I did, you mentioned 'treaties' for the first time in your last comment.
The ability of the USA to prosecute Kim DotCom didn't depend on any treaty. The extradition process did, but that is a question of custody.
In addition, there ARE numerous trade treaties that cover privacy, the right of countries to implement privacy regulation on international trade and specific protections that allow data exportation from the EU.
> The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country so long as ANY EU citizen visits, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like.
This is false. The entity has to be based in the EU or be offering goods and services to people in the EU to have the GDPR apply.
> There is no shame in admitting the EU made a far-reaching law, a first of its kind, that it has no hope of enforcing.
While it is a far reaching law, it is not the first of it's kind and there are thousands of fines and penalties issued under it each year.
> Only if you remove all relevant details that show everything I've said is absolutely correct.
I've already provided several examples that disprove your statment. The "relevant details" are the qualifications that you keep making up but conviently still leave off when making your false claims.
You've said so many false things throughout your comments, starting with the "US law as written is entirely reasonable and doesn't try to claim the law applies to US citizens anywhere in the world." which you even doubled down on with a double "absolutely" when I first called you on it.
At this point, I suggest you put far more effort into verifying the accuracy of what you say or nobody will take anything you say seriously. I certainly don't anymore.