Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[UNI88]

FAA investigating flight control issues on Southwest Boeing 737 Max

….The FAA confirmed it is looking into a so-called Dutch roll that took place on flight N8825Q on May 25, causing the airline to pull the passenger jet from service and send it back to Boeing for inspection.

Dutch roll refers to potentially dangerous lateral asymmetric movements of an aircraft. The term itself is supposedly derived from the movement of ice skaters.

Pilots on the Southwest Airlines flight saw the plane's tail yaw, a movement up and down on its vertical axis. Pilots also had to contend with tail wag from right to left, while the wings rocked in a side-to-side motion. They were able to recover and make a safe landing in Oakland with no injuries reported.

"[The] aircraft experienced a Dutch roll, regained control and post-flight inspection revealed damage to the standby PCU," the FAA said in its Accident and Incident Notification.

The PCU or Power Control Unit takes input from a pilot's rudder pedals or the aircraft's yaw damper system and directs the flow of hydraulic fluid in order to move the rudder.

FAA investigators will now look at what caused the issue aboard the Boeing 737 Max 8, which remains on the ground at the company's facility in Everett, Wash. Records show the plane was certified to fly in 2022.

The incident adds to a string of mishaps for Boeing after the door plug of a 737 Max 9 blew out midway through an Alaska Airlines flight in January, causing an explosive decompression. Boeing has since paid the airline $160 million in damages. The FAA later banned the company from expanding production of the passenger planes.….

Do we need to start a GoFundMe for SG? Or is he putting his SEAL training to use and making a little money on the side knocking off whistleblowers?

[BDKJMU]

3 Boeing problmes this week. The Southwest plane was one.

2nd

Exclusive: Boeing investigates quality problem on undelivered 787s

PARIS/WASHINGTON/MONTREAL, June 13 (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab is investigating a new quality problem with its 787 Dreamliner after discovering that hundreds of fasteners have been incorrectly installed on the fuselages of some undelivered jets, two people familiar with the matter said.

The latest in a series of manufacturing snags affecting the U.S. planemaker involves incorrect "torquing" or tightening in a Boeing plant of more than 900 fasteners per plane - split equally between both sides of the jet's mid-body, they said.

There is no immediate concern about flight safety but Boeing is working to understand what caused the problem and will decide how much if any rework needs to be done once its investigation is complete, the sources said, asking not to be identified….

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 024-06-13/

[BDKJMU]

3rd- Headlines were ‘Counterfeit’titanium. They have been updated to ‘questionable’ titanium.

Titanium that was distributed with fake documentation has been found in commercial Boeing and Airbus jets. Now the Federal Aviation Administration, the aircraft manufacturers and supplier Spirit AeroSystems are investigating whether those components pose a safety hazard to the public.

The probe, first reported by the New York Times Friday, is the latest black eye for the aerospace industry, which has had a series of problems recently with the quality and safety issues involving jets. The investigation comes after small holes were discovered in the material, apparently from corrosion, according to the Times report.….

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/14/business ... index.html

[BDKJMU]

Another victory for 2A rights.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/05/24 ... ay-n750760

Losses keep piling up for Biden’s ATF..

Biden’s ATF loses big in ‘pistol brace’ case

…..In a 12-page decision, the Texas-based U.S. District Court vacated the rule that could have led to the destruction of millions of firearms, among the most popular in America, and the jailing of owners who had refused to comply with the administration.

The court also blasted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for thinking that it could change a long-established exemption overnight to make ownership of the firearms illegal….

….The case is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, those involved said.

For now, it is legal to have the pistols — AR style or others — equipped with stabilizing arm braces.

For years, ATF gave its blessing that putting the adjustable braces on pistols was allowed even though the braces could be used as a style of stock, turning the firearms into short-barreled rifles. Typically, short barreled rifles are regulated under the Al Capone era National Firearms Act which requires a $200 tax stamp and registration.

In his decision, Judge Reed O’Connor said that the ATF was wrong in just changing its mind without giving an explanation. He also hit the agency for ignoring comments from users and writing the rule vaguely.

“The court finds that the adaptation of the final rule was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the defendants did not provide a detailed justification for their reversal of the agency’s longstanding position. And second, the final rule’s standards are impermissibly vague,” wrote the judge.

There are an estimated 10 million or more of the firearms in America. During an ATF grace period, when owners were allowed to register their weapons free of the $200 tax, less than 300,000 did so.

The firearms are popular for plinking at ranges and for self-defense because they are smaller than a traditional AR-15 rifle. Many have barrels about half the length of a traditional rifle, and the pistol brace stock is adjustable.

The administration pushed the rule by claiming the guns were the choice in mass shootings, though just a few have been used in those events.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... NewsSearch

[UNI88]

Moving this away from the Funny Pics thread for more serious questions:

What will happen if trump and rightwing social populists win power in the US and Europe?

How will the world change if they and the US implement a (insert country name here) _________ First approach?

On the surface an America First approach sounds really good but socialism sounds really good on the surface as well. The devil's in the details. Much like I ask kalm, Houndy, etc. why socialism will work this time, can a MAQA yahoo tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

To me, the situation we face is similar to what happened in the 1920's and 1930's. I see that approach leading to increased tensions and conflicts, decreased trade, lost economic opportunities and jobs, and more lives lost. Why?

1. Tariffs don't occur in a vacuum. American tariffs alone might lead to more domestic manufacturing but other countries will respond in kind and while US imports will decrease so will exports. In addition, international trade creates connections and dependencies which reduce the likelihood of conflict. Reduced international trade will lead to an increase in international conflicts.
2. The US pulling back from international involvement will embolden the bullies of the world. putin invading Ukraine won't be an isolated incident. What will China do with Taiwan? In the South China Sea? What will Iran do in the Middle East? What will happen in the Caucasus? The possibility of intervention by the US, the UN, NATO and/or other powerful actors is a deterrent to those bullies taking action. If those countries or leading members of those organizations focus on themselves, that deterrent is removed and there will be more not less conflict.
3. Eventually those conflicts spread and the US and other nations will be forced to get involved. The loss of life and economic gains will be significantly greater than if the US and other nations had simply stayed involved.

So BDK, CH, SG, etc. tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts on this as well (especially CID, he can DM me if he's lurking and doesn't want to post).

[kalm]

Moving this away from the Funny Pics thread for more serious questions:

What will happen if trump and rightwing social populists win power in the US and Europe?

How will the world change if they and the US implement a (insert country name here) _________ First approach?

On the surface an America First approach sounds really good but socialism sounds really good on the surface as well. The devil's in the details. Much like I ask kalm, Houndy, etc. why socialism will work this time, can a MAQA yahoo tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

To me, the situation we face is similar to what happened in the 1920's and 1930's. I see that approach leading to increased tensions and conflicts, decreased trade, lost economic opportunities and jobs, and more lives lost. Why?

1. Tariffs don't occur in a vacuum. American tariffs alone might lead to more domestic manufacturing but other countries will respond in kind and while US imports will decrease so will exports. In addition, international trade creates connections and dependencies which reduce the likelihood of conflict. Reduced international trade will lead to an increase in international conflicts.
2. The US pulling back from international involvement will embolden the bullies of the world. putin invading Ukraine won't be an isolated incident. What will China do with Taiwan? In the South China Sea? What will Iran do in the Middle East? What will happen in the Caucasus? The possibility of intervention by the US, the UN, NATO and/or other powerful actors is a deterrent to those bullies taking action. If those countries or leading members of those organizations focus on themselves, that deterrent is removed and there will be more not less conflict.
3. Eventually those conflicts spread and the US and other nations will be forced to get involved. The loss of life and economic gains will be significantly greater than if the US and other nations had simply stayed involved.

So BDK, CH, SG, etc. tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts on this as well (especially CID, he can DM me if he's lurking and doesn't want to post).

Good post and for the record ( again)I’m not a socialist. I’m an American who thinks capitalism should be fairly regulated and that a “free market” anywhere is a unicorn. I think Houndy agrees.

[UNI88]

Moving this away from the Funny Pics thread for more serious questions:

What will happen if trump and rightwing social populists win power in the US and Europe?

How will the world change if they and the US implement a (insert country name here) _________ First approach?

On the surface an America First approach sounds really good but socialism sounds really good on the surface as well. The devil's in the details. Much like I ask kalm, Houndy, etc. why socialism will work this time, can a MAQA yahoo tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

To me, the situation we face is similar to what happened in the 1920's and 1930's. I see that approach leading to increased tensions and conflicts, decreased trade, lost economic opportunities and jobs, and more lives lost. Why?

1. Tariffs don't occur in a vacuum. American tariffs alone might lead to more domestic manufacturing but other countries will respond in kind and while US imports will decrease so will exports. In addition, international trade creates connections and dependencies which reduce the likelihood of conflict. Reduced international trade will lead to an increase in international conflicts.
2. The US pulling back from international involvement will embolden the bullies of the world. putin invading Ukraine won't be an isolated incident. What will China do with Taiwan? In the South China Sea? What will Iran do in the Middle East? What will happen in the Caucasus? The possibility of intervention by the US, the UN, NATO and/or other powerful actors is a deterrent to those bullies taking action. If those countries or leading members of those organizations focus on themselves, that deterrent is removed and there will be more not less conflict.
3. Eventually those conflicts spread and the US and other nations will be forced to get involved. The loss of life and economic gains will be significantly greater than if the US and other nations had simply stayed involved.

So BDK, CH, SG, etc. tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts on this as well (especially CID, he can DM me if he's lurking and doesn't want to post).

Good post and for the record ( again)I’m not a socialist. I’m an American who thinks capitalism should be fairly regulated and that a “free market” anywhere is a unicorn. I think Houndy agrees.

Let's not derail the debate before it even starts by arguing whether I said you and Houndy are socialists.

Should this be it's own thread?

[kalm]

Good post and for the record ( again)I’m not a socialist. I’m an American who thinks capitalism should be fairly regulated and that a “free market” anywhere is a unicorn. I think Houndy agrees.

Let's not derail the debate before it even starts by arguing whether I said you and Houndy are socialists.

Should this be it's own thread?

You implied it. But yes we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.

[UNI88]

Let's not derail the debate before it even starts by arguing whether I said you and Houndy are socialists.

Should this be it's own thread?

You implied it. But yes we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.

And BDK would like nothing more than to be able to say that he missed the questions because they were buried behind you and I debating over whether I called you and Houndy socialists.

So what do you have BDK, CH, SG? Why will I be wrong about America First and similar philosophies in other countries?

[BDKJMU]

Moving this away from the Funny Pics thread for more serious questions:

What will happen if trump and rightwing social populists win power in the US and Europe?

How will the world change if they and the US implement a (insert country name here) _________ First approach?

On the surface an America First approach sounds really good but socialism sounds really good on the surface as well. The devil's in the details. Much like I ask kalm, Houndy, etc. why socialism will work this time, can a MAQA yahoo tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

To me, the situation we face is similar to what happened in the 1920's and 1930's. I see that approach leading to increased tensions and conflicts, decreased trade, lost economic opportunities and jobs, and more lives lost. Why?

1. Tariffs don't occur in a vacuum. American tariffs alone might lead to more domestic manufacturing but other countries will respond in kind and while US imports will decrease so will exports. In addition, international trade creates connections and dependencies which reduce the likelihood of conflict. Reduced international trade will lead to an increase in international conflicts.
2. The US pulling back from international involvement will embolden the bullies of the world. putin invading Ukraine won't be an isolated incident. What will China do with Taiwan? In the South China Sea? What will Iran do in the Middle East? What will happen in the Caucasus? The possibility of intervention by the US, the UN, NATO and/or other powerful actors is a deterrent to those bullies taking action. If those countries or leading members of those organizations focus on themselves, that deterrent is removed and there will be more not less conflict.
3. Eventually those conflicts spread and the US and other nations will be forced to get involved. The loss of life and economic gains will be significantly greater than if the US and other nations had simply stayed involved.

So BDK, CH, SG, etc. tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts on this as well (especially CID, he can DM me if he's lurking and doesn't want to post).

1st of all, the what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ surging in popularity in Europe is more due to unchecked illegal immigration, not tariffs or treaties.

But as far a tariffs and treaties:
No one is talking about tariffs on all countries. But when a country:
1.Has a major trade surplus with the US.
2.Puts tariffs on US goods.
3.Manipulates their currency.
4.Conducts state sanctioned economic espionage and intellectual property theft on a GINORMOUS scale.
5.Allowed a lab created virus to escape to the rest of the world that cost our economy trillions.
You don’t think the US should put tariffs on that country’s goods?

Fine with the US having international involvement. But the US shouldn’t be involved in, or fund endless foreign wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine) absent a clear, direct threat to the US (not a speculative one). Russia/Ukraine isn’t one. China/Taiwan is (chips). US hould not be the world’s policeman or defense piggy bank. Should only participate in treaties with countries that pull their own weight. The US shouldn’t disproportionately fund fellow members defense. The US taxpayers have subsidized most of Western Europe’s social safety net for 70 years by providing a disproportionate amount of their defense. And should never spend more for defending another countries borders than our own. Absolute disaster on the US border now. The last 3 ICE/CBP budgets have been south of 70 billion..Since Feb 2022 5 Ukaraine bills have totaled about 175 billion… Something majorly wrong there.

[UNI88]

Moving this away from the Funny Pics thread for more serious questions:

What will happen if trump and rightwing social populists win power in the US and Europe?

How will the world change if they and the US implement a (insert country name here) _________ First approach?

On the surface an America First approach sounds really good but socialism sounds really good on the surface as well. The devil's in the details. Much like I ask kalm, Houndy, etc. why socialism will work this time, can a MAQA yahoo tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

To me, the situation we face is similar to what happened in the 1920's and 1930's. I see that approach leading to increased tensions and conflicts, decreased trade, lost economic opportunities and jobs, and more lives lost. Why?

1. Tariffs don't occur in a vacuum. American tariffs alone might lead to more domestic manufacturing but other countries will respond in kind and while US imports will decrease so will exports. In addition, international trade creates connections and dependencies which reduce the likelihood of conflict. Reduced international trade will lead to an increase in international conflicts.
2. The US pulling back from international involvement will embolden the bullies of the world. putin invading Ukraine won't be an isolated incident. What will China do with Taiwan? In the South China Sea? What will Iran do in the Middle East? What will happen in the Caucasus? The possibility of intervention by the US, the UN, NATO and/or other powerful actors is a deterrent to those bullies taking action. If those countries or leading members of those organizations focus on themselves, that deterrent is removed and there will be more not less conflict.
3. Eventually those conflicts spread and the US and other nations will be forced to get involved. The loss of life and economic gains will be significantly greater than if the US and other nations had simply stayed involved.

So BDK, CH, SG, etc. tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts on this as well (especially CID, he can DM me if he's lurking and doesn't want to post).

1st of all, the what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ surging in popularity in Europe is more due to unchecked illegal immigration, not tariffs or treaties.

But as far a tariffs and treaties:
No one is talking about tariffs on all countries. But when a country:
1.Has a major trade surplus with the US.
2.Puts tariffs on US goods.
3.Manipulates their currency.
4.Conducts state sanctioned economic espionage and intellectual property theft on a GINORMOUS scale.
5.Allowed a lab created virus to escape to the rest of the world that cost our economy trillions.
You don’t think the US should put tariffs on that country’s goods?

Fine with the US having international involvement. But the US shouldn’t be involved in, or fund endless foreign wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine) absent a clear, direct threat to the US (not a speculative one). Russia/Ukraine isn’t one. China/Taiwan is (chips). US hould not be the world’s policeman or defense piggy bank. Should only participate in treaties with countries that pull their own weight. The US shouldn’t disproportionately fund fellow members defense. The US taxpayers have subsidized most of Western Europe’s social safety net for 70 years by providing a disproportionate amount of their defense. And should never spend more for defending another countries borders than our own. Absolute disaster on the US border now. The last 3 ICE/CBP budgets have been south of 70 billion..Since Feb 2022 5 Ukaraine bills have totaled about 175 billion… Something majorly wrong there.

That's a lot of words to not answer the question: Why would an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

[UNI88]

Moving this away from the Funny Pics thread for more serious questions:

What will happen if trump and rightwing social populists win power in the US and Europe?

How will the world change if they and the US implement a (insert country name here) _________ First approach?

On the surface an America First approach sounds really good but socialism sounds really good on the surface as well. The devil's in the details. Much like I ask kalm, Houndy, etc. why socialism will work this time, can a MAQA yahoo tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

To me, the situation we face is similar to what happened in the 1920's and 1930's. I see that approach leading to increased tensions and conflicts, decreased trade, lost economic opportunities and jobs, and more lives lost. Why?

1. Tariffs don't occur in a vacuum. American tariffs alone might lead to more domestic manufacturing but other countries will respond in kind and while US imports will decrease so will exports. In addition, international trade creates connections and dependencies which reduce the likelihood of conflict. Reduced international trade will lead to an increase in international conflicts.
2. The US pulling back from international involvement will embolden the bullies of the world. putin invading Ukraine won't be an isolated incident. What will China do with Taiwan? In the South China Sea? What will Iran do in the Middle East? What will happen in the Caucasus? The possibility of intervention by the US, the UN, NATO and/or other powerful actors is a deterrent to those bullies taking action. If those countries or leading members of those organizations focus on themselves, that deterrent is removed and there will be more not less conflict.
3. Eventually those conflicts spread and the US and other nations will be forced to get involved. The loss of life and economic gains will be significantly greater than if the US and other nations had simply stayed involved.

So BDK, CH, SG, etc. tell me why an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

I'm interested in everyone else's thoughts on this as well (especially CID, he can DM me if he's lurking and doesn't want to post).

1st of all, the what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ surging in popularity in Europe is more due to unchecked illegal immigration, not tariffs or treaties.

But as far a tariffs and treaties:
No one is talking about tariffs on all countries. But when a country:
1.Has a major trade surplus with the US.
2.Puts tariffs on US goods.
3.Manipulates their currency.
4.Conducts state sanctioned economic espionage and intellectual property theft on a GINORMOUS scale.
5.Allowed a lab created virus to escape to the rest of the world that cost our economy trillions.
You don’t think the US should put tariffs on that country’s goods?

Fine with the US having international involvement. But the US shouldn’t be involved in, or fund endless foreign wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine) absent a clear, direct threat to the US (not a speculative one). Russia/Ukraine isn’t one. China/Taiwan is (chips). US hould not be the world’s policeman or defense piggy bank. Should only participate in treaties with countries that pull their own weight. The US shouldn’t disproportionately fund fellow members defense. The US taxpayers have subsidized most of Western Europe’s social safety net for 70 years by providing a disproportionate amount of their defense. And should never spend more for defending another countries borders than our own. Absolute disaster on the US border now. The last 3 ICE/CBP budgets have been south of 70 billion..Since Feb 2022 5 Ukaraine bills have totaled about 175 billion… Something majorly wrong there.

That's a lot of words to not answer the question: Why would an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term? Why wiill it lead to a brighter future than the one I describe?

[kalm]

1st of all, the what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ surging in popularity in Europe is more due to unchecked illegal immigration, not tariffs or treaties.

But as far a tariffs and treaties:
No one is talking about tariffs on all countries. But when a country:
1.Has a major trade surplus with the US.
2.Puts tariffs on US goods.
3.Manipulates their currency.
4.Conducts state sanctioned economic espionage and intellectual property theft on a GINORMOUS scale.
5.Allowed a lab created virus to escape to the rest of the world that cost our economy trillions.
You don’t think the US should put tariffs on that country’s goods?

Fine with the US having international involvement. But the US shouldn’t be involved in, or fund endless foreign wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine) absent a clear, direct threat to the US (not a speculative one). Russia/Ukraine isn’t one. China/Taiwan is (chips). US hould not be the world’s policeman or defense piggy bank. Should only participate in treaties with countries that pull their own weight. The US shouldn’t disproportionately fund fellow members defense. The US taxpayers have subsidized most of Western Europe’s social safety net for 70 years by providing a disproportionate amount of their defense. And should never spend more for defending another countries borders than our own. Absolute disaster on the US border now. The last 3 ICE/CBP budgets have been south of 70 billion..Since Feb 2022 5 Ukaraine bills have totaled about 175 billion… Something majorly wrong there.

That's a lot of words to not answer the question: Why would an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term? Why wiill it lead to a brighter future than the one I describe?

For left wing populism as a contrast, the Prospect is running a piece on how Biden should be sounding like FDR. Wall Street and the billionaire class have shifted back to Trump a bit since 2020 when they favored Biden.

Establishment Dems are tone deaf to these words.

[Caribbean Hen]

Let's not derail the debate before it even starts by arguing whether I said you and Houndy are socialists.

Should this be it's own thread?

You implied it. But yes we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.

He implied it because you imply it

Trump had peace

Biden has emboldened and enabled the global thugs

Next

[UNI88]

You implied it. But yes we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.

He implied it because you imply it

Trump had peace

Biden has emboldened and enabled the global thugs

Next

Cop out.

[kalm]

You implied it. But yes we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.

He implied it because you imply it

Trump had peace

Biden has emboldened and enabled the global thugs

Next

What does that have to do with America First, trade policy and economics?

[BDKJMU]

1st of all, the what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ surging in popularity in Europe is more due to unchecked illegal immigration, not tariffs or treaties.

But as far a tariffs and treaties:
No one is talking about tariffs on all countries. But when a country:
1.Has a major trade surplus with the US.
2.Puts tariffs on US goods.
3.Manipulates their currency.
4.Conducts state sanctioned economic espionage and intellectual property theft on a GINORMOUS scale.
5.Allowed a lab created virus to escape to the rest of the world that cost our economy trillions.
You don’t think the US should put tariffs on that country’s goods?

Fine with the US having international involvement. But the US shouldn’t be involved in, or fund endless foreign wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine) absent a clear, direct threat to the US (not a speculative one). Russia/Ukraine isn’t one. China/Taiwan is (chips). US hould not be the world’s policeman or defense piggy bank. Should only participate in treaties with countries that pull their own weight. The US shouldn’t disproportionately fund fellow members defense. The US taxpayers have subsidized most of Western Europe’s social safety net for 70 years by providing a disproportionate amount of their defense. And should never spend more for defending another countries borders than our own. Absolute disaster on the US border now. The last 3 ICE/CBP budgets have been south of 70 billion..Since Feb 2022 5 Ukaraine bills have totaled about 175 billion… Something majorly wrong there.

That's a lot of words to not answer the question: Why would an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

-Increased tariffs on what specific country? If China I already answered. Could be used as a carrot/stick approach with using them in LIMITED cases with other countries if are dealing with a very uneven playing field (More threats of using them than using them). That would benefit American workers and economy. Nothing wrong with free trade if dealing with ‘somewhat’ level playing fields.
-‘Less international involvement’ translation stop becoming the worlds policeman and defense piggy bank would help the US because we can’t afford it with a 34 trillion+ and rapidly growing nat debt.

As far as what would be good for the rest of the world, IDGAF.

Again, you brought up what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ winning power in the US and Europe and wanting to talk tariffs & treaties when the far bigger factor is immigration.

[BDKJMU]

Of the G7 leaders, don’t know anything about the Japanese PM, but Meloni is the only one worth a damn amongst the rest of them.

[BDKJMU]

Meanwhile, yesterday in France, Le Pen gives a fiery speech

[UNI88]

That's a lot of words to not answer the question: Why would an America First approach with less international involvement, increased tariffs, etc. would be good for the US and the world in the long term?

-Increased tariffs on what specific country? If China I already answered. Could be used as a carrot/stick approach with using them in LIMITED cases with other countries if are dealing with a very uneven playing field (More threats of using them than using them). That would benefit American workers and economy. Nothing wrong with free trade if dealing with ‘somewhat’ level playing fields.
-‘Less international involvement’ translation stop becoming the worlds policeman and defense piggy bank would help the US because we can’t afford it with a 34 trillion+ and rapidly growing nat debt.

As far as what would be good for the rest of the world, IDGAF.

Again, you brought up what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ winning power in the US and Europe and wanting to talk tariffs & treaties when the far bigger factor is immigration.

What are the long-term implications of the US using more tariffs on China and others where we have a trade disparity? How do China and the other countries respond? Where does it go? Where does it stop? What are the results?

Same for US's reduced international involvement. What are the long-term implications? How do China, russia, and other countries respond?

What happens to international trade? Are there fewer or more conflicts?

I've stated my belief that there will be less trade and more conflict. The drop in trade will cost US jobs and our standard of living will suffer. Conflicts will increase until eventually the US has to get more involved again and the cost in lives and money will be greater than if we'd just stayed more involved. Tell me why I'm wrong. Why isolationism will work to the US' and the world's benefit this time?

[BDKJMU]

-Increased tariffs on what specific country? If China I already answered. Could be used as a carrot/stick approach with using them in LIMITED cases with other countries if are dealing with a very uneven playing field (More threats of using them than using them). That would benefit American workers and economy. Nothing wrong with free trade if dealing with ‘somewhat’ level playing fields.
-‘Less international involvement’ translation stop becoming the worlds policeman and defense piggy bank would help the US because we can’t afford it with a 34 trillion+ and rapidly growing nat debt.

As far as what would be good for the rest of the world, IDGAF.

Again, you brought up what you call ‘rightwing social populists’ winning power in the US and Europe and wanting to talk tariffs & treaties when the far bigger factor is immigration.

What are the long-term implications of the US using more tariffs on China and others where we have a trade disparity? How do China and the other countries respond? Where does it go? Where does it stop? What are the results?

Same for US's reduced international involvement. What are the long-term implications? How do China, russia, and other countries respond?

What happens to international trade? Are there fewer or more conflicts?

I've stated my belief that there will be less trade and more conflict. The drop in trade will cost US jobs and our standard of living will suffer. Conflicts will increase until eventually the US has to get more involved again and the cost in lives and money will be greater than if we'd just stayed more involved. Tell me why I'm wrong. Why isolationism will work to the US' and the world's benefit this time?

Apparently you would have us do nothing about the trade abuses, currency manupulation, and economic espionage of China.

I believe with linited, targeted tariffs with a carrot/stick approach there won’t be less trade and more conflict. Could be less trade in some areas, while more products made domestically could lead to more trade in other areas..

The US not being the worlds policeman and largest arms dealer isn’t going to lead to more worldwide conflict, and certainly isn’t going to cost the US more $$$ amd lives in the long run.

Again, the gains of the right in Europe are more immigration driven than trade & treaties.

[UNI88]

What are the long-term implications of the US using more tariffs on China and others where we have a trade disparity? How do China and the other countries respond? Where does it go? Where does it stop? What are the results?

Same for US's reduced international involvement. What are the long-term implications? How do China, russia, and other countries respond?

What happens to international trade? Are there fewer or more conflicts?

I've stated my belief that there will be less trade and more conflict. The drop in trade will cost US jobs and our standard of living will suffer. Conflicts will increase until eventually the US has to get more involved again and the cost in lives and money will be greater than if we'd just stayed more involved. Tell me why I'm wrong. Why isolationism will work to the US' and the world's benefit this time?

Apparently you would have us do nothing about the trade abuses, currency manupulation, and economic espionage of China.

I believe with linited, targeted tariffs with a carrot/stick approach there won’t be less trade and more conflict. Could be less trade in some areas, while more products made domestically could lead to more trade in other areas..

The US not being the worlds policeman and largest arms dealer isn’t going to lead to more worldwide conflict, and certainly isn’t going to cost the US more $$$ amd lives in the long run.

Again, the gains of the right in Europe are more immigration driven than trade & treaties.

If trump wins, we'll see.

[Caribbean Hen]

He implied it because you imply it

Trump had peace

Biden has emboldened and enabled the global thugs

Next

What does that have to do with America First, trade policy and economics?

You’re kidding right …

[kalm]

What does that have to do with America First, trade policy and economics?

You’re kidding right …

No. You weren’t tracking a conversation.

[Caribbean Hen]

You’re kidding right …

No. You weren’t tracking a conversation.

And you were? Ugh no you weren’t