Community Stories

Hey you 'muricans ... get those Swiss watches pronto [tariffs and international trade]

ErichPryde
Posts
3,230
Likes
6,514
watchyouwant watchyouwant
This.
Or make it democratic; voting compulsory with fines , if not attended. One citizen equals one vote. Open up the political landscape with more Parties instead of that rigid 2 party stuff. Get rid of your Leader , if she/he starts undemocratic actions , with all voters voting in a legally binding referendum , if that is triggered by a ( to be determined ) threshold number of all voters again.

Cumpolsory voting in a democracy? There's a bit of "um" here on that one (despite the fact that I genuinely believe more people should vote). So I've got a recommendation- read Starship Troopers for me and then let's talk about whether or not that would work better for America. ::stirthepot::


EDIT- but this is way off track. And mandatory voting is not what is wanted anyway. Did you know most states have laws around voting rights granted to employees? When I turned 18 and wanted to vote (lived in Oklahoma at the time) I told my employer I needed to leave early voting day or work the schedule out in advance so I could vote. He told me I could go f*** myself. As a somewhat rebellious 18 year old, I told him it was either that or he could pay me for it per OK statute. He told me I could leave early but if I told anyone else at work, he would find a reason to fire me on the spot.

Before we even get to the point of having more of the population vote, there's a heck of a lot to fix. Like (lol, here we are again) education.

You say mandatory voting, I say mandatory *state-paid education of high quality and mandatory military service. Where does that put us?
Edited:
 
Dan S
Posts
21,826
Likes
49,505
gatorcpa gatorcpa
Like 48 of them.
gatorcpa
Haha, I wish. If 48 states had agreed, that would be more than enough electoral votes to elect the president.

It's only necessary for enough states to agree so that the total number of electoral votes reaches a majority. According to Wikipedia, the states who have agreed to it comprise 209 electoral votes, whereas 270 are needed. It's quite interesting that a fraction of the states could totally change the way the president is elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The National Popular Vote Interstate,and the District of Columbia.

"Introduced in 2006, as of April 2025, it was joined by seventeen states and the District of Columbia. They have 209 electoral votes, which is 39% of the Electoral College and 77% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. "
 
Trev
Posts
2,195
Likes
2,636
ErichPryde ErichPryde
Cumpolsory voting in a democracy? There's a bit of "um" here on that one (despite the fact that I genuinely believe more people should vote). So I've got a recommendation- read Starship Troopers for me and then let's talk about whether or not that would work better for America. ::stirthepot::


EDIT- but this is way off track. And mandatory voting is not what is wanted anyway. Did you know most states have laws around voting rights granted to employees? When I turned 18 and wanted to vote (lived in Oklahoma at the time) I told my employer I needed to leave early voting day or work the schedule out in advance so I could vote. He told me I could go f*** myself. As a somewhat rebellious 18 year old, I told him it was either that or he could pay me for it per OK statute. He told me I could leave early but if I told anyone else at work, he would find a reason to fire me on the spot.

Before we even get to the point of having more of the population vote, there's a heck of a lot to fix. Like (lol, here we are again) education.

You say mandatory voting, I say mandatory *state-paid education of high quality and mandatory military service. Where does that put us?
As an outsider, I'm left wondering what any electoral re-shuffle or restructuring would even fix. It doesn't feel like the democrats produced a viable candidate this time around either. Depressing leadership selection from both parties.

I know people who voted for Kamala because she's "not Trump", but they still didn't think she was good. Same for the other side. Dysfunctional.
 
Trev
Posts
2,195
Likes
2,636
ErichPryde ErichPryde
What's the average Australian view on Bessent?
More than 99% would have no clue who he was.
 
texasmade
Posts
2,509
Likes
2,755
Trev Trev
As an outsider, I'm left wondering what any electoral re-shuffle or restructuring would even fix. It doesn't feel like the democrats produced a viable candidate this time around either. Depressing leadership selection from both parties.

I know people who voted for Kamala because she's "not Trump", but they still didn't think she was good. Same for the other side. Dysfunctional.
Republicans have only won 2 popular votes since 2000 (7 elections) and that was Bush 2004 and Trump 2024 but have been president 4-3 during that time span. Hard to say if W would've won the 2004 popular vote if he wasn't an incumbent but just going on results Democrats win popular vote 5-2.

If we went straight popular vote, the liberals would have a majority of SCOTUS or potential supermajority. As it is right now, the conservatives have a supermajority who effectively ruled that Trump can do whatever he wants as president.
 
Deafboy
Posts
2,347
Likes
6,732
Trev Trev
I know people who voted for Kamala because she's "not Trump", but they still didn't think she was good.
She was quite good, imo. I think one would need to nit-pick to consider her less than good. Hey, I think Hillary Clinton was a smart, extremely competent, confident candidate, and yet she lost (the electoral college).
Edited:
 
Tony C.
Posts
7,777
Likes
27,049
Deafboy Deafboy
She was quite good, imo. I think one would need to nick-pick to consider her less than good. Hey, I think Hillary Clinton was a smart, extremely competent, confident candidate, and yet she lost (the electoral college).
On this particular topic, we apparently live in very different worlds!
 
dsio
Posts
31,036
Likes
36,435
Deafboy Deafboy
She was quite good, imo. I think one would need to nick-pick to consider her less than good. Hey, I think Hillary Clinton was a smart, extremely competent, confident candidate, and yet she lost (the electoral college).
Much as I want to resist offering any input, she was mediocre at best and surrounded be some of the worst advisors ever. On tv in Australia I remember seeing she had been endorsed by Liz and Dick Cheney and was doing a tour with one of them and wondering who is that going to motivate?

Which Trump voters are sitting there going "Well I'm not down for any of her policies but if the guy who mistook his hunting buddy's face for a pheasant thinks she's cool count me in", and which Democrats are going to be energised by having the Iraq war guy on their side?

It'd be like an Australian candidate saying "Hey we got Eddie McGuire on our side, go Collingwood"
 
Deafboy
Posts
2,347
Likes
6,732
dsio dsio
Much as I want to resist offering any input, she was mediocre at best and surrounded be some of the worst advisors ever. On tv in Australia I remember seeing she had been endorsed by Liz and Dick Cheney and was doing a tour with one of them and wondering who is that going to motivate?
You suppose that Dick Cheney endorsed Kamila Harris at her advisers' insistence? That's a lot of speculation, to say the least.
My view is that she generally ran a good campaign, especially considering the short amount of time she had.

Regardless, there were 6 million fewer voters for Harris than Biden. So obviously something (many things?) didn't go well for her.

2020
  • Joe Biden (Democratic): 81,283,098 votes (51.3%).
  • Donald Trump (Republican): 74,222,958 votes (46.8%).

2024
  • Donald Trump (Republican): 77,303,568 votes (49.8%)
  • Kamala Harris (Democrat): 75,019,230 votes (48.3%)

Sorry for the thread drift.

Back to the international trade:

The Trump administration removed the minimis rule for Chinese imports, allowed products up to $800 to avoid tariffs and other red tape as long as they were shipped directly to U.S. consumers or small businesses. In a cabinet meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Trump referred to the loophole as “a scam.”
Edited:
 
lindo
Posts
842
Likes
3,937
How does anyone make this kind of statement? The rest of the world watches in disbelief.


1921905-17c75c9c20811e0f2c972fd36f290a6d.jpg.webp
 
YY77
Posts
5,312
Likes
24,595
lindo lindo
How does anyone make this kind of statement? The rest of the world watches in disbelief.


1921905-17c75c9c20811e0f2c972fd36f290a6d.jpg.webp
They came up with "alternative facts", so no surprise.
 
Dan S
Posts
21,826
Likes
49,505
lindo lindo
How does anyone make this kind of statement? The rest of the world watches in disbelief.


1921905-17c75c9c20811e0f2c972fd36f290a6d.jpg.webp
My interpretation of this, is that Bessent is basically saying that Trump isn't going to back down, so China needs to take the lead in deescalation.
 
M'Bob
Posts
6,824
Likes
22,082
I just love this thread.

We all were just itching for years to jump into the thick of politics, but anytime we got near, the thread was shut down. But allowing this civil and important discourse has been SO interesting and cathartic. So thanks to the moderators for providing the outlet.

Secretly, I fear, however, that the passion and enthusiasm demonstrated here denotes a sad world political climate, and bumping the interest in watches down quite a bit. Maybe hobbies tend to thrive when folks are happier about daily life, and more confident in a stable world economy.
 
Archer
Posts
28,109
Likes
71,831
M'Bob M'Bob
Maybe hobbies tend to thrive when folks are happier about daily life, and more confident in a stable world economy.
I see what you mean, but hobbies certainly thrived during covid, and I don't think anyone would call that time happy or stable in any way.

Sometimes people want a distraction - that is what we hear on this site (and other watch sites) all the time, that people "come here to get away from the real world" so they don't want it to intrude here. But sometimes reality just can't be tucked away out of sight so neatly.

I would argue that this moment in time is bigger than just about any that we have seen in our lifetimes. So it was bound to break into this little sanctuary in some way. I fully agree that this has been a great discussion so far, minus a few bumps along the way. Full credit to the mods and the members. 👍
 
Dan S
Posts
21,826
Likes
49,505
Archer Archer
w.webp
I have been reading that there was a lot of inventory stockpiling and consumer pull-forward in March/April, which confounded some of the economic signals. My own household participated in this, as my wife bought a new car that she otherwise would have put off for some time.
 
sxl2004
Posts
2,500
Likes
6,797
Archer Archer
I would argue that this moment in time is bigger than just about any that we have seen in our lifetimes.

For me that big moment is still the fall of the Berlin Wall.
That changes so much in Europe and the world.
 
16 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...