Donald Trump blasts EU following record $5 billion Google fine

[



It's not wanting to rip on Trump at every chance. It's wanting our president to not rip our allies and buddy up with ruthless dictators.

There's an appropriate way to open constructive dialog between allies, Trump isn't doing that. All he's doing is dumping on our alliances through twitter while praising enemies over his own people.

Trump doesn't even attempt formal negotiations, he goes straight to twitter. Tell me, how much has Trump accomplished through that platform?


Whatever hater, atleast he says what he says for us all to hear. Unlike Obama whispering to the Russian guy to tell Vladimir putin to wait because it's his (Obama) last election and he'll have more flexibility afterwards. Ruffling feathers to bring others to the deal table is a solid tactic. No missiles are being fired, or test fired (north Korea), and bullets. Iran got pissed because Trump backed us out of the Iran deal Obama ushered in (somehow that Iran restricting deal was supposed to stop them from building nuclear weapons). Why wouldn't Iran want to be out of the Iran deal?...Uranium one? Should Trump have sold uranium to Russia like Clinton/obama? Do you even know the tairrifs the US pays to other countries and even before his president? Have we not sent loads of our steel over to China only to pay tairrifs to bring it back losing large amounts of manufacturing jobs in the process. The last 2 10 years were horrible for this country on a world economic scale. Trumps not a politician, and he's not the president I'd want to see for long but he's but he's bring back what the past administration sold out (America).


Peace
Yes, we all know but, but Obama, but, but Uranium One, but, but Benghazi, but, but Clinton.
 
HCDF5CABZVH7XOOSOJGLGPD6HE.jpg
 
Sadly, he is very popular but he is driving the country into the ground and no one cares, because "let's make 'murica great again".

With the tariff changes he is increasing the price for imported items, who do you think ends up paying the taxes? Those who buy anything from anywhere else, and this means components for whatever.

The costs are increased and thus, the price of the final product increases, who pays for the final product? The end user, or consumers.

It's economy 101 and this guy was mainly elected because he was a businessman and not a politician. Let's drive America to the ground again should be the slogan by now...

A large number of people who voted for him were promised that Trump would protect their manufacturing jobs. A tariff spreads the cost of saving those jobs to many many consumers. In surveys when people at a company were asked 'Would you take a small pay cut to prevent layoffs - even if your job was safe.' the overwhelming response is 'yes'. This is what Trump is trying to do. Is it working? Probably not, is it the right way to do it? Probably not. Do people from both sides of the political isle think it's a bad idea? Yes. But that's why he's doing it.
That might actually work if he were filled with honest wisdom and truly interested in helping others through the grace that such wisdom brings. However, there is a point that he may have passed already when people stand up to the bully. A 98 - 0 vote in the senate against him that just happened may be the sign that the bully's reign is starting to end. Doing something because everyone hates it has merit when it is the right thing to do. Doing something like this out of spite because everyone hates it is idiocy if not simply destructive.
 
I really don't know where I stand on the whole EU fine thing. But I idk why Trump hates our allies and loves Russia.
 
Whatever hater, atleast he says what he says for us all to hear. Unlike Obama whispering to the Russian guy to tell Vladimir putin to wait because it's his (Obama) last election and he'll have more flexibility afterwards. Ruffling feathers to bring others to the deal table is a solid tactic. No missiles are being fired, or test fired (north Korea), and bullets. Iran got pissed because Trump backed us out of the Iran deal Obama ushered in (somehow that Iran restricting deal was supposed to stop them from building nuclear weapons). Why wouldn't Iran want to be out of the Iran deal?...Uranium one? Should Trump have sold uranium to Russia like Clinton/obama? Do you even know the tairrifs the US pays to other countries and even before his president? Have we not sent loads of our steel over to China only to pay tairrifs to bring it back losing large amounts of manufacturing jobs in the process. The last 2 10 years were horrible for this country on a world economic scale. Trumps not a politician, and he's not the president I'd want to see for long but he's but he's bring back what the past administration sold out (America).


Peace


Let me just do a point by point take-down of this divisive conspiracy laden comment.


"atleast he says what he says for us all to hear"

This statement is unique in a way that it says nothing. Everything anyone says can be heard for all to hear.


"Unlike Obama whispering to the Russian guy to tell Vladimir putin to wait because it's his (Obama) last election and he'll have more flexibility afterwards."

This is vague and doesn't reference any specific instance. You could make a vague statement like this about Trump, like how he was alone with Putin for 2 hours. Neither my example or yours prove anything other then something was said. Whispering isn't illegal and neither is being alone with another leader.


"Ruffling feathers to bring others to the deal table is a solid tactic."

Well first you'd have to open formal negotiations in order to bring anyone to the table. There's a wide gap between trashing someone on twitter and opening formal negations and actually working hard toward favorable terms. The complete lack of diplomatic tact is evident. Ruffling feathers is fine but when you are simply doing it to spite china or to not back down on your twitter words? This is not negotiation, it's a petty squabble by a wannabe king.


"Uranium one? Should Trump have sold uranium to Russia like Clinton/obama?"

Oh boy. Ok, you clearly lack knowledge of government procedure so I'll give you a hint. It takes the signature of 7 US government department heads to sell the kind of uranium rumored in the uranium one conspiracy. Clinton was one. Let that sink in. The claim that Clinton sold uranium could only be believe by those who completely ignore the facts and fail to do any rudimentary research on whether it was actually possible.


"Do you even know the tairrifs the US pays to other countries and even before his president?"

Well first, that's not how tariffs work or how it's spelled. First tariffs are levied on foreign goods and the additional amount imposed by the tariff is added to the domestic price of the item. The US pays nothing to other countries for tariffs other countries apply because the cost of the tariff only affects consumers in the applicant country.


"Have we not sent loads of our steel over to China only to pay tairrifs to bring it back losing large amounts of manufacturing jobs in the process."


This statement is factually incorrect.

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/2017/q3/exports-us.pdf

China represents a fraction of 1% of US steel exports. In other words, statistically insignificant. It is impossible to be losing large amounts of jobs from the minuscule amount of steel we export to China.
 
As a British guy I am surprised at the vitriol Trump still whips up at this point. First of all it’s blindingly obvious that he’s trolling. He’s very very good at manipulating the media and whipping the right people up into a foaming at the mouth frenzy to keep him at the center of attention. Secondly, wasn’t his opponent in the election Hillary Clinton? I can completely understand why you don’t want Trump as your president but if you really cared youd have put him against a better candidate!

Must say as a Brit I’m ashamed at the anti Trump protests in London. I’m no fan of him but I respect another nations democratic choices. Even if he is a climate change denier.
 
As a British guy I am surprised at the vitriol Trump still whips up at this point. First of all it’s blindingly obvious that he’s trolling. He’s very very good at manipulating the media and whipping the right people up into a foaming at the mouth frenzy to keep him at the center of attention. Secondly, wasn’t his opponent in the election Hillary Clinton? I can completely understand why you don’t want Trump as your president but if you really cared youd have put him against a better candidate!

Must say as a Brit I’m ashamed at the anti Trump protests in London. I’m no fan of him but I respect another nations democratic choices. Even if he is a climate change denier.

America isn't like Britain where there is more than 2 parties. In the US you either choose a republican or a democrat. The average voter has zero say in the actual candidates. The elite of each party essentially picked people groomed to carry out the whims of the party.

In addition, Trump wasn't democratically elected. He won through the electoral college, which is a republic system in which representatives cast their vote. If the system were democratic Hillary would have won as she had more votes.

In America you can still win elections even when you have less votes and not every vote is equal. For example, a vote in Georgia is worth 3 times as much as a vote in California in the electoral college system.
 
As a British guy I am surprised at the vitriol Trump still whips up at this point. First of all it’s blindingly obvious that he’s trolling. He’s very very good at manipulating the media and whipping the right people up into a foaming at the mouth frenzy to keep him at the center of attention. Secondly, wasn’t his opponent in the election Hillary Clinton? I can completely understand why you don’t want Trump as your president but if you really cared youd have put him against a better candidate!

Must say as a Brit I’m ashamed at the anti Trump protests in London. I’m no fan of him but I respect another nations democratic choices. Even if he is a climate change denier.
That is totally understandable, except that he is trolling from the position of United States president with possible repercussions over the next few decades. And to some degree we are all in this crap together due to the multitude of treaties and alliances, both military and economical. So when he brainfarts on twitter or whatever, he is taking credibility away from all these alliances and partners.
 
Except that Google did block competition. Try reading again the reason for this fine.

You didn't read the EU's decision at all......
Third basis is
1- if you want Google play store you need to have have Google search installed.
2- you can't install Apps from the appstore preloaded without the appstore

No where are they charging them with not allowing Bing or Cortana(example) to be preloaded as a search aside of Google search.
No where does it state they are blocking completion which is antitrust......
You can't install Windows and have Windows store without installing Internet Explorer and Edge browser nor be without Cortana nor Bing, it's defaulted.

This is no different than what Microsoft and Apple do consistently, and this is a piss poor example of how a Government does zero to understand actual antitrust and apparently is just looking for a money grab.

Google play is Google's software they can dictate how, where, and on what devices it's allowed to be installed, oems have a choice in OS, it is their choice to use Android and include Google play otherwise they can spend billions like Google did creating an app store a search app, and an OS all their own from base Linux.
 
I think he has a plan. All the frivolous behavior is an act, designed to cause opponents to grossly underestimate his excellent negotiation skills. All the years of going through rigid diplomatic protocol is how the US got into this situation of unbalanced trade tariffs in the first place. They have more centuries of practice than we do. So he threw his cards on the table and then flipped it over in their laps when they reacted predictably. Sometimes you have to turn things upside down to get something done.
As long as he doesn't back down, we'll end up with much more favorable trade agreements in the long run, and maybe even stop the US dollar from losing ground as the currency of international trade (ground we're losing mostly to the euro).
 
No where does it state they are blocking completion which is antitrust......
Actually, it does state exactly this. This time, here is the direct quote from the ruling:
has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
And just in case you want to abandon the TL;DR approach, you can really read the ruling at this link:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
I think he has a plan. All the frivolous behavior is an act, designed to cause opponents to grossly underestimate his excellent negotiation skills. All the years of going through rigid diplomatic protocol is how the US got into this situation of unbalanced trade tariffs in the first place. They have more centuries of practice than we do. So he threw his cards on the table and then flipped it over in their laps when they reacted predictably. Sometimes you have to turn things upside down to get something done.
As long as he doesn't back down, we'll end up with much more favorable trade agreements in the long run, and maybe even stop the US dollar from losing ground as the currency of international trade (ground we're losing mostly to the euro).
We would all like to think he has a plan, however, I doubt it. Personally, I would call the fact that he got his way with ZTE backing down.

It really does not matter if he does not back down. The other countries are well-off enough to survive without trade to the US. In addition, there is absolutely no guarantee that the other countries will back down, either. He is playing a game of chicken and games of chicken do not usually end well.

The IMF has warned that these tariffs will hurt the global economy just as I said in one of my posts above - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/imf-warns-g20-tariffs-hurting-economy-trump-threat-1.4756477
 
Must say as a Brit I’m ashamed at the anti Trump protests in London. I’m no fan of him but I respect another nations democratic choices. Even if he is a climate change denier.
In addition, Trump wasn't democratically elected. He won through the electoral college, which is a republic system in which representatives cast their vote. If the system were democratic Hillary would have won as she had more votes.
The US is a democratic republic. He was literally democratically elected just like all other presidents before him (whether you wanted him or not). There's just another layer to it to make it "fair" between states. Don't try to correct the guy if you can't get it right, whether out of ignorance or oversimplification or blind hate (which, I'd say he got it right in his general use of the word).

Saying he wasn't democratically elected is about as id10tic as Americans saying #notmypresident.
 
The US is a democratic republic. He was literally democratically elected just like all other presidents before him (whether you wanted him or not). There's just another layer to it to make it "fair" between states. Don't try to correct the guy if you can't get it right, whether out of ignorance or oversimplification or blind hate (which, I'd say he got it right in his general use of the word).

Saying he wasn't democratically elected is about as id10tic as Americans saying #notmypresident.

Actually wrong, there have only been a handful of presidents that have won election and lost the popular vote and they all turned out to be poor presidents. The electoral college is a grouping of representatives and is by definition a republic system. There's is nothing you say that will changes the facts that any president that losses the popular vote but wins the election was not elected democratically. Just because the US incorporates democratic features doesn't suddenly make all the republic features turn democratic.

"There's just another layer to it to make it "fair" between states"

Fair? So it's fair that someone in Georgia has a vote that is 3 times as powerful as in California? The electoral college is a bygone system that was partially need as a lack of trust in other states and a mature government were not present at the time. Completely different times where there were more state patriots then American patriots. The only thing it serves to do now is ensure that every vote isn't counted equally. I can understand not wanting bigger states to control everything but the level it has gotten to has completely handicapped larger states.

I'm sorry but you are going to have to do better than personal attacks to overcome the facts. The people saying "#notmypresident" have a pretty legitimate claim given Trump lost the popular vote and in any pure democratic system would have lost. But yes, him personally attacking American citizens doesn't help either.
 
Actually wrong, there have only been a handful of presidents that have won election and lost the popular vote and they all turned out to be poor presidents. The electoral college is a grouping of representatives and is by definition a republic system. There's is nothing you say that will changes the facts that any president that losses the popular vote but wins the election was not elected democratically. Just because the US incorporates democratic features doesn't suddenly make all the republic features turn democratic.
"There's just another layer to it to make it "fair" between states"
Fair? So it's fair that someone in Georgia has a vote that is 3 times as powerful as in California? The electoral college is a bygone system that was partially need as a lack of trust in other states and a mature government were not present at the time. Completely different times where there were more state patriots then American patriots. The only thing it serves to do now is ensure that every vote isn't counted equally. I can understand not wanting bigger states to control everything but the level it has gotten to has completely handicapped larger states.
I'm sorry but you are going to have to do better than personal attacks to overcome the facts. The people saying "#notmypresident" have a pretty legitimate claim given Trump lost the popular vote and in any pure democratic system would have lost. But yes, him personally attacking American citizens doesn't help either.
There you are, "pure democratic". That's not what was said by Sausagemeat or in your "correction" of them, and why your assumptions are wrong (an oversimplification, or just ignorant). Try again.

Edit: And no. They do NOT have any "legitimate claim". They ignorantly voted in their established voting system, then threw temper tantrums when they didn't get the outcome they wanted.
Saying they do severely undermines whatever argument you have as it shows a complete lack of logic.
 
Last edited:
There you are, "pure democratic". That's not what was said by Sausagemeat or in your "correction" of them, and why your assumptions are wrong (an oversimplification, or just ignorant). Try again.

Edit: And no. They do NOT have any "legitimate claim". They ignorantly voted in their established voting system, then threw temper tantrums when they didn't get the outcome they wanted.
Saying they do severely undermines whatever argument you have as it shows a complete lack of logic.

So all you can reply with is semantics and personal attacks? Not surprising. I'll be waiting when you want to actually debate the points.
 
Am I the only one who think Trump is doing right by defending American companies against excessive fines? guess who slaps billions of dollars in fines against Google and Microsoft? Maybe Netflix and Amazon
are next to be fined.
 
Am I the only one who think Trump is doing right by defending American companies against excessive fines? guess who slaps billions of dollars in fines against Google and Microsoft? Maybe Netflix and Amazon
are next to be fined.
No, you are not. From my experience, there are many others.

Tell me, how is he right and how is he defending Americans?

Tell me, since he is defending anti-competitive practices, that is, he is defending gagme in excluding all manufacturer-made derivatives of an open-source operating system from being installed on devices those same manufacturers make if they want to install gagme apps, too, how this that helping anyone in the US or elsewhere except gagme? This is the very definition of anti-competitive practices.

What he is really doing throwing a child-like temper-tantrum since the EU is not bowing down to him and praising him, and in his fullest extent, is pi$$ing on the EU in his b!tch, pi$$, and moan trade war. His actions are the very definition of a child-like bully that play into his MAGA narrative. He is pretending to do something good, when he will, in all likelyhood, destroy years of trust and quite possibly the world-wide economy.

So you think the tariffs being imposed on all sides now will not increase prices to consumers? Consumers will be the ones who pay these tariffs. When you go to buy something, and find out it is 20-percent or more expensive than what you had planned to pay, then come back to us and say he is defending Americans.

Also, what will happen to that money you will be paying to cover those tariffs? Well, guess what? It goes directly into the federal treasury. As I see it, and from the IMF's announcement, I am not the only one who sees it this way, you might as well call these tariffs an extra government tax. These tariffs are not going to help anyone, and in fact, might drive a world-wide recession. However, I am afraid that that is what it is going to take until people realize this is not the path to be taking.

As a British guy I am surprised at the vitriol Trump still whips up at this point. First of all it’s blindingly obvious that he’s trolling. He’s very very good at manipulating the media and whipping the right people up into a foaming at the mouth frenzy to keep him at the center of attention. Secondly, wasn’t his opponent in the election Hillary Clinton? I can completely understand why you don’t want Trump as your president but if you really cared youd have put him against a better candidate!

Must say as a Brit I’m ashamed at the anti Trump protests in London. I’m no fan of him but I respect another nations democratic choices. Even if he is a climate change denier.
As a US citizen, I am happy that there are those in Britain that are protesting the US' 45th president. Why? Because his policies and mannerisms are driving a world-wide populist movement that appears no better than Nazi Germany. What these protests, in Britain and elsewhere are saying is that the world is tired of being bullied by people who think they can tell others how to live. There is almost not a single day where there is news in the US of a racist incident which likely had been emboldened by our 45th presidents downright evil attitude and behavior.

Not the least to mention that these tariffs are going to be paid by the citizens of all countries affected, and this stands a good chance to drive a world-wide recession the likes of which the world has not yet seen. The tariffs stand a good chance of increasing the price you pay for items in Britain.

I am by far not religious, but I think it fair to say that his policies and mannerisms are divisive in a manner that most of the historical figures that the world claims as saviors would find appalling, and in that sense, he could easily be called antithetical to the tenets of religion.
 
Last edited:
So all you can reply with is semantics and personal attacks? Not surprising. I'll be waiting when you want to actually debate the points.
You're the one who started "correcting" people on their "wrong" semantics. Apparently you don't like being corrected?

And personal attacks? Pointing out the facts and making blunt assumptions/comparisons (and calling out your BS) aren't personal attacks. But it seems like you're going to use that as an excuse to avoid making proper, logical counter arguments (or to avoid admitting you got it wrong).
 
You can write all the bad stuff you want about Trump. Just shows you have closed and small minds
 
You can write all the bad stuff you want about Trump. Just shows you have closed and small minds
Interesting stance. So if I was to 'grab your wife by the pu$$y' or insinuate I would, what would you be likely to say about my character?

People do not have closed and small minds for speaking out against another persons openly horrible attitude.

As a British guy I am surprised at the vitriol Trump still whips up at this point. First of all it’s blindingly obvious that he’s trolling. He’s very very good at manipulating the media and whipping the right people up into a foaming at the mouth frenzy to keep him at the center of attention. Secondly, wasn’t his opponent in the election Hillary Clinton? I can completely understand why you don’t want Trump as your president but if you really cared youd have put him against a better candidate!

Must say as a Brit I’m ashamed at the anti Trump protests in London. I’m no fan of him but I respect another nations democratic choices. Even if he is a climate change denier.

I quite enjoyed the protests, at least we still have a sense of humour.
 
Interesting stance. So if I was to 'grab your wife by the pu$$y' or insinuate I would, what would you be likely to say about my character?
First off if she doesn't object, there is no need in thinking anything. Secondly if she does object, then again there is no need in thinking anything. Your wife has a mind of her own. If she can't protect herself, you shouldn't let her out of the house. In this day and age women has more protection than men. And what makes it so bad is they know they do.
 
First off if she doesn't object, there is no need in thinking anything. Secondly if she does object, then again there is no need in thinking anything. Your wife has a mind of her own. If she can't protect herself, you shouldn't let her out of the house. In this day and age women has more protection than men. And what makes it so bad is they know they do.
So because she has a mind of her own strips your own right to an opinion?
 
You're the one who started "correcting" people on their "wrong" semantics. Apparently you don't like being corrected?

And personal attacks? Pointing out the facts and making blunt assumptions/comparisons (and calling out your BS) aren't personal attacks. But it seems like you're going to use that as an excuse to avoid making proper, logical counter arguments (or to avoid admitting you got it wrong).

Like I said earlier, your comments have devolved to semantics and personal attacks.

Last time I checked the difference between a democracy and republic is not semantics. Your response to that point was criticizing word choice, which clearly lands in the area of semantics. You know someone lost an argument when they stop debating the point and resort to word choice niggling and personal attacks.

The only thing I see is your opinion in which you seem to believe a system in which representatives cast your vote is a Democratic one, despite definitions everywhere contrary to that opinion. Not to mention the idea of people having unequal voting power goes against the main tenant of democracy.

You can write all the bad stuff you want about Trump. Just shows you have closed and small minds

I'm sure members of Hitler's party said the same thing to any opposing groups at the time as well.

6bc.jpg
 
Like I said earlier, your comments have devolved to semantics and personal attacks.
And like I said, your point was about semantics first. Now you're trying to dismiss it on semantics (ironic) and because you feel like I personally attacked you (saying I did, and backing up your "opinion" are 2 different things).
Last time I checked the difference between a democracy and republic is not semantics. Your response to that point was criticizing word choice, which clearly lands in the area of semantics. You know someone lost an argument when they stop debating the point and resort to word choice niggling and personal attacks.
And there you go again, equating the democratic election of a president in the USA as non-democratic based on your use of "pure democracy". No one ever said that it was a pure democracy, you're just the one who thinks he needs to try to prove it isn't a pure democracy (hint: it isn't, but that's a non-point that you think means something here).
You know someone lost an argument when they stop debating the point and resort to word choice niggling and personal attacks.
The only thing I see is your opinion in which you seem to believe a system in which representatives cast your vote is a Democratic one, despite definitions everywhere contrary to that opinion. Not to mention the idea of people having unequal voting power goes against the main tenant of democracy.
And you know you've lost an "argument" before it even started when you use fallacy of composition to say that using the word "democratic" can only refer to "pure democracy". You know you got it wrong the first time which is why you have yet to even sort of prove that the US is 100% not democratic (because to prove so is the only way you can "win" this "argument").
 
Last edited:
And like I said, your point was about semantics first. Now you're trying to dismiss it on semantics (ironic) and because you feel like I personally attacked you (saying I did, and backing up your "opinion" are 2 different things).

And there you go again, equating the democratic election of a president in the USA as non-democratic based on your use of "pure democracy". No one ever said that it was a pure democracy, you're just the one who thinks he needs to try to prove it isn't a pure democracy (hint: it isn't, but that's a non-point that you think means something here).

And you know you've lost an "argument" before it even started when you use fallacy of composition to say that using the word "democratic" can only refer to "pure democracy". You know you got it wrong the first time which is why you have yet to even sort of prove that the US is 100% not democratic (because to prove so is the only way you can "win" this "argument").

You do realize the comment you are replying to doesn't contain "pure democracy" anywhere in it. All you are doing is trying to take past posts out of context. Next time make sure you reply to the post you are quoting instead of conflating the argument by replying to one post and talking about another.

I'm just going to assume that if you don't reply in your next post on whether the electoral college is a republic based system or a democratic one that you concede that it is a republic based system and therefore by extension any president winning through that system solely was not elected democratically. After all, in your own words "No one ever said that it was a pure democracy".


And you know you've lost an "argument" before it even started when you use fallacy of composition to say that using the word "democratic" can only refer to "pure democracy"

Nope, that's just what you assume and love to conflate, as expected. You can have a hybrid system but, like I've said numerous times before, that doesn't change the fact that the electoral college is a republic based system. Spin that hyperbole you've been trying to create some more, I've got to grab some more popcorn.
 
Back