this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
572 points (98.8% liked)

World News

45657 readers
2479 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Russia was excluded from Trump’s sweeping tariff list due to existing U.S. sanctions that limit trade, White House officials claimed.

Despite lower trade volumes, countries like Syria were still included, prompting skepticism.

Trump has prioritized ending the war in Ukraine and threatened 50% tariffs on nations buying Russian oil. Russian state media framed the omission as sanctions-based, not favoritism, with some mocking Trump’s harsher stance on allies.

Ukraine, meanwhile, faces a 10% tariff despite the country’s strategic partnership with the U.S.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right, because even though we both know you were wrong, you're too fragile to admit it.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not fragile. I really do recall seeing an article about this, and digging into finding it to show that I was only wrong admit the citation and not the content of the comment and my heart. But thats a chore and I'm putting off spending time doing that.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trust me bro, I was right, I just don't feel like proving it.

Fragile little ego. So pathetic.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Turns out it was an NY Times article, which you are free to search for yourself because this thirsty for attention wannabe troll shit can fuck right off.

Fun fact: Being abrasive and needing someone else to spoon-feed you the exact baby food you want isn't a great way to go through life.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Turns out it was an NY Times article

No it wasn't, you're lying again.

needing someone else to spoon-feed you the exact baby food you want isn't a great way to go through life

Asking people for sources for their outlandish claims is "being spoonfed baby food" now.

Jesus, you'll really do anything but just admit to being wrong. It's so cringe.

Look, you came into this thread trying to dunk on people, got proven wrong, pivoted and doubled down, got proven wrong again and you just can't seem to handle that fact. We both know it. Just admit it and take the L.