Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 633K
  • Politics 
A few observations:

1. If the US tried to use military force against Greenland, all NATO countries -- including the United States! -- would be obliged to come to Denmark's defense. This would be an opening for Trump to be deposed as president, because treaties have a higher legal status than executive decisions. Quite literally, Trump would be giving an illegal, self-defeating order and I would expect no military person would obey it.

2. Does Trump really want to get in a war with all of NATO? Hopefully someone is telling him how badly that will go for him. Remember how American military forces in Vietnam were crippled by the low morale of people fighting Vietnamese people for reasons they didn't understand? Imagine putting your life on the line because Trump wants Greenland. I have a feeling that American forces would be unenthusiastic participants.

3. I am 90% sure that Trump cannot tariff Denmark because the country of origin for Denmark is the European Union. I do not think American law authorizes sub-tariffs (e.g. tariffing part of Mexico, or part of the EU).

4. I am 99% sure that in practice Trump cannot effectively tariff Denmark because free movement of goods means that Denmark could just route their exports through another EU company.

5. Trump has no idea that Denmark holds all the leverage here. There is one four letter word that makes Denmark immune to Trump's pressure: LEGO. It might be hard to cleave MAGAs from their cult, but taking away their ability to occupy their children with lego toys, minifigures, TV shows, movies would do the trick.
 
My conversation with ChatGPT:

Me: can the united states tariff a single EU country, or do tariffs have to be imposed for the entire customs union?

GPT: The United States cannot generally impose tariffs on a single EU country because the European Union functions as a customs union. Within a customs union, all member states adopt a unified external trade policy, meaning tariffs imposed on goods entering the EU apply uniformly across all member states. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on products from the EU, those tariffs apply to the entire customs union and not individual member states.

Me: All right. Forget the WTO for a minute. Our president-elect is threatening to tariff Denmark unless it hands over Greenland to America. Yes, that is actually happening. Next time you get trained, you're going to learn a lot of really crazy shit. But anyway, do you know if US law would permit him to levy tariffs on Denmark without Congressional action?

GPT: Well, that's a plot twist right out of an alternate history novel! Here's the deal: under U.S. law, the president does have significant power to impose tariffs unilaterally in certain situations, but the authority to target a specific country like Denmark (outside of the EU context) is complex and legally constrained. The president could try, but targeting Denmark alone without applying the tariffs to the broader EU would be legally dubious and likely face lawsuits, pushback from Congress, and international complications. Denmark might give him a very polite nej tak, and we’d all just have to brace for the sequel to this geopolitical circus.

LOL. Even ChatGPT gets it.

BTW, ChatGPT also tried to bring the uniformity clause of Article I into the analysis, which is simply wrong (as it admitted in a follow up). So, for those of you looking to ChatGPT for sophisticated analysis, don't. It's pretty good in math and science, from my experience, but as to law it's not even at Ramrouser level.
 
Meta taking the Twitter approach to content moderation. Says the fact checkers are politically biased and it has the effect of shutting down unpopular speech.



In a number of sweeping changes that will significantly alter the way that posts, videos and other content are moderated online, Meta will adjust its content review policies on Facebook and Instagram, getting rid of fact checkers and replacing them with user-generated “community notes,” similar to Elon Musk’s X, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Meta taking the Twitter approach to content moderation. Says the fact checkers are politically biased and it has the effect of shutting down unpopular speech.



In a number of sweeping changes that will significantly alter the way that posts, videos and other content are moderated online, Meta will adjust its content review policies on Facebook and Instagram, getting rid of fact checkers and replacing them with user-generated “community notes,” similar to Elon Musk’s X, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday.
Click to expand...
I think the Left had a good chance at truth, but they ruined it with their excesses and lost this one just like they lost the common voter and lost the election. Now X is a sewer. Look for more lunacy on Facebook.

If you control the language, you control the story and I think the average person just got tired of forced words like Latinx, or changing master bedrooms to primary bedrooms, man hole covers to person hole covers, heteronormative, BIPOC, etc. Unfortunately, we are going to pay a high price.
 
nycfan said:
I've read repeatedly that Putin has been discussing with Trump a meeting to carve out spheres of influence in the world for Russia and the United States, and this sounds an awful lot like the kinds of actions that might come up in such discussions.
Click to expand...
I believe it. It accomplishes two goals for Putin. 1) Make his attempted conquests seem reasonable to Trump by framing them in a “we both win” context and 2) further alienate Europe from the Trump administration, thereby weakening NATO and making additional plays by Putin more likely to succeed.
 
superrific said:
My conversation with ChatGPT:

Me: can the united states tariff a single EU country, or do tariffs have to be imposed for the entire customs union?

GPT: The United States cannot generally impose tariffs on a single EU country because the European Union functions as a customs union. Within a customs union, all member states adopt a unified external trade policy, meaning tariffs imposed on goods entering the EU apply uniformly across all member states. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on products from the EU, those tariffs apply to the entire customs union and not individual member states.

Me: All right. Forget the WTO for a minute. Our president-elect is threatening to tariff Denmark unless it hands over Greenland to America. Yes, that is actually happening. Next time you get trained, you're going to learn a lot of really crazy shit. But anyway, do you know if US law would permit him to levy tariffs on Denmark without Congressional action?

GPT: Well, that's a plot twist right out of an alternate history novel! Here's the deal: under U.S. law, the president does have significant power to impose tariffs unilaterally in certain situations, but the authority to target a specific country like Denmark (outside of the EU context) is complex and legally constrained. The president could try, but targeting Denmark alone without applying the tariffs to the broader EU would be legally dubious and likely face lawsuits, pushback from Congress, and international complications. Denmark might give him a very polite nej tak, and we’d all just have to brace for the sequel to this geopolitical circus.

LOL. Even ChatGPT gets it.

BTW, ChatGPT also tried to bring the uniformity clause of Article I into the analysis, which is simply wrong (as it admitted in a follow up). So, for those of you looking to ChatGPT for sophisticated analysis, don't. It's pretty good in math and science, from my experience, but as to law it's not even at Ramrouser level.
Click to expand...
Well I repeatedly asked ChatGPT what is the second derivative of velocity called and it repeatedly said acceleration. I tried to tell it it was wrong but it didn’t listen.
 
Batt Boy said:
I think the Left had a good chance at truth, but they ruined it with their excesses and lost this one just like they lost the common voter and lost the election. Now X is a sewer. Look for more lunacy on Facebook.

If you control the language, you control the story and I think the average person just got tired of forced words like Latinx, or changing master bedrooms to primary bedrooms, man hole covers to person hole covers, heteronormative, BIPOC, etc. Unfortunately, we are going to pay a high price.
Click to expand...
You believing that literally any of those terms are why we're where we are is a pretty good indication that truth had no shot.

Put another way- if gas had been $2 a gallon and rent and groceries 20% cheaper than they are now, would "Latinx" or "BIPOC" have handed the election to Trump?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Foreign aid may be a relatively paltry sum but our defense spending is just the opposite. And a fair amount of that defense spending is needed because we are protecting those allies.

So what does that spending get us? Influence for what? Countries we have to defend right next to a large enemy? The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Folks on here are ridiculing Trump's plan of cutting spending because this or that policy won't make a dent. I agree. But rolling back our defense commitments can most definitely make a dent, and its dismissed because we don't want to lose some not all that useful allies. I think the trade-offs are worth it.
Click to expand...
Some of yall need to rewatch episode 1 of Tulsa King. The weed shop part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top