumptions, we trust that the person/machine is not feeding us trash.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that a lot of people in the US now get their news—similar to folks in India via WhatsApp (that became such a problem that Meta was forced to curtail the number of forwards you could do in the app)—by passing trash, hate fueling articles around on social media.
The media, where it isn’t outright compromised, is dying to survive on any revenue stream. local news outlets which are the backbone of solving actual Issues for citizen are not profitable and dying.
We have platforms, which instead incentivize for the largest viewer count, so local content is sacrificed at the altar of the zeitgeist.
So the prediction sounds right? The Republicans have burnt the youth vote pretty badly and have never really recovered.
(See, e.g. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte... and https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls. Annoyingly, the polls don't cleanly break down into generations; Gen X would be the ~44-60 crowd for that election.)
Sure, lots of people were not happy with Bush dragging the country into two wars, but most Republicans remained Republicans, and the angst (based on facts or otherwise) against Obama is what made the Tea Party Movement so big.
(Of course, there was the whole social media thing that became huge around the same time, but the design of social media doesn't favor one side over another...)
https://x.com/TheZackLethal/status/1270823526178664449
They like the way his administration has been terrorizing brown people. Dig in with any of these ~simpletons~ undecided voters and it’s literally that simple.
I despise this current administration. Yet, when I talk to people, I treat them with the same respect as I would my own parents -- don't matter who they are. I have had fun conversations with near toothless factory workers, literal walking stereotype caricatures of MAGA guys, who really aren't bad. They're just trying to live life and keep their lives together yet here's the world, changing all around them. Then this big mouth assures them it will be all right if you vote for him. They get worked up about things like DEI, LGBTQ, foreigners, etc. Sure it sounds stupid but it is what it is, you deal with it using tact. And here I am, born and raised NYC who was a minority at my public high school (may time the only white kid in class), dated the rainbow, and have a lot of experience with a lot of culture. I usually have a hard rock/heavy metal look so I fit in and they feel comfortable. I just tell them fun or funny stories about cultures and all variety of people I knew. These stories help to clear up misconceptions. Like literally the dentally challenged MAGA fellow I mentioned before told me on my way out that he enjoyed my stories and that he learned something new about people. That's the magic -- story telling and gentile nudging of opinions. Rome wasn't built in a day.
I'm actually hopeful in my own way, but the current political environment is being shaped by adult aged children on both sides and it just gets worse. Though they always say, it gets worse before it gets better. Keep nudging that knowledge.
https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/...
> Economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in July for the seventh consecutive month, say the nation’s supply executives in the latest ISM® Manufacturing PMI® Report.
The report was issued today by Susan Spence, MBA, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee.
“The Manufacturing PMI® registered 55.6 percent in July, 2.3 percentage points above the June figure and the highest reading since May 2022 (55.9 percent). The overall economy continued in expansion for the 21st month in a row.
Even the MAGA folks I have to deal with are bitter about it. They still voted for Trump but they can't deny the cause and effect. I think they'd still vote for Trump though. I don't understand how they manage to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
A hypothesis: The "spite" is secondary to their insecurity and fear of not belonging to a "safe" group, in a world they assume has vicious and unavoidable hierarchies or cruelty. Seeing the out-group hurt (or even just baffled dismay) is in service of that.
Professing and supporting stupid beliefs is "loyalty", an expensive (and therefore prominent) signal of membership. Like tattooing Dear Leader's name on one's forehead.
I find that focus on insecurity and loneliness and fear—and the reward of belonging—a bit more comprehensible than spite without purpose.
AKA shibboleths
Further, the rhetoric creates a permission structure which allows (enables?) people to be their worst selves.
I'm sure fox news will give them some Olympic tier training in mental gymnastics and they'll be blaming - with certainty and conviction - brown people, democrats, trans people and/or women in no time.
> I don't understand how they manage to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
A family friend recently sent me this and it's been helpful to wrap my head around some of the naked hypocrisy:
``` The reason they aren’t more bothered by Q constantly getting things wrong, why they aren’t more bothered by the extreme inconsistencies and outright contradictions, by the claims that are just materially wrong, is because it gives them power over others who are bound by something as weak and flimsy as reality.
They claim to be against corruption while hanging their hopes on an openly corrupt man, and that naked hypocrisy is the point.
They will effortlessly carve out an exception because it makes them exceptional. They engage in wild hypocrisy as an act of domination, adhering to something demonstrably untrue out of spite, because they believe that power belongs to those with the greatest will to take it, and what greater sign of will than the ability to override truth?
Their will is a hammer that they are useing to beat reality itself into a shape of their choosing, a simple world where reality is exactly what it looks like through their eyes, devoid of complexity, devoid of change, where they are right and their enemies are silent.
They are trying to build a Flat Earth. ```
And of course there’s those that know exactly how wrong and awful this is, but support it out of self interest anyway (eg: Marco Rubio). That’s even worse.
Why Farmers Voted for Trump https://youtube.com/watch?v=badGHJLDpP8
Followup https://youtube.com/watch?v=rZQxCvbLG6U
Trudeau was a colossal cluster f of a prime minister, but he’s nowhere in the same ballpark.
Are they MAGA?
Inconel is through the roof and I know a few aerospace clients who are MONTHS behind due to shortages and bonkers material costs. Like holding up the military supply chain which is ludicrous. This admin is brain dead.
Same too with customers. The people buying bulk metal need is when they need it. They don't want to wait around, literally, for the winds to change.
YMMV - Soviet Russia comes to mind. Still better than ‘feels’.
It's simply facing the same fate of agriculture: automation.
Politicians want to sell to people they can bring back manufacturing jobs, but it's not like in china they making cars or batteries or chips by hand. It's all automated everywhere.
Is a factory making 2GB RAM chips twice as productive as one making 1GB RAM sticks?
Because if manufacturing output is merely constant while chipmakers’ output has skyrocketed (on paper, as PCs went from 32MB RAM to 32GB over a few decades), other manufacturing output must have fallen a great deal.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1jci...
They mean it is not the case that in China they make these things by hand.
Not all taxes are equal. Regressive ones suck.
1. Security. You make your own bullets. You're able to make and maintain your own military hardware. When another country cuts supply lines in their own self interest, you have options to advocate for yours, either through trade, making it yourself, or, yes, even force.
2. Economic opportunity for your children and grandchildren. And no, not just "factory jobs" as is commonly sneered, but a community of experience and expertise. An engineer that gets to interact with the products they design in that kind of environment is a better engineer. A country that gets to see and interact with the products it makes has a sense of pride and better social cohesion.
3. Social buy-in and consequences for companies. A Chinese car manufacturer doesn't give a shit if cutting costs killed your grandfather. A local company has to, because the executives and workers are all members of the community. I was in Germany during dieselgate, and the sense of disgust at the company was obvious. They felt that.
These things are, imo, important to the health of any country, but they can only really be valued in retrospect. So yeah, tariffs are a tax, but some things are worth paying for even if what's being purchased isn't necessarily obvious or easy to quantify.
I would guess the optimal course to those ends would include some targeted tariffs. I am damn near certain that the optimal course isn't tariff-centric. Every option in a global economy is coupled and never limited to the first-order obvious effect.
As a very simple example that I see ignored often on here: High paying jobs are good, but increase the cost of the ouput. Consumers are also people, they benefit from lower prices. You can never turn one dial independently. There are pretty magical dials though, like education and trade. Some dials are better than other. All dials treated coarsely are worse than dials treated as the multidimensional optionalities they are.
I mean, I admit that I'm not competitive with people desperate enough to work 12 hour days, 7 days a week, while the grandparents raise the kids in a 10 person household. But I'm probably capable of more sophisticated work due to my education and ability to specialize. Removing all barriers to trade essentially forces companies to offshore and train up nations that may not have your sovereign interests at heart in order to compete and provide a return for investors. It's a short term sugar hit that erodes the nation-state. This is why we strictly limit offshoring for certain strategic industries, but the truth is that all manufacturing industries are strategic to some extent, because they form part of a logistical web.
As for whether or not such a system is sustainable, it's worked for the world's manufacturing powerhouses for decades. The reason they're all falling to China now is because enough of the global supply chain has shifted there that it's now impossible to compete. Assuming those nations don't want to become services-based economies (which has been a disaster for Australia and the UK, neither of which can manufacture a tin of beans), protectionism is the only path forward. And indeed, China is utterly diligent in protecting it's own industries. This isn't fixed-pie-slicing, it's just pragmatic recognition that a government really does want to be able to fix the fighter jets when it needs to, and at some point, that means having enough industry in place to train the guy who does it. And economists, who don't really believe in or care about the problems of nation-states, probably aren't the right people to listen to when that's a concern.
The US is great, don't get me wrong, but the 1950-70s were based on an extremely fortunate combination of circumstances. It was almost certainly an exception rather than a norm to revert to. The resulting economy and middle class and mobility is aspirational, not easily reproducible. And I am certain not by pure protectionism.
I recommend to too many people the book "how the world got rich" https://a.co/d/0ehTVbK4. It's short. Growth is good for everyone and explains without much exaggeration all good societal progress. Just as one concept from here that explains an enormous fraction of global economic dynamics, look up " catch up growth". Sorry if this comes across as you not already knowing about this, I recommend it because I personally found it such a good resource.
(1) This is me inserting a projection, I don't know for sure. I would need a lot of convincing that protectionism and isolationism makes us more competitive overall. I completely understand all of your arguments about skill and knowledge and that other good stuff I already agreed was good. What I don't agree with is that your approach leads to us being to compete in a global market, especially given domestic political reality. It seems your system relies entirely on being able to export. The one thing we do export btw is services, the thing you shit on. And again, I wish we weren't so dominantly service based. I want all the good things you want that come with manufacturing and more domestic self-reliance. I just don't think you can will into existence of a manufacturing dominant prosperous middle class 60s economy that survives global competition, which you're export driven plan requires.
You're focusing on the US, when what I'm saying is historically true for essentially every nation that ever industrialized. Many of those countries are still industrial powerhouses today. The US had a great run from the 50s to the 70s, but it was the world's largest exporter by 1914 thanks to WWI, and didn't relinquish that spot until 2003. Similarly, Japan and Korea didn't have any such luck and still managed to both develop and maintain high living standards even through economic hardship, thanks to their industrial foundations. Taiwan uses its chip industry, again heavily export based, as a shield. China is following the same playbook today, first during China shock 1.0 20 years ago, and now with higher value goods. The only real exceptions to this rule are Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which exploited the fact that they were strategic waypoints in global shipping. Even then, Singapore is one of (if not the) largest oil refiners in the Asia Pacific region, and exports a tremendous quantity of refined petroleum products. Singapore isn't strictly protectionist, but it makes heavy use of cheap Asian laborers who will never, ever be citizens, and it engaged in massive skills transfers from other nations during the 80s and 90s (my own family was part of that wave). And of course, the major European powers all built themselves on the back of protectionism and exports. The erosion of that directly resulted in the crises we see today.
I have no issue with automation, and I agree that investors and business will always want to exploit cheaper economic conditions elsewhere. What I'm saying is that any government that wants to preserve living standards and maintain an industrial base needs to have the backbone to tell those interests "No". They are part of the social fabric of a country, and the backbone of it's defense. Investors will make less money, but I don't see that as a bad thing. They would actually have to allocate money more effectively within a country to turn a profit.
I'm not shitting on services, they're necessary. But services can't manufacture bullets when you need them, and countries always need them eventually. Not to mention, we live in a time when even services being offshored, so what's left? We build houses and make coffees for one another, while banks and mega corporations that are beholden to no border lord over us?
For what it's worth, I agree with you that economics is a captured discipline, and I applaud your devotion to testing your own ideas. But the stuff I'm pointing out isn't economics, it's history -- things that actually happened. In my opinion (and it is just that) any economic theory that is at odds with history is straight up garbage.
So there will be no build out of manufacturing capacity. You’d be a fool to spend tens of millions on that when at literally any moment the market will revert back to the norm.
This administration’s policy making is insane. I’m surprised folks are still trying to sanewash it.
Add that to the list of things I thought I'd never hear a conservative say.
Say what you will about the man, but Trump's takeover of the mainstream conservertive movement has been thorough, and eerily cordyceps-like.
Rayiner is a bad-faith troll who thinks he is being clever by doing the whole “oh, I thought you wanted to raise taxes, liberal??” thing. He does not actually think taxes are good.
I’ve been very consistent in favoring the Nordic tax structure, where you soak the top 40% but have low taxes on the super rich and corporations to prevent capital flight.
Half of these (or at least, instances of these) happened in the past week or two; most of the rest have happened in the past 2-3 months. I'm not even being exhaustive. You could
"Everything" is an understandable shorthand in this case and while technically hyperbolic it's really understood that it really means "most things that matter on a domestic and foreign policy stage."
Are you sure, it seems mostly based on illegal share trading. Murdering foreigners and sending soldiers to die is a lever Trump/his handlers keep pulling because they 'win' $millions every time.
In any other normal sane world stuff would get called out, greyed out, and ultimately shot down. In THIS world, the responses (I bet, like this one) are the "greys."
It's a scary world we live in where the Left turns into the Right of the past.
Do you have evidence for this?
I think you’re giving him too much credit. He is just a mouthpiece for various people, he can’t make a plan and stick with it, and never has.
Pack it in everybody! This guy thinks they worked as intended, that’s all the evidence needed! Case closed!
Ignore the way everything is more expensive. Ignore the way everything on digikey has a dedicated tariff column. Ignore the general chaos and the rest of what your lying eyes see, a hackernews throwaway account is pretty sure that the new tax on imports is unrelated to imports being more expensive.
You don't have to take my word for it though! I don't even know why you're trying to make this argument when you can just go look through a grocery store and see how much more expensive food is now than just a few years ago.
Argentina and Brazil should be a warning example to everyone. The paper Argentina Paradox by Taylor gives good insights into how trade barriers played a fundamental role in hurting this once very prosperous economy.
I think the overall direction of your comment is somewhat correct, but you're really overstating the claim here. There are very few things in general that could be called an unmitigated disaster (Is the challenger? Is the hindenburg? I'm not even sure about those...), so claiming that _everything_ the current admin does is an unmitigated disaster is just too extreme. Your criticism would be more believable if it was more realistic.
Canada walking away from American Bullying will go down in history of the moment the empire’s descent accelerated.
Fuck all the halfwit racists who voted for trump.
> The Trump administration has one big idea about Canada: The U.S. is larger, stronger, and richer than Canada, so Canada must sooner or later surrender to Trump’s demands. That one big idea is wrong.
> Yes, Trump can hurt Canada more than Canada can hurt Trump. That part of Trump’s thinking is true. But wars are not decided only by the question Who can inflict more pain? Wars are also decided by the question Who can endure more pain? Trump’s failure to accept this truth is why he lost the Iran war—and why he is losing his trade wars.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/08/why-us-canada-trad...
Premiers are almost united (excluding Alberta's Danielle Smith) in their support for Carney walking away from trade negotiations.
The leaks surrounding the deal that was on the table earlier this week did not look promising. e.g. Locking in 15% tariff's on autos made in Canada would have resulted in slow death for the Canadian auto sector, not to mention hamstringing all of NA at a time when their only way to compete with Chinese auto makers is crushing tariffs or outright import bans. Something probably had to move here to get the deal done. Unbelievably, things went in the opposite direction.
Howard Lutnick strolled into the Whitehouse at the eleventh hour and told Trump he thought that they could get an even better deal with Canada than what was on the table[1]. Americans should probably remember this guy. His family runs Cantor Fitzgerald, who has been buying up rights to tariff refunds[2]. Companies hit by tariffs can gamble on them eventually being declared illegal, or they can sell the rights to their refunds for a smaller amount and have some degree of certainty. When tariffs are struck down in court, companies like Cantor Fitzgerald make serious bank. So, here Lutnick is again, whispering in Trump's ear, drumming up more business for his family.
Trump tends to listen to the last person who talked to him, whether it's an economist (This is unlikely, as Trump prefers not to talk to academics) or a bell hop. In this case, Lutnick got in last, Trump decided to move the goal-posts, the talks failed as a result, and now there are more tariffs that will probably be struck down by courts.
Meanwhile, in Canada, people actually seem to be happy that this deal failed. Carney has made multiple concessions over the last year and change while the U.S. has made none and just kept demanding more and more. The general sentiment was that it's time to get tough, even if that means tariffs. Reports are that the latest demands during these talks were for limits on Canada's ability to strike trade deals with other countries, exclusive U.S. access to Canadian critical minerals, and even meddling in Canada's French language laws. Any one of these things would have been seen as a deal-breaker during normal times. With the mood being what it was, they were unthinkable. The American contingent knew this, so we can only conclude they deliberately scuttled the deal.
Interestingly enough, Carney seems to have taken a page out of Trump's book by delaying retaliation until Sept. 8th, giving the Americans a deadline for a change. That leaves room for a couple of TACO Tuesdays. However, the messaging from the PM and premiers has been careful to point out that they are ready to hunker down and wait for Trump to leave office. Carney has solid support for this stance while Trump does not, even among republicans, plus the midterms are looming. Trump increasingly looks like the one without the cards.
---------
[1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-us-tariff-trade-talk...
[2]https://fortune.com/2026/03/07/winners-supreme-court-tariff-...
This will cause some short term pain for Canada, but hopefully they'll have a less insane trading partner after November.
I would however urge my fellow Canadians to continue to or start boycotting goods from the US and travel to there, generally.
And likely encourage Americans to come visit here. Come ski here this winter. You're more than welcome here.
But please get out and vote! And please convince all of your sensible friends, family and neighbours to do the same!