I've made some good friends from this thread.

I don't think I saw Nirth in here.

To my understanding, Taxes imposed on imports/exports is what gave the government money up until Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA deal. Every country right now has import taxes (except the US).

Imposing the 35% taxes on imports is to keep jobs and businesses from moving to Mexico, which currently there's nothing stopping them from leaving. Trump calls it the greatest job's theft in history. You make knifes? Well China has cheaper labor and resources, so they make knifes and import them at 0% tax and people will tend to buy cheaper knifes. 35% current taxes in the US and lower taxes elsewhere? It makes sense to move businesses to where it's cheaper, especially if there's no downside.

Imposing penalties where it's cheaper to make something in the US than to import it will have a LOT more jobs in the US. Although it may take a couple years for the jobs to build up and return. This is his trade deal plans (or so far as I understand it). To continue with our current course only leads to bankruptcy, followed by war (although war might be started to keep the bankruptcy from being noticed as much).

And then all at once, it stopped being fun. :-(

Might I recommend a library card?

I was an English Major; I probably have fifty of the damn things laying around here.

I'm just going to assume you caught the Arthur reference.

Your rights were not infringed upon, sorry! Using nowadays standards set forth by the US government would make you a terrorist state. :P

Well-laid-out-plan? No, they were just a bit better prepared and more resourceful. The main advantage of what the English used in other countries, divide and conquer didn't work in north America as they were not able to divide the country.

And why the French failed, is more to do with that they were bickering/fighting too much on the inside. They got rid of the biggest problem, monarchy. BUT unlike America France was still having the clergy which was also part of the downfall as part of the revolution was trying to take their (clergies) rights away. Something YOU never had in America, the Clergy. And that was only ONE of the many reasons.
America was build by people (mainly) fleeing oppression, but a lot of people living in France (especially the upper classes) resented too much changes.

You are a bit comparing apples and oranges. The later US was lucky to have non of those century old institutions. Just as a reminder: You know how long it took to get the first thing called freedom of religion and on what war it was based upon?

DID I?

JESUS, I AM TOTALLY WORTHLESS!!!!

I'm not even going to bother asking about the terrorist thing since we're going to get completely off-topic with that, but the rights of the colonists WERE infringed upon. The British government imposed taxes without proper consultation with the various governing bodies of each colony, known by the phrase "taxation without representation".
There were a whole host of other reasons before that, including property rights (limitations on expansion) and lack of political voice, but the taxation was the one that drove them over the edge.
We drafted a constitution which was followed, set up a working system of government, and stuck to that plan.
The French did not.
That's only part of the problem. The French had a terrible plan to begin with. They had no actual direction.
They decided to overthrow their government, and...then what? They didn't appoint leaders, instead they stayed in a perpetual state of "DOWN WITH THE ARISTOCRACY!" by slicing the heads off of anybody deemed an enemy of the nation (or, in other words, anybody remotely rich).
They may have gotten rid of a problem, but they traded it for an even worse problem.

First off, he can shout anything he wants, but if the WTO would agree on this is another question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Principles_of_the_trading_system
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_settlement_in_the_World_Trade_Organization

So Trump would slap tariffs on, this will not hold up with the agreements in place. A panel would find something similar to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28301144

What will happen?

I am extra asking it as a question.

The clergy didn't end the French Revolution. The takeover of Napoleon did. All that the clergy did, to my knowledge, was add to the chaos.


Anyways, all of this is getting away from the basic point I was making to rt:
You can't have a blind revolution. It doesn't work.
The idea that "If everybody rebels, change will come!" is an idealistic yet unrealistic notion. History's proven why this doesn't work, and the French Revolution serves as only one example as to why not.
My message here is that rt thinks that pumping information to people will somehow help things, when it doesn't, which is yet another reason his blind links are completely useless, pointless, and mere spam.
You want to get some actual solutions? Talk to people, engage them in discussion, and learn BOTH sides of the argument and what can be done about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbXz3MXx2DU

Oh, that Arthur. Well then I'm not worthless. :P I thought you were talking about the movie.

The British government had any right to impose taxes. According to the magna carta YOU had no right of "NO taxation without representation" (slight correction in your post ;)
You WANTED to have one which the regular government decided against. YOU decided because of this (and other reasons) to rebel against YOUR regular government.
And NONE of the colonies had a governing body. They were part and subjects to the crown. Your rights were to be subject to the crown, nothing else :P
With a lot of those ideas coming from the French and good old Europe :P
Actually wrong, they did had a plan, BUT it failed as too much power was in the hands of a few, a thing which America didn't had. There was NO churches, there was ONLY one church!. And if THIS church said something is HAD to be followed. So even worse of what you could even THINK off being bad in the bible belt. Most of France was following THIS church. One thing what the revolution did TRY to break!
It would be the same as if a party in the US NOWADAYS would say to the bankers/hedge-fonds you have to give up your wealth, right now. Can you see this happening? And even this is not getting close enough.
I know you zeogold, but you do see this part too much through some rosy tainted glasses ;)
The problem in Europe was really the church and clergy.

Hence my question which you did not answer for freedom of religion and the basis for this.

...there was a movie?