We giving our Allies bootleg second level isht If I am an ally that would definitely give me pause Rocket River
I do agree Trump is toxic. I strongly disliked Trump the first term and he went out in a despicable manner. However I do have a much higher confidence in his current administration. His first administration was a dumpster fire and so was Bidens. All-In podcast did interviews with Scott Bennett and Lutnick. I will say I am not a fan of Lutnick but it certainly could be worse. Bennett is a pretty good pick. You may hate this administration but they are a hell of a lot more transparent than the previous administration. Democrats are struggling to understand the party leadership is driving this country down. You may hate the billionaires who are involved now, but they are highly qualified. Your run of the mill people are acutely aware of the problem and many are finally waking up to the reality that we are on a quick path of becoming #2 behind China. Feelings and emotions do not build and maintain great countries.
What do you consider wealthy? You're a smart guy. You know wealthy people can move their money in ways that normal people can't. I don't understand why this argument insinuates rich people just have big vaults of money they swim around in scrooge mcduck style. The problem is wealthy people using the money to control politics. You have become programmed to believe that people who do not want war are isolationist. Americans are tired of the endless wars pushed by wealthy people. Its ok to continue to fund R&D and maintain security. Its not ok to use this money to engage in wars that have little to do with us. People are also tired of the cost plus endless grift from the MIC. We are the wealthiest country by far. We do not have an income problem. We have a spending problem. And I do not understand for the life of me why Democrats continue to defend wasteful spending.
I think that the second administration is far more of a variable - as I have said since his election, the lows and highs for this adminsitration are as extreme as any since at least LBJ and possibly even as far back as FDR. As far as this administration being transparent - I haven't reached a conclusion on that at this point. There are a lot of people like Bondi that are overly partisan and aligned with President Trump. So claims of transparency by the administration IMO are just that, Obama and Reagan both claimed the same things and that was a mixed bag. When I see extending of Executive powers and unsupervised gutting of agencies I get nervous. Trump deserves credit for realizing that the Post WWII way of doing government, with polishing from Reagan and Clinton - is dated, and parts of the government needed desperately to be updated to 2025. However - I don't think that massive tax cuts and massive tarrifs are the way to do it. I do agree with you that the mainline Democrat politicians have figured out yet that change is here - regardless, and they do not know how to adapt. That can change quickly, but it will require someone that comes in and leads the party and that isn't going to be anyone associated with Schumer or others.
That 4vs1 interview where he went to the Black Journalist Association drew attention for the worst possible reasons. I gave him some respect points for being that salesman who cold called every number even while getting 49 out of 50 rejections. Kamala didn't do that when she had to put her face out on every medium and earn respect even if the trust would never come.
Trump is not a serious person. That tweet quote make him look like an idiot. The quote is either Fake News or Trump was being "sarcastic". Reading between the lines, Trump is saying that it would sure suck when we invade Canada if their fighter jets were on par with our fighter jets. That would mean a fair fight and we can't have that.
They hurt American consumers and American businesses that have to pay higher prices. Consumers and businesses will naturally look for alternatives (sources from elsewhere) if any exist. They also hurt exporters (from Mexico and Canada in this case) when export volumes decrease. Exporters will look for alternatives (e.g., shipping to other countries) if any exist. That is what will happen. In some sectors, alternatives might emerge, such as Canada shipping minerals to Europe or even China instead of the U.S. What will also happen is escalation, leading to a trade war. All in all, everyone will suffer from a blanket tariff. Concessions for what, though? For Canada to become the 51st state of the U.S.? Who in the U.S. actually supports causing pain for everyone just so Canada can become the 51st state? Not to mention, how effective is that strategy? For less illegal immigration and illegal drugs? I am sure some would support this despite the pain, but I would suggest carefully examining how effective it would actually be. Will it truly reduce illegal immigration and drugs? A trade war is an unconventional technique to address illegal immigration and drugs across the southern border, and no one knows if it will actually work. But we do have a very good idea of the pain it will cause. P.S. I did not provide an analysis in my previous post. I simply pointed out that the blanket tariff against Mexico and Canada is not about "bad deals," as you believe it is. It is about the desire to absorb Canada as the 51st state and to reduce illegal immigration, illegal drugs.
It would be political suicide for any high-ranking republican potentially eying the oval office to want to have anything to do with annexing Canada. The Great White North is chock full of democrats. Not good for election results
Oh, look, finally, a sentence spared for the fact that the tariffs hurt exporters too. You'd never lead with that though. Fascinating. Access to the American market is critical. We have some of the highest wages in the world paid for with the American dollar. A country of $330 million high salaried persons paid in dollars. Good luck replacing that with anyone else. That's a BIG problem. Concessions? More favorable trade terms presumably.
It’s basic knowledge for those who understand tariffs that they hurt everyone, including exporters and importers. I have mentioned this multiple times, that it hurts everyone, in multiple posts elsewhere and probably here. Your lack of understanding is one thing, and it’s okay to not understand and then learn. Your assumption that I purposely did not convey that shows your incorrect assumption in accusing me of something "fascinating". You presume it’s for more favorable trade terms, but the public statement is that the trade war is to make Canada the 51st state and to reduce illegal immigration and drugs. Are these worth it?
Bullshit. Legacy media and posters like yourself emphasize the costs to the American consumer and pay little to no lip service to the fact tariffs hurt exporters potentially even more. Look at your posts. How much of your emphasis is on the harm to the American consumer vs. the exporters? Which is pointed out first? Which has more sentences and words given to it? You only grudgingly acknowledged it when I challenged you on it. Trump is implementing tariffs on various nations look to wrangle any number of concessions.
I'm not legacy media. Naturally, Americans are more concerned with the impact on themselves than others, so it's normal for American media to focus on the impact to Americans. It's basic knowledge that tariffs hurt everyone (which is why they call it "trade war" - because, like all wars, everyone suffers). Again, the trade war with Mexico and Canada are for two stated reasons: reducing illegal immigration and drugs, and making Canada the 51st state. I don’t think most Americans care about Canada becoming the 51st state, and I certainly don’t think they support alienating our northern allies and harming everyone for that goal. Using a trade war to reduce illegal immigration and drugs through southern borders is unconventional, and while there might be some success there (I’m not sure), what’s certain is that everyone will suffer. That’s almost guaranteed. You keep mentioning concessions, but outside of the official objectives surrounding national security issues (and the rhetoric around making Canada the 51st state), they haven’t stated any other specific concessions. If you want to defend this administration’s trade war in light of these two objectives, I’m open to hearing your thoughts. But if you’re not on board with it, feel free to share that too. If you want to focus on media coverage, you can have the last word.
We have no idea who the members of "doge" are that are slashing government agencies. We have no idea who the names of the individuals who got deported to el salvador without due process. We have no idea what conflict of interests trump has as he refused to release his financials. Trump is getting rid of the CFPB, gutting the FTC and just installed a Amazon exec as head of OSHA. We have no idea how much money bezos has given Trump Theres nothing transparent about the admin
The internet was complete mistake. It gave idiots a voice and followers. There is no way out now outside of locking it down like China. It sucks that so many stupid people exist in this world.
