That has to be the most pathetic attempt to sound threatening I have seen on this message board so far. In a few years you will probably look back at your comment and laugh at yourself.

A better strategy than boycotting to gain market share, is to make actually good products that people want to buy. That's something Europeans could learn from Americans when it comes to technology, and we would all be better off for it. Very few customers have the patience to suffer an inferior product for ideological reasons in the long run, so the effect of political boycotting is usually quite limited.

It's of course different for consumer goods which have no important difference in quality, such as the liquors you're mentioning.

Consumers in the countries mentioned do not have to ''sound threatening'' when they look at the country of origin label on products and actively choose a non-U.S.A. alternative. Your reaction to that is of no concern to them when their sovereignty and jobs are threatened. This leads me to strongly believe that your exposure to current events in those places seems to be quite limited.

What's the problem in that situation? The consumer has the full privilege to pick the alternative they prefer, for whatever reason. But there has to be a suitable alternative for that to happen. I would assume that the world is big enough to have a bunch of fully fledged office suites.

Current events are motivating people and their stores and governments to not choose U.S. products. The motivation is strong and widespread. I would have to think that sensible marketing folks in the U.S. have to be wargaming the effects upon their bottom line when their product lines are under such suppressing forces:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-blair-trump-1.7484477

If that becomes reality, what would you expect the US companies to do?

They could put pressure on the US government to enact economic reforms and stability or they can accept that sales will be down during Great Depression 2.

So giant corporations should pressure democratically elected leaders to go against the policies that their people elected them for, to benefit foreign interests? And the person telling me this is somebody who has taken their username from an active terrorist organization who favors political violence to forward a socialist ideology. You might not be a member of such an organization, maybe just an admirer. I don't need to know, and probably the surveillance organizations we're talking about in this thread already know what they want to know.

And the motivation for all of this is that people would "not feel safe" by the threat of some word processing or spreadsheet software.

To me it seems that people here are doubling into themselves into the highest confusion.

I don't remember Elon Musk (who is obviously a fascist if you do any basic research on his recent history and family history) being on any ballots. I don't remember Trump campaigning on mass layoffs. I don't remember Trump campaigning on firing veterans. I remember Trump mocking other candidates for being warmongers. The mass deportations appear to be targeting free speech and skin colors and Ukrainians more than actual illegal immigrants and criminal immigrants. There is also the issue of skipping due process for these mass layoffs. Trump did not campaign on bringingback monarchy. Trump did not campaign on dismantling social security. Trump denied any interest in Project 2025. Trump sold a rugpull shitcoin right before inauguration. All evidence available shows that Trump is for sale to the highest bidder and has contempt for the constitution.

So no, these are not the policies that people voted for. These are policies that oligarchs cooked up.