Also, assuming that Trump doesn't utilize advisers seems to be willful ignorance. Trump studies a topic in depth before making a decision, and he very much listens to experts in that study.

If you review my comment carefully, you may notice (especially prior to my edit) that I haven't stated a particularly strong or distinct "position". Rather, I was asking a specific question about the specific literal words of someone else's stated position/belief.

I suspect that what has happened here in both cases is that subconscious heuristics have automatically crunched massive amounts of data and formed an evaluation in the asker's mind of a particular state in the other person's mind - something that is obviously epistemically unsound if you actually stop and think about it.

And I'm not asking these questions to troll - I believe the prevalence of low-consciousness in public participation in democracy is what makes these sorts of problems possible in the first place. I strongly believe that if people, even some people, were more harshly critical of listening to the words/promises/assurances of politicians and corporate leaders, we wouldn't find ourselves in many of these positions in the first place.

> Trade is a complex issue and Trump single handedly is jeopardizing this sensitive topic by openly declaring trade wars with multiple nations in open platform like Twitter.

It is indeed a complex issue, far more complex than most people are able to comprehend.

EDIT: It's a shame that the implementation of post throttling (claimed to be based on rate of posting) seems to have the side effect of not allowing those who've posted substantive but dissenting opinions are prevented from defending what they've posted, while those who post low quality but popular opinions (often stated as facts) seem to suffer no such restriction. I wonder if lowering diversity of opinions might sometimes lead to insular thinking both within individual forums as well as in our overall democracy. I wonder if anyone cares, more than they care about winning an argument.

> You are suggesting Trump is doing this based on recommendation of his team or in depth analysis of the topic.

Technically speaking, no. I am asking for an explanation of the thinking of someone who has claimed (with no stated evidence) that Trump and his team do not understand: "The logical conclusion would be that if you are a global company and want to keep selling to China (or to whoever will get a trade ban or sanction), you should not incorporate any US tech, or have US development teams. This seems to be quite counterproductive from the US point of view, it means that investing in the US expose you to additional risks."

> Your proof being members of his team.

I've made no assertion, or offered proof. I am asking a question.

I believe my comment above on heuristics is worthy of some consideration.

> Even though trade is complex issue, people will understand careful diplomacy.

They often will yes, no disagreement from me.

> What Trump is doing is like carrying a sledge hammer and out in full swing against trading nations.

A sledge hammer. Oh, ok. If that's the case, then is it clearly logical how incorrect my simplistic interpretation is, and downvotes are well deserved.

> There is no pattern or logic to it, other than scare tactics.

Is this a fact or an opinion?

> If you can point out to why you think he is doing this in more convincing manner then I think you might not have been downvoted.

So, the first person who makes a comment is now considered correct until someone can offer a substantive rebuttal? Does popularity of a statement play into this at all? Is this covered in the HN guidelines or somewhere else I'm not aware of?

Consider this possibility: might I be trying, although perhaps not successfully, to forcibly inject a bit of objectiveness into these conversations?

Might that be possible?

While we lack the ability to articulate a defense or substantiation of our religion, we more than make up for it with the vigor to downvote, on a platform that censors those with dissenting opinions.

I wonder what specific meaning you attribute to the words "trust" and "opinions" in this context, and how you believe (unless I am mistaken) you happen to know how "people" "trust" "opinions".

"fringe opinions" also seems like a bit of a loaded term to me, the exact meaning of which is left as an exercise to the reader. It also seems to imply that if an opinion is not mainstream, it is wrong, something that history would disagree with.

Can you consider the possibility that some of us have evaluated the situation, taking into consideration that only a subset of the facts are available to us, and also considering that many of the "facts" are surely propaganda, and come to the conclusion that while this trade war isn't a pleasant position to be in and is fraught with massive risk, it is the "best" route to go all things considered, and also that some of us may not hold the belief that we are "absolutely right" in our decided stance?

> don't you think the responsible option would be to measure the effects of small changes (maybe you implement some degree of tariffs without going for all-out war) rather than coming in with fringe views

Given the unlimited time a dictator enjoys, certainly. In a democracy with working timespans of < 4 years, and starting in a position reached by prior administrations who seemed to be happy to not notice the rapidly growing threat of China to America's dominance (for good or ill), no.

> and all the while believing you are absolutely right

How might you know that Trump's trade team believes they are absolutely right, versus posturing? Is there some irony here?

> And it's not a meme -- it's because people who respect experts are often experts in their own kind in other fields, and they've seen this behavior before, and hint -- it's come from the idiots.

If it's not a meme, does that mean it is a fact? Or is it something else?