This title makes me mad

Are you an idiot?I just can’t see the fricken future, so I don’t know the result.

I’m not even arguing either. I didn’t dispute any of your points, and you didn’t make it clear this is the same scenario, so I used your information to inform my next statement. I’m stating what I believe tariffs to be for and whether or not the purpose is different is last time.

Also, I don’t think you’ve engaged me on any of that with what you’re even saying here. Are you saying that because washing machines are tied to China, that all the products undergoing tariffs will suffer the same effect as washing machines had? Are you trying to say that, regardless of the tariff, cartels associated with the industry will increase prices for their associated prices? Stop beating around the bush and state your argument.

Yah, I mean realistically, I can only really see tariffs working if a nation is trying to enter an industry. Thatt’s not the case here, but even so these tariffs differ from the ones you mentioned because they would be against Chinese imports rather than a specific product, so I can’t imagine there’s as much risk of that sort of market manipulation from happening again… but then again, I’ve got no idea.

Realistically though, that’s how tariffs just work. With products costing more, theoretically that should drive demand down and eventually lead to fewer imports. Of course, if there’s still no competing product or the product is a basic necessity, then it’ll likely just result in people paying more.

Not too strange of a phenomenon if one considers what populism focuses on, the fabrication of divides in order to drive tribal responses from it’s followers.Trump’s rhetoric is only one variety of it that happens to be very effective at creating that divide, those that are swayed shouldn’t really be seen as people that support all of his nastiest views, but as people that have been taken in by that sense of tribalism.

The loss of community is increasingly problematic for individuals in this day in age. There exists too many groups vying for our attention, many of which being communities that span across the globe. And with all these options, local communities may not always seem preferential to these global ones due to comparative size or accessibility. However, they still generally offer much more, and can prevent people from feeling isolated in their lives. Populist campaigns seek to take these people that are divorced from a community, often socially isolated people, and give them a group that seemingly supports them. So long as it’s welcoming, it doesn’t really matter who’s at the head of it, nor it’s beliefs.

I feel the fact that older people that aren’t quite retirement age and younger men being the people that are most likely to vote for Trump kinda speaks to this theory. I feel like these groups are the most at risk when it comes to developing rewarding communities, so a group like MAGA could be appealing to them.

Yah I mean, if your narrow understanding of what war is is Trumpets trying to take over the white house than yah, I guess one would hate the idea of using violence for the greater good.

Still, that sort of sacrifice should be expected if you want to make changes in your country (the US)

Lol. Us vs them mentality has stretched back since the beginning of the homo genus… probably before that. Racism is just an extension of that but with larger communities. It’s more accurate to say “The Christian Nationalist Views of Inferior People have Roots Stemming from the Concept of Race”. Which is kinda obvious and doesn’t make much of a headline.

I can’t see how relying on the preference from North Korea could possibly help one’s election campaign.

I hate pacifists, man. They always try to publicly shame you by making it seem like violence is never justified… stupid deontological thinking