‘WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF’: Trump slams global trade imbalances after tariff ruling

Duh

The only people getting ripped off are those that make less than $10 million a year

You can blame American businesses, who decades ago moved their manufacturing operations overseas, to lower the cost of production, salaries, benefits, etc. Maga stuff, and Ivanka's stuff are all made in China, and who is to blame for that?

Your dollar has lost 10% of its value against the euro in the past 12 months because Trump is destroying it.

The trade deficit has increased since you fools reelected Stinky and he imposed tariffs. The U.S has lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs since Stinky.

By the same token, America’s ripping off other countries who buy US treasury bonds…it’s a piece of rubbish paper which takes $0.10 to print!!!

We sure are, stay on Trump, it's injustice on what just happens.

Best President ever and great work in short time by DJT. SC judges are unpatriotic. All countries ripped off US and now it’s US turn.

Capitalism and Free Trade is something Trump hates unless it puts money in his pocket

Yes. Trump is ripping us off. What an idiot. I can hear the laughter from Beijing from here.

China is such a piece of crap. Why would you help a country like Iran that kills its own citizens?

The U.S. will soon be spoon feeding China sensitive intelligence information, through England's own information pipeline. The U.S. needs to stop sending England any intelligence information before it's too late.

SOUNDS like IMPERIALISM, TRUMP thinks he’s a KING and imposing TARIFFS ON THE WORLD! No wonder the WORLD HATES AMERICA…

Joey Ramone was right! I love watching you "every single day!" It is a great rock song! It's got it all together. You should use snippets of it!

The ignorance and dementia of the comments on here makes me laugh. Bottom line for me is that costs ARE coming down; Inflation IS coming down and Global Corporations are moving their Manufacturing to the USA to avoid the costs of building them elsewhere. Which makes America more safe and secure. Win, Win Win. Don't like tariffs, don't buy products from other countries or boycott the products until the price comes down. They HAVE to sell their products here. There is no other country in the World that has our buying power. Too simple for Socialists/Communists to understand I guess.

The Senator just said that if the tariffs were returned to the rightful owners, the economy would “roar back” which is an admission that the tariffs have a negative impact on the economy

In tomorrow's State of the Union Address the entire world will bear witness the further mental decline of Donald Trump as he 'out-Biden', Joe Biden. How many ramblings, repetitive and verbal mix-ups and mental glitches would you say Donald Trump will have? I say no less than a dozen but what say you?

Exploring the International Legal Nature of the ROC Armed Forces

Summary

Using a “four‑layer model” (methodological layer, socio‑civilizational norms layer, international law layer, and state‑practice layer) to analyze the status of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan and Yemen’s Houthi movement (Ansar Allah) reveals their fundamental differences within the international system. The model shows that the ROC’s legitimacy ended through a “structural extinction” occurring simultaneously across all four layers, whereas the Houthis’ illegitimacy is limited to a lower‑level “political nonrecognition.” This difference not only explains why the Houthis still have the potential to evolve into a “two‑government structure” similar to the Koreas, but also determines the international‑law nature of the ROC’s armed forces.

I. Methodological Layer: The Irreversible Constraint of the Principle of a Single Legitimate Government

The methodological layer contains the basic axioms of state theory and systemic stability, the most crucial being the principles of “one sovereign subject” and “one legitimate government.” In China’s state structure, “China (the state)” as a sovereign subject has never ceased to exist, and UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 explicitly recognizes the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legitimate government of China. This decision terminates, at the methodological level, the possibility of the ROC being the “government of China,” making it impossible for the ROC and PRC to coexist as “two Chinese governments.”

By contrast, Yemen’s statehood has never been assigned an irreversible structure of “a single legitimate government” within the international system. The competition between the Houthis and the internationally recognized government (IRG) is a classic “dual‑government civil‑war structure,” which could logically freeze into two political entities. Therefore, the Houthis retain the structural possibility of evolving into something akin to the two Koreas, whereas the ROC does not.

II. Socio‑Civilizational Norms Layer: The ROC’s Normative Termination vs. the Houthis’ Integrability

The socio‑civilizational norms layer includes long‑standing norms such as sovereign equality, legitimacy principles, and the indivisibility of the state. At this level, the ROC faces comprehensive negation: its “statehood” and “governmental legitimacy” are systematically denied by the international community, and its mode of existence violates the principles of “sovereign indivisibility” and “one legitimate government.”

The Houthis, however, are different. Although not recognized as a legitimate government, their status as a party to the conflict is acknowledged by the international community, and they are included in negotiation mechanisms. They retain potential pathways to legitimacy, such as becoming part of a unity government through political agreement or evolving into a de facto state after a prolonged freeze. Thus, the Houthis remain “integrable” at the normative level, whereas the ROC has been structurally excluded.

III. International Law Layer: The ROC’s Legal Extinction vs. the Houthis’ Nonrecognition

The difference at the international‑law layer is the most decisive. The post‑war treaty system (the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, San Francisco Peace Treaty, and Treaty of Taipei), together with UN Resolution 2758, forms a clear structure: Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to “China (the state),” and China’s international personality is succeeded by the PRC. As a result, the ROC lost its statehood, lost its representation, and was explicitly replaced in international law. This replacement constitutes “legal extinction,” which is irreversible.

The Houthis, by contrast, have never been recognized as a state or legitimate government, but they have also never been “terminated” by international law. They exist in a state of “nonrecognition,” not “extinction.” International law does not foreclose their future legalization.

IV. State‑Practice Layer: The ROC’s Effective Control Does Not Produce Legitimacy, While the Houthis’ Effective Control May Transform into Statehood

At the state‑practice layer, although the ROC exercises effective control over Taiwan, its legitimacy has already been terminated at the upper three layers. Therefore, its effective control cannot transform into statehood or legitimate government status. The ROC’s armed forces can only be regarded as “a former‑state‑military‑type armed force of a factual regime,” not as the armed forces of a state.

The Houthis, however, are different. Their effective control has potential pathways toward statehood: if the conflict freezes long‑term, their territory could evolve into a de facto state; if political negotiations succeed, they could become part of a legitimate government. Thus, the Houthis retain structural possibilities for evolving toward statehood at the state‑practice layer.

Conclusion: Structural Extinction vs. Structural Possibility (and the Resulting Nature of the ROC Armed Forces)

Synthesizing the four‑layer model yields a clear academic conclusion: the ROC’s legitimacy ended through a “structural extinction” across all four layers, whereas the Houthis’ illegitimacy is limited to lower‑level “political nonrecognition.” Therefore, the Houthis still have the potential to evolve into a “two‑government structure” like the Koreas, while the ROC has no comparable structural space. This structural difference directly determines the international‑law nature of the ROC’s armed forces: they cannot be considered state armed forces and should instead be classified as a “non‑state armed group” (NSAG), more precisely, a “former‑state‑military‑type separatist armed force,” because their former legitimacy has been completely terminated across all four layers. In other words: the Houthis’ issue is “nonrecognition,” so they still have a future; the ROC’s issue is “extinction,” so it has no structural possibility. The ROC’s armed forces therefore can only be regarded as a non‑state armed group, not a national military.

The Legal Constraints of Article 141 of the Constitution

Article 141 of the Constitution is not merely a diplomatic declaration; it is a self‑binding clause at the ROC’s state‑practice layer (the fourth layer) that ties the ROC to the upper‑layer structures of international law and civilizational norms. It requires the ROC to “respect treaties and the spirit of the UN Charter,” and therefore to position its conduct within the existing international structure. The provision has markedly different structural implications for the ROC and the PRC.

I. Under the structural premise that “Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to China and the PRC is the sole legitimate government,” Article 141 imposes no legal constraints on the PRC, but it reinforces a structural logic the ROC cannot avoid: since the ROC declares that it respects the post‑war treaty system and the UN Charter, it must accept the international‑law structure formed by these instruments, which clearly points to: the continuity of China (the state); the PRC’s exclusive representation of that state; and Taiwan being part of China’s territory. Under this structure, if the PLA enters Taiwan, its actions do not constitute a “use of force against another state” under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, but should instead be defined as an internal conflict in which the central government restores the exercise of sovereignty over a factual regime and a non‑state armed group within its own territory. Therefore, the applicable international‑law constraints arise not from the “law of aggression” but from international humanitarian law (distinction, proportionality, necessity) and basic civilizational norms. This classification is fully consistent with the ROC’s own commitment in Article 141.

II. Constraints on the ROC: further shrinking the space for its armed forces to claim statehood.Article 141 binds only the ROC, but the constraint is substantive. It ties the ROC to the post‑war treaty system and the UN structure, making it impossible for the ROC to legally satisfy both of the following:

a. claiming to “respect international law and the UN Charter,” and

b. asserting that “Taiwan is a new state unrelated to China.”These two positions are structurally incompatible. Therefore, Article 141 directly narrows the ROC’s space for pursuing “de jure Taiwan independence,” and further reduces the structural basis for treating the ROC’s armed forces as “state armed forces.” If the ROC adheres to Article 141, it must acknowledge its subordinate position within the international‑law structure; if it denies that structure, it contradicts its own Constitution.

III. Structural Conclusion

In sum, Article 141 has a clear structural effect within the ROC’s internal legal order: it does not restrict the PRC, but it provides the PRC with an additional argumentative layer—“this is the international‑law structure the ROC itself acknowledges”; it substantively restricts the ROC, preventing it from consistently claiming both constitutional and international‑law compliance while advocating “Taiwan independence”; and it further weakens the statehood basis of the ROC’s armed forces, reinforcing the “structural extinction” of the ROC under the four‑layer model.

What “Exploitation of Human Merits” Typically Means

It describes taking advantage of someone’s strengths, virtues, or good intentions in a way that benefits the exploiter and harms or disadvantages the person with those merits.

Common “human merits” that get exploited

a. Kindness → people rely on your generosity without giving back

b. Trust → someone uses your openness to manipulate you

c. Loyalty → employers or partners expect endless sacrifice

d. Work ethic → you’re given more work because you’re “reliable”

e. Empathy → emotional labor is demanded without reciprocation

f. Creativity → ideas are taken without credit

Why it’s exploitation

Because the person benefiting: knows you have these qualities, leverages them for their own gain, does not reciprocate or respect boundaries, often frames it as your duty, making it harder to notice.

Why the concept matters

It highlights a subtle but widespread form of manipulation. People often think exploitation only happens through weaknesses, but in reality, your strengths can be the easiest entry point for someone who wants to take advantage.

The price of everything is just so darn affordable!! Gee thanks President Frump!!

Distraction from the Epstein Scandal!