> I am curious how you justify your position by looking at few members of the team.

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?