80
submitted 1 month ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/world@lemmy.world
(page 2) 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The shithead makes it a lot easier for China, every day.

[-] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Good. I wish the rest of Europe was this based.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I only respect Spain more for having standards.

[-] obinice@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

So, like, Spain no longer has access to any US trading businesses? No more Microsoft, no more AWS hosted services, no more access to any business trading out of the USA? All US trade with Spain?

Or... is he just lying?

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

Given that Spain is a part of the EU and the US can't have independent trade agreements with member nations of it - a thing that Angela Merkel infamously had to explain to Trump multiple times while Trump kept pestering her at a meeting for a US/Germany trade agreement - I'd say lying. Assuming you don't charitably count "too pudding-brained to understand what he's talking about" as something other than lying, I suppose.

[-] daannii@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Honestly we (,the U.S) don't have anything worthwhile.

You can find a better version of whatever you are looking for, some place else.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Misleading title as nothing happened yet and AFAIK he can't. EU is a single economic zone.

[-] andallthat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

That aside, his ability to impose tariffs without congress approval was just limited, right?

I'm not a US law expert but it would be weird if he couldn't set a 20% tariff but was allowed to stop trading with a country completely.

I mean, following that line of reasoning he shouldn't even be able to wage a war just like that, but humor me here...

[-] ChadGPT2@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

It was legally limited but he immediately imposed new tariffs anyway.

[-] andallthat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I thought that was under a different legal pretext that caps them at max 15% and for a limited time

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Correct. The USSC rejected his claim to be able to impose unlimited tariffs (under a law that says no such thing), which forced him to then rely on an entirely different law that potentially offers him the ability to impose much more restricted tariffs; 15%, for 90 days, and he has to impose them equally across all trading partners. Which is threatening to upend a bunch of the deals they already made.

It's also likely not legal either, but it'll have to go through the courts again. This time around it's because the law he's now using only applies where there is a "balance of payments" issue; basically, where the US is in danger of running out of actual physical money to make payments with. This literally cannot happen with fiat currencies; it's a law that was designed to handle issues that can only occur with precious metal backed currencies. This a very real problem that used to happen. I think the most famous example I can bring to mind is the Opium Wars, which basically happened because Britain was buying so much tea from China, while selling them almost nothing in return, that they were running out silver to pay the Chinese with.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

What's the Spanish equivalent of "freedom fries"?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
80 points (100.0% liked)

World News

55673 readers
910 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS