Favorite team:LSU 
Location:South La
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:4831
Registered on:11/14/2007
Online Status:
 Online

Recent Posts

Message

re: Have Tarrifs worked?

Posted by deuceiswild on 4/10/26 at 11:30 am to
quote:

Sure. I've said that from the outset. If the point of the tariffs was to force other countries to drop them, sure, fine. But number one, that hasn't happened.


That doesn't mean it won't happen. Tariffs aren't a catastrophic economic event that moves things in a week or a month. Plus, countries have ways they can try and offset or fight them or lessen their effects. It takes a while to sink in.

You may turn out right in the end. But I'm not ready to say they're a failure yet.

re: Have Tarrifs worked?

Posted by deuceiswild on 4/10/26 at 11:26 am to
quote:

And number two, that goal is diametrically opposed to at least two other stated goals for the tariffs in the first place.


No, it isn't. If there's one thing Trump has been consistent on... and by consistent, I mean since the 80s, it's tariffs.

re: Have Tarrifs worked?

Posted by deuceiswild on 4/10/26 at 11:21 am to
quote:

A competent administration would have provided companies incentives over time to make moves abroad before being hit with tarrifs.


There may be some truth here. I mean, Clinton definitely provided incentive the other way for manufacturing to leave, and it only took a couple decades for us to become a service and tick-tock economy. We make nothing anymore.

re: Have Tarrifs worked?

Posted by deuceiswild on 4/10/26 at 11:19 am to
Well, they can pay increased labor costs, or pay the tariffs, or sell less product. Those are the options, currently and the near future at least.

Or....and hear me out for a second...

Maybe all parties involved can just stop the silliness and drop all tariffs.
The refining industry all along the gulf coast came into being largely because of Venezuelan oil. It's why those refineries exist. They're built for that type of crude oil.
quote:

Trump has endorsed Salazar via Truth Social. You were saying?


What does that have to do with my question? I'm no fan or the bill. And I'm no fan of anyone who supports it.
I can't imagine how one could misunderstand my words. I think it's obvious I'm against this bill. It infuriates me, actually.

I'm not asking to debate the merits of the bill, as there are none.

I'm asking if it can work out in republicans favor by merely having it in the news. I don't even think it has a chance of being sent to the president.

re: Have Tarrifs worked?

Posted by deuceiswild on 4/10/26 at 10:49 am to
They didn't "not work" in my opinion.

They did bring in a lot of money and no one is going to be refunded. They will remain in place or be reimposed under a different authority.

And it will take years for the ultimate results to be seen.

I hope most or all of them are still in place when democrats regain power, whenever that may be. They'll never get rid of them. Because they need to be in place. The sky screamers will be silent.
I don't believe for a split second those republicans who support this bill are smart enough to play this sort of chess game.... but immigration was the single biggest issue that got Trump elected.

Even after the deportation fiasco in Minneapolis, support for mass deportation is still high, even among democrats. Secure borders is still massively popular. I'd have to think that any sort of amnesty would be massively unpopular based on that. Even among democrats.

Trump will never sign it, and I doubt he even gets a chance to veto it. But simply having this bill in the news seems like not a good idea for those who truly would like to see it passed. I think it can help Trumps cause in the midterms. Probably not enough if we're gonna be honest... but I don't see this bill being in the news hurting him.

Or am I missing something?
Maybe I am wrong on the magnitude, but it cannot be argued that competition has hurt the USPS.

And it doesn't bother me at all that the postal service is hurting. It's another in a long list of govt failures.
quote:

It sells because people agree that this is the case


Totally wrong. Disagreement will ALWAYS get more reaction than agreement does.

Every. Single. Time.
quote:

A lot of these people have spent 10 years in the pro-Trump lane, and at this point there is only so much engagement left in posting the same old “Trump was right” or “look how great he’s doing” message. That gets applause from your own side, but it does not create a firestorm.


I agree they're making money off their about face... but I don't agree with the above statement.

The left has maintained the same playbook forever and it's working fine for them.

Additionally, it takes at least some amount of principle to pull off such an about face. Whether we think they're right or wrong. You rarely see leftists criticize their own because they have zero principle or standards.
quote:

One could easily make the case that white people only participated in the trade - the blacks themselves are who made slaves out of free people. They were already slaves when the white people bought them.


In the words of Thomas Sowell, a white European would have been more likely, on orders of magnitude, to catch malaria and die before he ever caught a slave, had he stepped foot on the African continent.
quote:

The American Indian had small gardens before the colonists arrived. But they never invented irrigation. So their encampmentes were built along rivers or lakes. The Caddo Indians had teepees along the Red River. So, their village discovered by the white settlers was a mile long and about 20 feet wide.


I don't disagree with you at all, but The history I'm referring to predates Europeans arriving in North America by a very long time. It was agriculture that ultimately led the their ability to build ships and come here.

Simply put, agriculture ended Europeans need to live a nomadic lifestyle as the whole world was doing at one point. They could grow and store their food, rather than constantly move and fight in tribes to find it. It allowed them to settle down. To secure themselves. Not having to find and fight for food allowed more "down time" so to speak. And that's what led to idle minds to think and invent better ways of doing even more things.

re: Could someone explain please

Posted by deuceiswild on 4/10/26 at 10:03 am to
Maybe some of them aren't really "fleeing". I think many are being sent. And not because their home countries don't want them. It's intentional with nefarious intent.
quote:

The MSM is losing revenue due to its agenda


We can only hope RFKJr is successful at removing pharma companies from TV advertising.
Trump is making inflation go up to distract from Epstein.
quote:

Prices aren't inflation, they are a result of inflation, and are non-linear.


It baffles me that some people don't understand this, even though they see it every single day of their lives.

Unless we're talking about commodities or a few other very specific goods, prices never come down. But inflation does.
I feel sorry for those blacks who have fully assimilated into productive society. I genuinely do.

They've done nothing wrong, and still have to live knowing that they are represented by a faction (I'd say 70%) of their race who do them no favors and only harm. It's inescapable for them, other than to have extremely thick skin and an ability to brush things off. Those same people are bigger "enemies" to them than any white man can ever be.

Everything can be traced back to gardening, believe it or not. Agriculture.

White people in Western Europe did it first, and more or less were able to conquer the world because of it.

It's a fascinating story.