President Trump just broke every kind of human record: Time now for the word on Wall Street. Fox Business US-China trade deal is 'a really big break' for markets, expert says President Donald Trump said Monday that his administration reached an agreement with China to temporarily lower tariffs while the two sides negotiate a final agreement, which the president says will open the Chinese market for U.S. firms. "The biggest thing that we're discussing is the opening up China, and they've agreed to do that, but it's going to take a while to paper it, you know, that's not the easiest thing to paper," Trump said, noting that it will take time to finalize a formal version of the agreement. Connection for Seniors Singles Ad Connection for Seniors Singles WingTalks Join Now call to action icon "I think it would be fantastic for our businesses if we could go in and compete and compete with China," Trump said. "It would be a lot of jobs for China, it would be I think at a time when they can frankly use the jobs, and that's what we're talking about." He went on to explain that his administration's push for more market access in China for U.S. businesses is a means of resetting the balance of trade between the two countries, including through the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade. US, CHINA ANNOUNCE REDUCED TARIFFS FOR 90 DAYS AFTER TRADE TALKS President Trump said the most important part of the deal is China opening access to U.S. companies. Getty Images President Trump said the most important part of the deal is China opening access to U.S. companies. Getty Images © Chris Kleponis/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images "We opened up our country to China, they have very few restrictions, and they didn't open their country to us. Never made sense to me. It's not fair. And they've agreed to open China – fully open China. And I think it's going to be fantastic for China, I think it's going to be fantastic for us, and I think it's going to be great for unification and peace." READ ON THE FOX BUSINESS APP "China also will suspend and remove all of its non-monetary barriers. They've agreed to do that… they're very numerous," he added. TRUMP USING POWER OF AMERICAN ECONOMY TO OPEN CHINA TO US EXPORTERS: LUTNICK Tariffs are taxes on imported goods that are paid by U.S. importers, who typically pass higher costs on to consumers through higher prices. Getty Images Tariffs are taxes on imported goods that are paid by U.S. importers, who typically pass higher costs on to consumers through higher prices. Getty Images © Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images The president said that the "reciprocal" tariffs that were unveiled at the White House in so-called Liberation Day festivities on April 2, will be dropped from 125% to 10%, lowering the overall tariff on Chinese imports from 145% to 30% for a 90-day period, while China reduces its tariffs from 125% to 10%. Ozempic Injection Cost In Canada - Save Extra 10% with FIRST10 Ad Ozempic Injection Cost In Canada - Save Extra 10% with FIRST10 pharmagiant.com Learn more call to action icon "Yesterday, we achieved a total reset with China. After productive talks in Geneva, both sides now agreed to reduce the tariffs imposed after April 2nd to 10% for 90 days as negotiators continue on the largest structural issues," Trump said. "That doesn't include the tariffs that are already on that are our tariffs, and it doesn't include tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, things such as that, or tariffs that may be imposed on pharmaceuticals because we want to bring the pharmaceutical businesses back to the United States," he said. TRUMP SAYS TARIFFS ARE INCENTIVIZING US INVESTMENT, HURTING CHINA China's President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump are working on a final trade agreement. Getty Images China's President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump are working on a final trade agreement. Getty Images © Getty Images Trump went on to characterize the trade negotiations as being "very friendly" and touted the relationship with China, saying a deal will help boost the country's economy. "The relationship is very good. We're not looking to hurt China; China is being hurt very badly. They were closing up factories, they were having a lot of unrest, and they were very happy to be able to do something with us," Trump said. MONOPOLY - Enjoy MONOPOLY Free - Play MONOPOLY Free Now Ad MONOPOLY - Enjoy MONOPOLY Free - Play MONOPOLY Free Now appcracy.com Learn more call to action icon The president also referenced China's failure to comply with the "phase one" trade deal he reached with the Chinese government during his first term in office. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said late last month in an appearance on FOX Business Network's "Kudlow" that the U.S. will "have to take into account that they didn't adhere to the phase one deal."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
No comments:
Post a Comment