In good faith and intention, the future looks bright. Donald Trump announced a trade agreement with China in a social media post on Wednesday - Stan Gilliland/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Donald Trump announced a trade agreement with China in a social media post on Wednesday - Stan Gilliland/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Donald Trump has said the US has struck a trade deal with China following 48 hours of talks between the two countries. The US president announced the agreement in a social media post on Wednesday, claiming it is now subject to approval by his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. He said the leaders of the world’s two largest economies were “going to work closely together to open up China to American trade”, in what would be “a great win for both countries”. Unlock Efficiency And Boost ROI – Test Automation While Remaining In Control Ad Unlock Efficiency And Boost ROI – Test Automation While Remaining In Control Optmyzr.com Apply Now call to action icon As part of the pact, Mr Trump said the US would allow Chinese students to attend American colleges and universities, adding that the relationship between Beijing and Washington was “excellent”. In exchange, the US would be given access to magnets and rare earth materials from China, which are crucial to manufacturing green technologies such as wind turbines and electric vehicles. Mr Trump posted on his Truth Social platform: “Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me. Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump’s commerce secretary, was among the US trade delegation in London - Chris J Ratcliffe/Bloomberg Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump’s commerce secretary, was among the US trade delegation in London - Chris J Ratcliffe/Bloomberg “Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. “Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me). “We are getting a total of 55pc tariffs, China is getting 10pc. Relationship is excellent.” Related video: President Trump says US and China have reached a trade deal; What to know (WHAS-TV Louisville) After marathon talks in London this week, Trump claimed on Current Time 0:08 / Duration 2:00 WHAS-TV Louisville President Trump says US and China have reached a trade deal; What to know 0 View on Watch View on Watch More videos US, China announce reduced tariffs for 90 days after trade talks Fox Business/Fox Business US, China announce reduced tariffs for 90 days after trade talks 1:12 US, China reach deal to keep trade truce alive Reuters/Reuters US, China reach deal to keep trade truce alive 1:23 Trump agrees to delay 50% tariffs on EU imports until July 9 Daily Mail/Daily Mail Trump agrees to delay 50% tariffs on EU imports until July 9 1:06 In a separate post, he wrote: “Adding to the China readout, President Xi and I are going to work closely together to open up China to American trade. This would be a great win for both countries.” Mr Trump’s posts came hours after Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, said the two sides had agreed on a “framework” to put their trading relations back on track. The two sides have until Aug 10 to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement to ease trade tensions, or US tariffs on China will snap back from about 30pc to 145pc, with China’s levies on America increasing from 10pc to 125pc. Senior officials from Washington and Beijing had gathered in London after accusations from both sides that they had violated the terms of a trade deal struck in Switzerland last month. Mr Trump and Mr Xi held a call last week that Mr Lutnick said “gave the fundamental foundation on which we were able to reach agreement”. Avoid Devastating Сonsequences - 24/7 Emergency Help Ad Avoid Devastating Сonsequences - 24/7 Emergency Help digitalinvestigation.com Learn more call to action icon Before Mr Trump’s post on Wednesday, Mr Lutnick had said: “We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents. “The idea is we’re going to go back and speak to President Trump and make sure he approves it. “They’re going to go back and speak to President Xi and make sure he approves it, and if that is approved, we will then implement the framework.” In a separate briefing, Li Chenggang, China’s vice-commerce minister, said a trade framework had been reached in principle that would be taken back to US and Chinese leaders. Meanwhile, the European Union reportedly believes it could extend its trade negotiations with the US beyond the initial deadline next month. The EU thinks there could be scope for further talks if it agrees a deal in principle by July 9, which is considered its best-case scenario, according to Bloomberg. The Trump administration is scheduled to enforce 50pc tariffs on EU goods beyond that date unless a deal is reached.
-
-
-
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