ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Tariffs

Again. Americans chose this in the 80's. Jobs were sent elsewhere by US corporations. They weren't lost, or stolen. It was a choice.

Even if you think onshoring is the best solution, why not target specific industries or products and grow from there? If everything worked to perfection, how many jobs could we fill? What prevents those jobs from leaving China to Vietnam, or India?
American leaders chose it. Not the people. They weren't at Bretton Woods and Nixon took us off the gold standard with a stroke of a pen on the weekend.
 
American leaders chose it. Not the people. They weren't at Bretton Woods and Nixon took us off the gold standard with a stroke of a pen on the weekend.
Once again your time-line is off. You need to adapt your view to account for that fact. Even if your cause is now part of the problem it's not the genesis.

And you didn’t answer my questions in the second paragraph.
 
It's futile trying to explain how tariffs actually work to the same people who think Trump is Jesus take #2 and think (with no evidence) that seeking some semblance of workplace diversity crashes airplanes.
 
I thought it was one potential outcome but it has been worse than I thought. I didn't really like either option and didn't like the path we were on under Biden. I also thought that Trump was likely to go one of two ways. Each involved a little bit of revenge getting, I assumed that like the 51 people on the Hunter laptop thing were going to go. I assumed some pressure on trade but not in the direction he went. Particularly Canada. I did not foresee making veiled threats about Greenland or turning Canada into the 51st state (recklessly unnecessary threats) nor did I think Elon was going to be given carte blanche to run willy nilly.

Egg on my face.

The Federal bureaucracy does need some reform. You do that by maybe offering VERA VSIP which are avenues already in the system to offer early retirement or voluntary separation (not some random ass email asking people to respond with "resign") and you make it easier to let underperforming employees go. A scalpel, not a chainsaw.

And to all of the dudes on here who are hardcore MAGA, you all need to go look up Curtis Yarvin and his worldview and realize that JD Vance lists him as an inspiration. That guy literally calls for a dictator to run the US.




From that interview: “There’s this guy Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things. I think Trump is going to run again in 2024 [and] I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people."

Yarvin calls for a dictator. That is indefensible.

And I didn't do enough homework. Simple as that. I made a gamble thinking that they wouldn't be this crazy and now I see them running the playbook through a guy who wants revenge and an autistic troll throwing Nazi salutes behind a Presidential podium (and spare me that my heart goes out bullshit people. Elon is a troll, that was a Nazi salute.)
IUCrazy, these are all honest questions. Haven’t seen you comment on a lot of this stuff recently (I might have missed it and you have) and am curious on your thoughts:

How would the world be different had you done enough homework? What did you gamble?

Re Yarvin and Vance, besides quoting him on that, has Vance written or hinted elsewhere that he wants the US run by a dictator? Absent a constitutional convention, how would that occur in the United States?

Re Musk, let’s stipulate for sake of argument he really was slyly throwing out a Nazi salute. What did you conclude from that?

For me, I think Trump wants to staff the exec with yes men because he’s certain he has the answers and blames the bureaucracy for his past failures. I don’t think he wants to be a dictator nor do I think Vance secretly champions that, but I admit it’s a possibility.

Ultimately, though, I continue to believe our constitutional structure and institutions aren’t capable of being turned into a dictatorship easily or quickly.
 
Once again your time-line is off. You need to adapt your view to account for that fact. Even if your cause is now part of the problem it's not the genesis.
I’ve never accepted your genesis, because it’s wrong and mine is right. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about it, but I doubt either of us will change the other’s opinion.
And you didn’t answer my questions in the second
I pretty much agree with you. Over time they should make changes where needed. If we can’t produce it in the U.S. it’s beyond stupid to tariff it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
I’ve never accepted your genesis, because it’s wrong and mine is right. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about it, but I doubt either of us will change the other’s opinion.

I pretty much agree with it. Over time they should make changes where needed. If we can’t produce it in the U.S. isn’t beyond stupid to tariff it.
What is my genesis?
 
Trump is gonna FA and screw up my fall fishing trip to Ontario.
It will be worth it. Soon you’ll be able to fish Greenland. Just look.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: snarlcakes
I thought it was one potential outcome but it has been worse than I thought. I didn't really like either option and didn't like the path we were on under Biden. I also thought that Trump was likely to go one of two ways. Each involved a little bit of revenge getting, I assumed that like the 51 people on the Hunter laptop thing were going to go. I assumed some pressure on trade but not in the direction he went. Particularly Canada. I did not foresee making veiled threats about Greenland or turning Canada into the 51st state (recklessly unnecessary threats) nor did I think Elon was going to be given carte blanche to run willy nilly.

Egg on my face.

The Federal bureaucracy does need some reform. You do that by maybe offering VERA VSIP which are avenues already in the system to offer early retirement or voluntary separation (not some random ass email asking people to respond with "resign") and you make it easier to let underperforming employees go. A scalpel, not a chainsaw.

And to all of the dudes on here who are hardcore MAGA, you all need to go look up Curtis Yarvin and his worldview and realize that JD Vance lists him as an inspiration. That guy literally calls for a dictator to run the US.




From that interview: “There’s this guy Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things. I think Trump is going to run again in 2024 [and] I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people."

Yarvin calls for a dictator. That is indefensible.

And I didn't do enough homework. Simple as that. I made a gamble thinking that they wouldn't be this crazy and now I see them running the playbook through a guy who wants revenge and an autistic troll throwing Nazi salutes behind a Presidential podium (and spare me that my heart goes out bullshit people. Elon is a troll, that was a Nazi salute.)
Outstanding post by someone who retains the ability to critically think, has not been sucked in by the algorithms and is not suffering from social media brain rot.
 
Re Yarvin and Vance, besides quoting him on that, has Vance written or hinted elsewhere that he wants the US run by a dictator? Absent a constitutional convention, how would that occur in the United States?

I think it all comes back to the impoundment act. If the POTUS can unilaterally decide what portions of funding is spent and what other portions discarded.... Then Congress basically becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the Executive wants.

Yarvin also has advocated that the POTUS could/should ignore a SCOTUS ruling if impoundment act is upheld
 
Last edited:
It will be worth it. Soon you’ll be able to fish Greenland. Just look.

I can already fish in Greenland if I wanted to. I'll give you credit for one thing

 
I wonder if there is a direct correlation between the amount of red meat being thrown out for distraction, and how bad the economy is going to get. I guess as long as Trump tells everyone there is going to be pain, the MAGAs will still kiss his rump.

I remember when we were told that lower income families were drowning in high prices, and anyone who voted Democrat did not care about them. Well, Donny cares, so...

this-is-fine_custom-b7c50c845a78f5d7716475a92016d52655ba3115.jpg
 
I thought it was one potential outcome but it has been worse than I thought. I didn't really like either option and didn't like the path we were on under Biden. I also thought that Trump was likely to go one of two ways. Each involved a little bit of revenge getting, I assumed that like the 51 people on the Hunter laptop thing were going to go. I assumed some pressure on trade but not in the direction he went. Particularly Canada. I did not foresee making veiled threats about Greenland or turning Canada into the 51st state (recklessly unnecessary threats) nor did I think Elon was going to be given carte blanche to run willy nilly.

Egg on my face.

The Federal bureaucracy does need some reform. You do that by maybe offering VERA VSIP which are avenues already in the system to offer early retirement or voluntary separation (not some random ass email asking people to respond with "resign") and you make it easier to let underperforming employees go. A scalpel, not a chainsaw.

And to all of the dudes on here who are hardcore MAGA, you all need to go look up Curtis Yarvin and his worldview and realize that JD Vance lists him as an inspiration. That guy literally calls for a dictator to run the US.




From that interview: “There’s this guy Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things. I think Trump is going to run again in 2024 [and] I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people."

Yarvin calls for a dictator. That is indefensible.

And I didn't do enough homework. Simple as that. I made a gamble thinking that they wouldn't be this crazy and now I see them running the playbook through a guy who wants revenge and an autistic troll throwing Nazi salutes behind a Presidential podium (and spare me that my heart goes out bullshit people. Elon is a troll, that was a Nazi salute.)
I appreciate your introspection. Not many on here are capable of that. You seem like a family first, solid dude. I’d buy you beer anytime even if we don’t agree all the time.
 
I know it's fun for people to just chalk it up to Trump is dumb, but some other thoughts. I think it has more with wanting to onshore. China is kicking our ass and we’re f#cked if a war breaks out. Giving the world treasuries (paper) for goods is great until you realize you can’t win a war because it takes actual bullets to win. The Russian/ Ukraine war woke enough people up to this fact and it's become a matter of national security.

Also, if the economy stalls from tariffs and countries stops buying treasuries they have a great reason to lower rates and the FED can start yield control. This would cause a weaker dollar, which is what they need to reshore, run a hot economy, and elevated inflation (help with debt). They need to run the economy hot as shit if they are going to get the debt to GDP down. There’s going to be some pain and high inflation in my humble opinion, but a lot of growth. Someone has to pay for all the debt we ran up. I think this is the least shitty way to do it.
 
If only the free populace of a Republic of the people, created by the people, for the people, could unite and peacefully demand that their government do what the people want.

Alas, half the nation called the other half "deplorables" and felt so good about the results, they moved on to "racists" and then "fascists" and then the coup de' grace of all political insults - "NAZI!"

All we have now are 77,000,000 folks willing to throw down against 75,000,000 others while President after President tries to ignore Congress and the courts and govern by Presidential fiat and "executive" order.

And the Cell Phone Propagandists stab it with their steely knives, and still can't kill the beast.
 
I think it all comes back to the impoundment act. If the POTUS can unilaterally decide what portions of funding is spent and what other portions discarded.... Then Congress basically becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the Executive wants.
It seems we've been heading in that direction for years. And, IMO, it's because congress are too damn lazy to their job and keep letting the presidents take more power.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: twenty02


This is a really good summation of what I hope their trying to do. I’d also add they need to rip the bandaid off and let inflation run hot when it picks up in 26 and buy a ton of Bitcoin before the end of 26. Hopefully, in 5 years we come out of it with a debt to GDP much lower.

For the record it all sucks, but at some point we have to pay for the dumb spending we have racked up. I think this is the least painful and best option. The trajectory we’re on isn’t sustainable and there isn’t the political will to make sufficient cuts, which would also be extremely painful as well. Cheers. Fun thread. It’s going to be an interesting couple of years as it all plays out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions


This is a really good summation of what I hope their trying to do. I’d also add they need to rip the bandaid off and let inflation run hot when it picks up in 26 and buy a ton of Bitcoin before the end of 26. Hopefully, in 5 years we come out of it with a debt to GDP much lower.

For the record it all sucks, but at some point we have to pay for the dumb spending we have racked. I think this is the least painful and best option. The trajectory we’re on isn’t sustainable and there isn’t the political will to make sufficient cuts, which would also be extremely painful as well. Cheers. Fun thread. It’s going to an interesting couple of years as it all plays out.
What happens to Bi$coin if the US gov suddenly wants to buy $1bil or even way more? Does that position you to buy Auburn and the dream team can move there permanently?
 
So, basiclally, high prices under Biden were bad.
Higher prices under Donny are good.
Technically, the argument would be that high prices are bad in both cases, but Biden's policies did nothing good, while Trump's will make things better re fentanyl, human trafficking (?), and border security. So we now will pay more to benefit those people. (I'm not buying the argument, just laying it out as the administration has stated it).

As I wrote in another post, I think this idea is one that would have been considered by Dems 30 years ago on the merits and rejected wholesale by Republicans.

For those who care about the separation of powers, I'm not sure how Trump's justification--no matter how great you might think it is--is consistent with his power to tariff in "economic emergencies."
 
Technically, the argument would be that high prices are bad in both cases, but Biden's policies did nothing good, while Trump's will make things better re fentanyl, human trafficking (?), and border security. So we now will pay more to benefit those people. (I'm not buying the argument, just laying it out as the administration has stated it).

As I wrote in another post, I think this idea is one that would have been considered by Dems 30 years ago on the merits and rejected wholesale by Republicans.

For those who care about the separation of powers, I'm not sure how Trump's justification--no matter how great you might think it is--is consistent with his power to tariff in "economic emergencies."
So, the means do not justify the ends. I'm sure I remember some posters quoting Franklin on the topic of safety and liberty.
 
IUCrazy, these are all honest questions. Haven’t seen you comment on a lot of this stuff recently (I might have missed it and you have) and am curious on your thoughts:

How would the world be different had you done enough homework? What did you gamble?
Well, since I am one vote, nothing. I didn't have 20/20 hindsight at the time though. One thing that would be different is the buyers remorse I am feeling....
Re Yarvin and Vance, besides quoting him on that, has Vance written or hinted elsewhere that he wants the US run by a dictator? Absent a constitutional convention, how would that occur in the United States?
I don't know on question one. I don't think anyone has asked him what part of this he thinks is great about Yarvin:


Read through it. The dictator thing is only a drop in the bucket of objectionable material.
Re Musk, let’s stipulate for sake of argument he really was slyly throwing out a Nazi salute. What did you conclude from that?
That an autistic troll has been placed in charge of "reforming" government. We put my teenage son in charge of having people's lives and livelihoods in his hands. He is a megalomaniac who can be pushed even further into his worst instincts by the egging on of the people who are all too happy to fellate him on X/Twitter.
For me, I think Trump wants to staff the exec with yes men because he’s certain he has the answers and blames the bureaucracy for his past failures. I don’t think he wants to be a dictator nor do I think Vance secretly champions that, but I admit it’s a possibility.
Maybe. Maybe not. But if someone tells you one of their intellectual heroes is Ivan the Terrible, doesn't that lead you to have questions? Like what part of him are you into? They have certainly been playing out of the authoritarian playbook a bit haven't they?
Ultimately, though, I continue to believe our constitutional structure and institutions aren’t capable of being turned into a dictatorship easily or quickly.
They certainly seem to be testing the boundaries of the executive power though don't they.


They are talking about fundamentally changing the Republic and I don't see mention of a constituional convention. I am not inclined to cut then slack based off what I have seen. The thinking that dude espouses is dangerous. It is the type of thinking the Founding Fathers initially rebelled against. It isn't Republican. It is authoritarian.
 
Last edited:
For me, I think Trump wants to staff the exec with yes men because he’s certain he has the answers and blames the bureaucracy for his past failures. I don’t think he wants to be a dictator nor do I think Vance secretly champions that, but I admit it’s a possibility.

We can quibble over the best term to use (dictator? authoritarian?), but there is little doubt he has no real interest in governing and every interest in ruling. Time will tell if there's any willingness to hold him in check. The Kommie rag otherwise known as the Wall Street Journal has a good overview:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bowlmania
We can quibble over the best term to use (dictator? authoritarian?), but there is little doubt he has no real interest in governing and every interest in ruling. Time will tell if there's any willingness to hold him in check. The Kommie rag otherwise known as the Wall Street Journal has a good overview:

Bullshit. Pro-lifers in front of abortion clinics felt the authoritarian boot. As did 1/6 grandmas. As did Steve Brannon. And Donald Trump. And Roger Stone. And those who attended Latin Mass.

When Trump starts locking up his political opponents gimme a ring.

Until then your projection is pathetic.
 
For me, I think Trump wants to staff the exec with yes men because he’s certain he has the answers and blames the bureaucracy for his past failures. I don’t think he wants to be a dictator nor do I think Vance secretly champions that, but I admit it’s a possibility.

Curious, don't you think many dictators start by thinking they have all the answers and blame the institutions for not respecting their genius?

I don't know if Trump/Musk want to be dictators but I don't know how what you described differs from what a would be dictator would do.
 
We can quibble over the best term to use (dictator? authoritarian?), but there is little doubt he has no real interest in governing and every interest in ruling. Time will tell if there's any willingness to hold him in check. The Kommie rag otherwise known as the Wall Street Journal has a good overview:

I think that's a really good way to put it, Mark, rule vs. governing.
 
We can quibble over the best term to use (dictator? authoritarian?), but there is little doubt he has no real interest in governing and every interest in ruling. Time will tell if there's any willingness to hold him in check. The Kommie rag otherwise known as the Wall Street Journal has a good overview:

Promises made, promises kept!

We're sliding into authoritarianism, just as Trump foretold. "I have an Article 2 where I can do whatever I want as president." The Supreme Court pretty much agreed, and he's now essentially above the law. Project 2025 provided a blueprint for vastly expanded unitary executive power, and we're already seeing its implementation.

It can't happen here, some insist? Of course it can. We've seen numerous examples of populist movements-turned-authoritarian regimes supplanting democracies around the world - - - Brazil, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, etc. Trump has expressed admiration for some of these leaders.

Interestingly, political and social scientists seem to be moving away from trying to understand authoritarianism as a function of the psychopathology of an individual personality, and instead are focusing on the broader societal attitude. Authoritarianism is becoming increasingly attractive to people who feel their way of life is being threatened, with a yearning for the "good old days." For those drawn to authoritarian leaders, it's not about giving up personal freedoms or submitting to authority. The appeal is being on the side of authority that preserves the values that the people feel are under assault, and embracing a leader who's not afraid to whittle away democracy in order to do so. The attitude is essentially, "I'm fine with a strongman as long as he's my strongman."

The strongman closes the deal by cutting quid pro quo deals with billionaire businessmen, stoking anxiety and anger in the population with respect to the economy, convincing them their problems stem from others/outsiders, undermining public education so the people are less able to critically think for themselves, filling communication platforms with big lies, convincing the populace that they will fix everything and, finally, getting elected and taking over.

With respect to the US in 2025, the judiciary, in my opinion, is the only branch that can keep this in check. That belief doesn't instill great confidence, though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BCCHoosier
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT