Big J

I raise the point simply because it's been raised many times before. Hopefully, this time you'll remember. If you get basic aspects of language wrong, it undermines the credibility that you seek to build. I know I'm being a patronising prick, but sometimes it's called for

It has been pointed out before and I hate to be a pedant, but please learn the difference between your and you're. You're is an abbreviation of you are. As in you'(a)re. So in a sentence: "You're an arborist" Your is a determiner, as in belonging to a person or people. In a sentence: "Your chainsaw is over there" In the text of yours that I've quoted, it's as if you're asking if Dave is claas. Not an unreasonable question, given the expertly chosen sawmill in the background, but you see my point. 😉

Do you have the same dealer as Trump? You smoking the same stuff as POTUS is the only explanation for that kind of willful ignorance. Tarriffs in all circumstances increase the cost of goods. Americans import more than they export because they like cheap stuff and have built their economy on the idea of acquiring more cheap stuff. If the government is applying an import tax on everything that comes in, it's not going to get cheaper. The US has one of the most overvalued currencies and highest cost of living in the world - they aren't going to be able to produce goods that can compete with imports. China for example - if the importer has a final cost of $100 for a toaster from China, over $30 of that is tax, going directly to the US Treasury, which Trump will give back directly to his cronies, in the form of massive tax cuts for the top 1%. It's really pretty simple. Trump loves two things. Attention (which he is getting lots of) and money, which he is squeezing every last drop of out of his presidential office.

What you're referring to as fjords would be in Böhuslän, and to say they are fjords is a bit like going to the Cotswolds and declaring them mountains. Regardless, your statement about the tarriffs not affecting me or my community was patently incorrect. And I believe that this policy of Trump's will very quickly collapse as every strata of American society turns on him as prices sky-rocket and the value of their pension pots collapses.

A lot of uneducated racism there. Sweden doesn't have fjords, for a start. Yes, it will affect me potentially. One of the two sawmills I work at exports 40% of it's production to North America (I'm not sure how much is Canada and how much is the USA, but I imagine it's at least an even split). So if 20% of the production of the mill is subject to 20% tarriffs, it will affect me and my coworkers.

It's not a quid pro quo at all. The figures that Trump is using are pure fantasy and seem to be loosely based on the trade deficit the US has with any given country. Take the EU. Trump claims that they charge 39% tarriffs. The EU Commission puts it at 1%, the WTO puts it at 4.8%. Andrew Kenningham, Chief Europe Economist at Capital Economics puts it at 3%.Any one of the three figures is wildly different to 39%. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/03/fact-check-are-donald-trumps-tariffs-on-the-eu-really-reciprocal

Lovely weather here at the moment. Decent frosts and warm sunny days. -3°c on th way to work this morning, and 18c on the way back yesterday.

Another point worth considering is that with the withdrawal of international aid and development, that the US loses what can reasonably be considered it's most valuable asset - soft power. Until Trump 2.0, the generally esteemed international position that the US held was largely as a result of the development programmes that it supported in the world's poorest communities. Much like the Chinese, the US sought to influence the development of economically emergent nations by way of USAID, and other agencies. It wasn't just a one-way flow of cash with nothing in return - it was mutually beneficial, even if it wasn't immediately apparent. On that note, international development aid is also one of the most effective ways of keeping people in developing countries in their own countries. If you withdraw the support that they were dependent on, they are much more likely to become desperate and try to emigrate to a more economically developed country. So, Trump's anti immigration agenda would actually be served very well by supporting those prospective immigrants to stay put. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As a completely unrelated point, I was just thinking that the most amusing outcome of the Greenland issue would be if the Greenlanders decided that yes, they wanted to secede from Denmark but that they would like to hitch their wagon to Canada. I cannot think of a more effective F**k You to the US than that, and actually might make sense too as Canada is a fellow arctic nation and unlike the US administration, the Canucks aren't a bunch of self-serving, self-important, egotistical c**ts.

So Trump's definition of "the best friend each of those countries has ever had" is a country which starts a pointless and harmful trade war, whilst all the time alienating and disparaging them and siding with autocratic mutual adversaries? With friends like America, who needs enemies?

Surely someone's head has to roll for this? It's an egregious and unforgiveable mistake in the first place, but denying it so brazenly is just outrageous. I bet Hillary Clinton is pissing herself watching this unfold. Whatever transgression it is she committed regarding her emails is precisely nothing when compared to this.

This thread and the topic that it discusses is now beyond depressing. It's not like you can really even parody or satirise what Trump et al are doing now as it's so extreme, so debased and so divorced from reality that there is no way to exagerate it for comedic effect. Comparisons to 1930s Germany are not without merit. As Trump and Musk ignore the judiciary, as they remove or disempower the checks and balances of executive power, as they contravene democratic rights, as they undermine the economic grounding of the poorest whilst furnishing themselves with unimaginable riches, it's difficult not see the value of historic comparisons, as well as fear for the direction in which the US is heading. I find it really frustrating that on this thread, that those on the right of the political debate very rarely actually engage in attempts to rationalise or justify the actions of the Trump administration (see how I resisted the temptation to call it a regime? I almost didn't even mention the word regime!) and rather lower themselves to name calling. It would be really nice to see more compassion towards those that are being directly negatively affected by Trump's policies, like the auto workers in the US who's livelihoods are being jeopardised by this needless trade war that he's started with Canada. Or, more broadly, every single person in the lower four quintiles of the economic strata, for whom tariffs represent a significant tax rise. Less name calling, more reasoned and reasonable debate please. As adults with (I assume) positions of responsibility, we should be capable of that.

It's very dry and sunny here too. Barely had any rain in 8 weeks - only 5mm precipitation recorded in February. These photos were taken on my way home from work a couple of days ago, and this is what it's been like for a couple of weeks now:

Well I think all religion is fundamentally stupid, destructive and harmful. Some more than others, but they're all in the same ballpark. You're born, you live, you try not to be a prick*, you die, you're wormfood. Such is life. *Well, some of us 😁

All those veterans that fought alongside those "countries that haven't fought a war in like, 30 or 40 years"