monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

And why do you ask me?
Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council has nothing ["acting under the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations"] to do with The Hague Treaty and/or The Geneva Treaty. I don't know a lot more than basics about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

You seem to have all the answers, that's why. I'll give you a hint, the trial never finished, he died in custody and the people never got their justice.

And why did you asked me? Because I've been to Den Haag a couple of times? Or because I speak and understand a bit Nederlands?
I could think, you got confused with "The Hague" in the court's name. But there might any reason for asking me your above question, too.

I don't know whether it's dumber that you say what you say or that I take the bait and go on explaining it when you're just going to keep typing one-liner sentences that imply you have a clue, when in fact you probably didn't understand a thing you read in the post you're responding to. And now, because I accused you of being dumb and not understanding, you turn this exchange into an opportunity to accuse me of being prejudicial and discriminatory toward you.

No matter, the point is I explained EXACTLY how a tariff or any other tax motivates the tax payer to seek a less costly solution that avoids the tax/tariff.

If I make, say, DVDs and I have to pay 5% of what I sell them for in the US as tariffs, then it would be worth it to spend up to that amount on hiring would-be migrants so they won't migrate.

The incentive is even greater knowing that the tariff rate will keep increasing until the migration stops. In other words, if I don't spend 5% to make it stop now, I will be paying 10% later, or 15%, etc.

So it now makes financial sense for businesses operating south of the border to pay migrants not to migrate instead of paying tariffs.

What's more is that if the migration doesn't stop, then the tariff revenues will be spent on a wall.

Now you can say that the tariff costs will be passed on to US consumers, but if US businesses would just create US jobs to produce the imports, those tariffs could be avoided.

That's how tariffs also stimulate US job-creation.

This is not all to say that it wouldn't be fine to have a more efficient global economy that produces more with less jobs overall and then just ensure that everyone has adequate means of buying what's produced.

But that doesn't happen for numerous reasons. The major one is that when you provide people with welfare guarantees that afford them a basic standard of living, they supplement that assistance with illegal businesses, such as drugs and prostitution, which end up causing social problems and economic problems.

So when everyone is willing to behave themselves properly and accept a conservative standard of living that doesn't harm the environment, future sustainability, and cause social-economic problems to pile up; then it might be a good idea to create a hyper-efficient socialist global economy like China wants; but currently there is not enough self-discipline among the people of the world to exercise the liberty to make such a system work without it leading to massive abuses and exploitation that undermines the whole egalitarianism and humanitarianism of the communist ethic that is idealized.

In other words, when all the drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other abuses of liberty stop globally; then we can talk about a Global Green New Deal, or whatever you want to call it, but it will be one that actually works and doesn't cost so much it destroys the world it's pretending to save; i.e. because people will have developed the self-discipline by that point not to abuse the system before it can achieve what it's supposed to.

Didn't I mention why in the last post?


That is the best you could come up with? I thought I was being very specific when I mentioned the former leader of Serbia, a trial at the Hague and his death before the trial was completed. How could you think I was talking about anything else.


Not much room in that statement to play coy with what I was talking about.

I didn't notice and see such.

And I really don't get what it has to do with International Humanitarian Law (that he died during the trial? well, might be: it was a Dutch prison in Scheveningen, but I don't know the rules ) and/or the topic of this thread.

Here is a female Trump supporter ripping RINO Amash a new asshole.

No matter how you rehash it, your take is still erroneous.

When you use words like 'rehash,' and 'erroneous' in your post, it makes it sound a lot more valid than if you had just used any old 11 words that were equally devoid of meaningful content.

Here's a pretty good, elementary explanation of tariffs.

Someone should explain it--since he doesn't read--to Trump, as well.

LOL!

I'm more of a torture expert than anyone at the UN is.

Note: I am not claiming to be a torture expert. If you think that I am, then you are misreading my post.

I've studied economics and I was trying to discuss tariffs, but all you are doing is posting a link to some other article about tariffs in lieu of discussing what you are implying you understand.

My guess is that you're only posting the link and not discussing the topic because you don't really understand it but yet you want to pretend like you do so your political POV will carry some weight.

The gist of my argument is that your take on tariffs is wrong. In the most basic definition, they are "a form of regulation of foreign trade and a policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry." (Wiki) They are not meant to encourage foreign industry. Tariffs are paid by the consumers of the affected imported goods. Using them in an attempt to force another country to do something is tantamount to saying, "If you don't do this I'll punish the consumers in my country by making them pay more for your goods."

Shooting spree in Virginia. It looks like it might be a bad one.

Interesting. The shooter used a .45 with a silencer.

Could this be the first shooting spree to involve a licensed NFA device?

People once again are dying from gun violence, and all that oralloy gets from it is the "interesting" fact that the shooter used a silencer. Talk about amorality.

Spare me your leftist phony outrage. All phony outrage does is make leftists look silly.

And if you want to whine about the victims, keep that to yourself too.

On the other hand, if you have information on whether the suppressor was legally registered or not, that will be welcome.

People are dying because of illegal immigration. That is something we can fix without denying the rights of our citizens. Why isn't that a outrage?

No, no. You've got that wrong. People aren't dying due to immigration woes, it's immigrants seeking asylum who are dying.

Nothing phony about outrage at innocent people dying in the thousands from gun violence. Outrage at the people who do nothing asbout it but make the situation worse by their preoccupation with silencers and ignore the human cost.