So I've said some things elsewhere but I also think that like . . . .:considers words:
I think something that the articles and even a bunch of the threads above don't entirely engage with is that the tariffs are already violence. The trade shit he's fucking up is already hostile and violent intent; it's already a massive harm. It's also shooting himself in the foot (there's a reason that the US is entwined with us, trade wise, and it's not the Goodness of the United States of America's Heart), but it is taking a de-facto trade relationship and cultural-social relationship that has been based on the assumption of mutual goodwill (more or less) for over a hundred years, and pissing on it and then lighting it on fire.
Part of what the "threat to sovereignty is serious" thing is also just establishing amongst themselves that no seriously: this US president is just that fucking batshit. Even though last time we were able to manipulate and handle and deal with him so that we managed to maintain the hundred years' status quo, this time he's out of his fucking mind and these are not negotiating ploys or little performances where we can thread the needle: he's actually lit everything on fire.
Do they actually think Trump is capable of actually attempting a violent invasion? Ehn. Do they think he wishes he were? Definitely. Do they think he's going to cause more problems and pull more bullshit as things continue to not actually go his way, and that it's time to stop even pretending that cooperation is worthwhile? 100% - and that is the part that is "taking this seriously", that it feels like the NYT missed.
I think that there's also some investment in the part of the NYT in believing that both Trump and Trump's USA are the most horrifying things in the world - its own kind of American exceptionalism, etc. So there's that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2025-03-18 04:25 am (UTC)I think something that the articles and even a bunch of the threads above don't entirely engage with is that the tariffs are already violence. The trade shit he's fucking up is already hostile and violent intent; it's already a massive harm. It's also shooting himself in the foot (there's a reason that the US is entwined with us, trade wise, and it's not the Goodness of the United States of America's Heart), but it is taking a de-facto trade relationship and cultural-social relationship that has been based on the assumption of mutual goodwill (more or less) for over a hundred years, and pissing on it and then lighting it on fire.
Part of what the "threat to sovereignty is serious" thing is also just establishing amongst themselves that no seriously: this US president is just that fucking batshit. Even though last time we were able to manipulate and handle and deal with him so that we managed to maintain the hundred years' status quo, this time he's out of his fucking mind and these are not negotiating ploys or little performances where we can thread the needle: he's actually lit everything on fire.
Do they actually think Trump is capable of actually attempting a violent invasion? Ehn. Do they think he wishes he were? Definitely. Do they think he's going to cause more problems and pull more bullshit as things continue to not actually go his way, and that it's time to stop even pretending that cooperation is worthwhile? 100% - and that is the part that is "taking this seriously", that it feels like the NYT missed.
I think that there's also some investment in the part of the NYT in believing that both Trump and Trump's USA are the most horrifying things in the world - its own kind of American exceptionalism, etc. So there's that.