• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              They were leaders of NATO, not speaking at a NATO event.

              You’re working overtime to normalize Nazism.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                bro i have spent the equivalent of 12 seconds on this thread. Donald trump was the US president, is the entire fucking country fascist now because of him?

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The United States, as in the State itself? Yes, actually, however I’m sure you understand that literal fucking Nazis leading NATO is a sign of it being Nazi friendly, don’t you think?

                  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    (the answer was no btw, unless you have really strong proof that there is a government structure of loyalty and power grabbing currently in place, you’re dead in the water on that one)

                    Also the united states is a collection of states, so technically it’s not a collective state, but a country, the individual states themselves are irrelevant, unless texas is directly sending israel money for the war or something.

                    however I’m sure you understand that literal fucking Nazis leading NATO is a sign of it being Nazi friendly, don’t you think?

                    i would be inclined to agree with you in the case that like, they were pushing nazi ideals, and like, hated jews. Or something.

                    Also i’m not even sure this is accurate today? How many original nazis are even still alive?

                    I’m also assuming that when you say “leaders of NATO” you mean “a member of NATO” NATO is literally just a military alliance, it’s not like it has a governmental structure, at best it has a democratic process, or something like that, but im guessing you probably don’t even know how NATO works beyond the fact that it had a nazi in it once and that is bad maybe.

                    You have to give me more information than “there was a nazi in NATO once” before i can even begin to consider whether or not this is a good or a bad or completely ambivalent thing.

                • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I mean America is a fascist country though. After all, it still has legalised slavery and killed millions of innocent people in this century alone. It’s only natural for such a country to elect fine specimens just as Trump or Biden.

    • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      anti globalist, economically it’s just universally bad

      Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        funnily enough my comment was removed, unsure why, pretty sure it was mostly accurate though lol.

        I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.

        it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

        It’s a give and take, like everything is. But regardless, globalism is generally good for the economy.

        • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It is weird that your comment was removed.

          it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

          Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

          Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It is weird that your comment was removed.

            yeah idk i’ve seen weird shit happen a few times so far, btw if you’re a mod and remove shit, please tell people why even if its literally just quoting what they said that got it deleted.

            Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

            yeah, if you’re a globalism absolutist that would be silly, but tariffs are a useful market force, they allow competition in market sectors that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Farming gets a lot of subsidies for these reasons, and when we’re talking about shit like non essentials a chinese EV specifically, the implications of it on the market are a lot less significant than something like tariffing AA batteries produced outside of america.

            The trump admin tariffed canadian lumber imports. Why? There’s a reason they have a lumber industry, it’s because they can do it for cheaper than we can (they have a lot more wooded lands, and a lot less people living there)

            yes a 100% tariff on EVs is quite significant, but then again, we have a massive domestic auto manufacturing capability, as well as a general lack of need for “foreign EVs” it might make the market cheaper and more accessible, but that’s coming eventually anyway.

            Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

            i’m generally inclined to agree especially on a federal level, IMO i think that tariffs generally have a really subtle market effect, and i think that’s generally the intention of them. They aren’t meant to be massive blanket sweeps. If you really wanted to incentivize people to own EVs you wouldn’t import them at 0% tariff, you would just subsidize owning or buying an EV. You would just make it more accessible, you fund domestic production and development of EVs.