Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions. >And it's impressive. . . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election,
you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions.
And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much
darker thoughts.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election,
you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions.
And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much
darker thoughts.
On 2/20/25 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >>> you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions.
And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much
darker thoughts.
Meanwhile, right now, I probably hate Trump more than most Dems.
I can't figure out if he's just incredibly stupid (likely) or if he
really is a Russian spy (less likely, but not 0% as I assumed in 2017).
Feb 20, 2025 at 11:48:21 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent
election, you've doubled down on every last one of your insane >>>anti-American positions. And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much
darker thoughts.
If history is any guide, the Republicans are busily trying to think of a way >to squander this advantage and fumble the ball on the one yard line.
On 2/20/25 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >>> you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions.
And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much
darker thoughts.
Meanwhile, right now, I probably hate Trump more than most Dems.
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 2/20/25 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >>>> you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions.
And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much
darker thoughts.
Meanwhile, right now, I probably hate Trump more than most Dems.
Do you hate Trump more than you hate most Dems or do you hate Trump more
than most Dems Hate Trump?
On 2/20/25 1:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 2/20/25 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent >>>>>election, you've doubled down on every last one of your insane >>>>>anti-American positions. And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much >>>>darker thoughts.
Meanwhile, right now, I probably hate Trump more than most Dems.
Do you hate Trump more than you hate most Dems or do you hate Trump more >>than most Dems Hate Trump?
I'll go with: I still hate the people that hate Trump (proggies, most
Dems, etc.) more, but the gap is quickly closing.
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions. And it's impressive.
You continue to call half the country white supremacists, racists, and "deplorable maggots" (or MAGAts, as the pun goes).
Your party continues to advocate for letting males compete in women's sports and invade their private spaces and you insist that we pretend that men can become women, that men can get pregnant, and you call anyone who doesn't agree
with this abject, anti-science stupidity a "transphobe" and a "bigot".
Now you Dems could have backed off all these insane ideas but even after getting rebuked by a majority of the country in the last election, you never wavered, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't in awe of your obstinance.
You promote cancel culture, have become the blind defenders of Big Pharma, even after the COVID debacle. You deny people their bodily autonomy (unless it
involves killing a baby in the womb). You've become the party of big business and endless wars. You managed to turn a Kennedy into a Republican and a Cheney
into a Democrat. Now *that* is quite the accomplishment.
You coerce our words and have become the arch-enemy of free speech. You care more about illegal aliens than your own taxpaying citizens. Speaking of taxes,
when we try to get a handle on where our tax dollars are going, you obstruct us at every turn.
You insist on porn in schools while denying parental rights. You indoctrinate children, teaching them 'social justice' and how to 'smash capitalism' rather than reading and math. In the workplace, you focus almost exclusively on the skin color and genitals of employees rather than merit or excellence or even basic competency.
I've got to hand it to you hard-headed commies, you've never apologized or shown even an ounce of remorse for any of it, even after losing the House, the
Senate, and the presidency. In fact, you're now tripling down on all the same positions that put you in this spot.
Because of your blind hatred, moral depravity, and unwillingness to course correct, you not only lost the last election, you're on track to lose the next
one, too. In fact, god willing, if you keep it up, you have a real shot at becoming politically irrelevant for a generation or more.
Now *that's* what I call sticking to your principles and I for one just want to salute you and thank you.
On 2/20/2025 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >> you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American
positions.
And it's impressive.
You continue to call half the country white supremacists, racists, and
"deplorable maggots" (or MAGAts, as the pun goes).
Your party continues to advocate for letting males compete in women's sports
and invade their private spaces and you insist that we pretend that men can >> become women, that men can get pregnant, and you call anyone who doesn't
agree
with this abject, anti-science stupidity a "transphobe" and a "bigot".
Now you Dems could have backed off all these insane ideas but even after
getting rebuked by a majority of the country in the last election, you never
wavered, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't in awe of your obstinance.
You promote cancel culture, have become the blind defenders of Big Pharma, >> even after the COVID debacle. You deny people their bodily autonomy (unless >> it
involves killing a baby in the womb). You've become the party of big
business
and endless wars. You managed to turn a Kennedy into a Republican and a
Cheney
into a Democrat. Now *that* is quite the accomplishment.
You coerce our words and have become the arch-enemy of free speech. You care
more about illegal aliens than your own taxpaying citizens. Speaking of
taxes,
when we try to get a handle on where our tax dollars are going, you obstruct
us at every turn.
You insist on porn in schools while denying parental rights. You
indoctrinate
children, teaching them 'social justice' and how to 'smash capitalism'
rather
than reading and math. In the workplace, you focus almost exclusively on the
skin color and genitals of employees rather than merit or excellence or even
basic competency.
I've got to hand it to you hard-headed commies, you've never apologized or >> shown even an ounce of remorse for any of it, even after losing the House, >> the
Senate, and the presidency. In fact, you're now tripling down on all the
same
positions that put you in this spot.
Because of your blind hatred, moral depravity, and unwillingness to course >> correct, you not only lost the last election, you're on track to lose the >> next
one, too. In fact, god willing, if you keep it up, you have a real shot at >> becoming politically irrelevant for a generation or more.
Now *that's* what I call sticking to your principles and I for one just want
to salute you and thank you.
Your definition of "moral depravity" seems dependent on election
results. Perhaps that explains how you can nonchalantly minimize with parentheses your disingenuous exception to 'bodily autonomy'.
Meanwhile, you seem to suggest the Republican party as the paragon of political flexibility to which Democrats should aspire
On Feb 20, 2025 at 3:16:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/20/2025 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >>> you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American
positions.
And it's impressive.
You continue to call half the country white supremacists, racists, and
"deplorable maggots" (or MAGAts, as the pun goes).
Your party continues to advocate for letting males compete in women's sports
and invade their private spaces and you insist that we pretend that men can
become women, that men can get pregnant, and you call anyone who doesn't >>> agree
with this abject, anti-science stupidity a "transphobe" and a "bigot".
Now you Dems could have backed off all these insane ideas but even after >>> getting rebuked by a majority of the country in the last election, you never
wavered, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't in awe of your obstinance. >>>
You promote cancel culture, have become the blind defenders of Big Pharma, >>> even after the COVID debacle. You deny people their bodily autonomy (unless
it
involves killing a baby in the womb). You've become the party of big
business
and endless wars. You managed to turn a Kennedy into a Republican and a >>> Cheney
into a Democrat. Now *that* is quite the accomplishment.
You coerce our words and have become the arch-enemy of free speech. You care
more about illegal aliens than your own taxpaying citizens. Speaking of >>> taxes,
when we try to get a handle on where our tax dollars are going, you obstruct
us at every turn.
You insist on porn in schools while denying parental rights. You
indoctrinate
children, teaching them 'social justice' and how to 'smash capitalism'
rather
than reading and math. In the workplace, you focus almost exclusively on the
skin color and genitals of employees rather than merit or excellence or even
basic competency.
I've got to hand it to you hard-headed commies, you've never apologized or >>> shown even an ounce of remorse for any of it, even after losing the House, >>> the
Senate, and the presidency. In fact, you're now tripling down on all the >>> same
positions that put you in this spot.
Because of your blind hatred, moral depravity, and unwillingness to course >>> correct, you not only lost the last election, you're on track to lose the >>> next
one, too. In fact, god willing, if you keep it up, you have a real shot at >>> becoming politically irrelevant for a generation or more.
Now *that's* what I call sticking to your principles and I for one just want
to salute you and thank you.
Your definition of "moral depravity" seems dependent on election
results. Perhaps that explains how you can nonchalantly minimize with
parentheses your disingenuous exception to 'bodily autonomy'.
Meanwhile, you seem to suggest the Republican party as the paragon of
political flexibility to which Democrats should aspire
No, if you read the thread, you'll note my response to Adam about >Republicans.
On Feb 20, 2025 at 3:16:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/20/2025 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, >>> you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American
positions.
And it's impressive.
You continue to call half the country white supremacists, racists, and >>> "deplorable maggots" (or MAGAts, as the pun goes).
Your party continues to advocate for letting males compete in women's sports
and invade their private spaces and you insist that we pretend that men can
become women, that men can get pregnant, and you call anyone who doesn't >>> agree
with this abject, anti-science stupidity a "transphobe" and a "bigot". >>>
Now you Dems could have backed off all these insane ideas but even after >>> getting rebuked by a majority of the country in the last election, you never
wavered, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't in awe of your obstinance. >>>
You promote cancel culture, have become the blind defenders of Big Pharma,
even after the COVID debacle. You deny people their bodily autonomy (unless
it
involves killing a baby in the womb). You've become the party of big
business
and endless wars. You managed to turn a Kennedy into a Republican and a >>> Cheney
into a Democrat. Now *that* is quite the accomplishment.
You coerce our words and have become the arch-enemy of free speech. You care
more about illegal aliens than your own taxpaying citizens. Speaking of >>> taxes,
when we try to get a handle on where our tax dollars are going, you obstruct
us at every turn.
You insist on porn in schools while denying parental rights. You
indoctrinate
children, teaching them 'social justice' and how to 'smash capitalism' >>> rather
than reading and math. In the workplace, you focus almost exclusively on the
skin color and genitals of employees rather than merit or excellence or even
basic competency.
I've got to hand it to you hard-headed commies, you've never apologized or
shown even an ounce of remorse for any of it, even after losing the House,
the
Senate, and the presidency. In fact, you're now tripling down on all the >>> same
positions that put you in this spot.
Because of your blind hatred, moral depravity, and unwillingness to course
correct, you not only lost the last election, you're on track to lose the >>> next
one, too. In fact, god willing, if you keep it up, you have a real shot at
becoming politically irrelevant for a generation or more.
Now *that's* what I call sticking to your principles and I for one just want
to salute you and thank you.
Your definition of "moral depravity" seems dependent on election
results. Perhaps that explains how you can nonchalantly minimize with
parentheses your disingenuous exception to 'bodily autonomy'.
Meanwhile, you seem to suggest the Republican party as the paragon of
political flexibility to which Democrats should aspire
No, if you read the thread, you'll note my response to Adam about Republicans.
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed.
If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif >https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
Ed Stasiak <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of >manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
They've denied their own consumers the benefits of world trade. Not the >problem of the rest of the world.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif >>https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
Why don't you demand a solution for bringing down domestic manufacturing >costs? The problem isn't isolating American consumers from world trade.
It's the sky high cost of land.
Find a graph that makes this point, that land values began rising faster
than the rate of inflation starting in the late '70s/early '80s. You
think tariffs will solve the land problem, given that land values in
decent areas nearly doubled during COVID? Of akk people you think might
get this, it's Trump.
Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:31:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Ed Stasiak <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of >>manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
Because it will bring steel production back to the USA.
Admittedly it will take a few decades for that to happen and only
if future Presidents continue the pain on the consumers. And only if >steel/aluminum production is cheap enough in the future to keep costs
down.
So the idea is we have pain now and for the rest of our lifetime to
hopefully (Fingers crossed) it will bring down costs and provide jobs
in the future. The far future.
If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
They've denied their own consumers the benefits of world trade. Not the >>problem of the rest of the world.
We provide tariffs on Chinese goods that we want to limit in this
country like EVs. This is something that was happening before Trump.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif >>>https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
Why don't you demand a solution for bringing down domestic manufacturing >>costs? The problem isn't isolating American consumers from world trade. >>It's the sky high cost of land.
Find a graph that makes this point, that land values began rising faster >>than the rate of inflation starting in the late '70s/early '80s. You
think tariffs will solve the land problem, given that land values in
Trump may actually get it, but why should he care? It doesn't impact
him or his friends.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:31:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Ed Stasiak <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of >>>manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
Because it will bring steel production back to the USA.
That doesn't make any sense. Tariffs dom't make domestic production the >low-cost producer.
Did it work for China? Obviously not as they are still subsidizing those >industries, to the detriment of their own economy.
IF they are doing something stupid, then the rest of the world might
take advantage.
Admittedly it will take a few decades for that to happen and only
if future Presidents continue the pain on the consumers. And only if >>steel/aluminum production is cheap enough in the future to keep costs
down.
C'mon, shawn. You've just admitted that you are well aware that tariffs
don't magically turn domestic industry into the low-cost producer.
So the idea is we have pain now and for the rest of our lifetime to >>hopefully (Fingers crossed) it will bring down costs and provide jobs
in the future. The far future.
"Pain now and for the rest of our lifetime" means that we're the
higher-cost producer in the rest of the economy, and should be importing >finished goods from places not imposing tariffs on those inputs.
In many cases, there simply won't domestic sources anyway.
Let's take an obvious example of agricultural sugar from sugar cane and
sugar beets, two sets of growers that have been protected for years.
American candy manufacturers are still denied access to cheap sugar at
world prices. Chicago was once the candy-making heart of the United
States, with 24 major factories, the very last of which M&M/Mars closed
a few years ago. But this created the inferior substitution of high
fructose corn syrup, making the man who was once considered to be the >nation's biggest industrial welfare queen very very wealthy, Dwayne
Andreas.
Despite decade after decade after decade protecting these two
agticultural products, America is still not the low-cost producer.
If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
They've denied their own consumers the benefits of world trade. Not the >>>problem of the rest of the world.
We provide tariffs on Chinese goods that we want to limit in this
country like EVs. This is something that was happening before Trump.
No shit. Trump is taking very bad ideas from the late 19th century and >turming them into domestic policy.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif >>>>https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
Why don't you demand a solution for bringing down domestic manufacturing >>>costs? The problem isn't isolating American consumers from world trade. >>>It's the sky high cost of land.
Find a graph that makes this point, that land values began rising faster >>>than the rate of inflation starting in the late '70s/early '80s. You >>>think tariffs will solve the land problem, given that land values in
Trump may actually get it, but why should he care? It doesn't impact
him or his friends.
As a developer, it would have impacted him.
On Feb 20, 2025 at 10:12:12 PM PST, "Ed Stasiak" ><user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed. If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why it's no big deal >when other countries tariff us-- including our friends, like Canada-- but when >we do it, it's an absolute horror show that will undermine the world economy >and risk turning our allies into enemies.
Much like borders, tariffs are apparently fine for literally every other >nation on the face of the earth except the U.S.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif
https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed. If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:31:46 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701<atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Feb 20, 2025 at 10:12:12 PM PST, "Ed Stasiak" <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed. If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why it's no big dealTargeted tariffs make sense to me. Blanket tariffs on nations don't
when other countries tariff us-- including our friends, like Canada-- but when
we do it, it's an absolute horror show that will undermine the world economy
and risk turning our allies into enemies.
make much sense to me. If we had a particular industry we wanted to
help, like the EV car industry then we might introduce tariffs on EVs
from China. If Canada introduced an across the board tariff on US
goods then I would have no issue if we did something similar to them,
but as far as I know that isn't what Canada or Mexico did to the USA.
Much like borders, tariffs are apparently fine for literally every other nation on the face of the earth except the U.S.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
AS for the trade deficit blame our industries for going for the lowest
cost of goods which has been China for years.
Though lately many
companies are moving their production from China to other countries.
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 2/20/25 1:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 2/20/25 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent election, you've doubled down on every last one of your insane anti-American positions. And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much darker thoughts.
Meanwhile, right now, I probably hate Trump more than most Dems.
Do you hate Trump more than you hate most Dems or do you hate Trump more than most Dems Hate Trump?
I'll go with: I still hate the people that hate Trump (proggies, most
Dems, etc.) more, but the gap is quickly closing.
My opinion of Trump is based on who he is, not because of my party. But
if your comment doesn't target me, I'm doing something wrong.
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse president. I may re-assess depending on how much Trump allows Russia to recover militarily.
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse president.
On Feb 20, 2025 at 10:12:12 PM PST, "Ed Stasiak" <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed. If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why it's no big deal
when other countries tariff us-- including our friends, like Canada-- but when
we do it, it's an absolute horror show that will undermine the world economy and risk turning our allies into enemies.
Much like borders, tariffs are apparently fine for literally every other nation on the face of the earth except the U.S.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif
https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:44:04 -0800, shawn wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:31:46 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701<atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Feb 20, 2025 at 10:12:12 PM PST, "Ed Stasiak"
<user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed. If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
NPR says nothing different than any other station, all
Free Trade, all the time. Not an alternative news source.
Feb 20, 2025 10:12:12 PM PST, Ed Stasiak <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid>:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed. If you listen to NPR, they pretty much daily harp on
the horrors of tariffs and how average working class Americans
are going to get raped at the grocery store, all because Trump
isn't letting China flood the U.S. with their products (all the
while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why it's no big deal >when other countries tariff us-- including our friends, like Canada-- but when >we do it, it's an absolute horror show that will undermine the world economy >and risk turning our allies into enemies.
Much like borders, tariffs are apparently fine for literally every other >nation on the face of the earth except the U.S.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif >>https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
Targeted tariffs make sense to me. . . .
Adam H. Kerman
Ed Stasiak
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
(all the while China tariffs the shit out of imported American stuff).
They've denied their own consumers the benefits of world trade. Not the problem of the rest of the world.
Why don't you demand a solution for bringing down domestic manufacturing costs?
The problem isn't isolating American consumers from world trade.
It's the sky high cost of land.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:31:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Ed Stasiak <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of >>>manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
Because it will bring steel production back to the USA.
That doesn't make any sense. Tariffs dom't make domestic production the >low-cost producer.
Did it work for China? Obviously not as they are still subsidizing those >industries, to the detriment of their own economy.
Adam H. Kerman
Ed Stasiak
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of >>manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
It's not all about enriching Wall Street fatcats, . . .
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:57:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:31:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>> Ed Stasiak <user1263@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
BTR1701
You've become the party of big business
Indeed.
How are steel and aluminum tariffs not going to raise the cost of
manufacturing of almost everything? How does the consumer benefit?
Because it will bring steel production back to the USA.
That doesn't make any sense. Tariffs dom't make domestic production the
low-cost producer.
Did it work for China? Obviously not as they are still subsidizing those
industries, to the detriment of their own economy.
I like this video on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW8HH8FECr0
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse >president. I may re-assess depending on how much Trump allows Russia to >recover militarily.
Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:39:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse >>president. I may re-assess depending on how much Trump allows Russia to >>recover militarily.
Similarly Jimmy Carter was a better human being than either of so two
but a worse President than either.
He completely mishandled the Iranian hostage affair which allowed the >Ayatollahs to rise to the level they're at now - and post 1980 Iran
WAS beyond question and remains the guiding force between HAMAS, the
Houthis and the now former Syrian government.
Agreed it would be excessive to blame Carter for every nefarious act
the Iranian mullahs have done over the last 45 years but he was
definitely all in with bells on at the start of their reign of terror.
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 2/20/25 1:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 2/20/25 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Democrat Party, I salute you.
Rather than learning anything from your thrashing in the recent >>>>>>election, you've doubled down on every last one of your insane >>>>>>anti-American positions. And it's impressive. . . .
I really can't disagree with any of this and I've been thinking much >>>>>darker thoughts.
Meanwhile, right now, I probably hate Trump more than most Dems.
Do you hate Trump more than you hate most Dems or do you hate Trump more >>>than most Dems Hate Trump?
I'll go with: I still hate the people that hate Trump (proggies, most
Dems, etc.) more, but the gap is quickly closing.
My opinion of Trump is based on who he is, not because of my party.
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse president.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:39:10 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse
president. I may re-assess depending on how much Trump allows Russia to
recover militarily.
Similarly Jimmy Carter was a better human being than either of so two
but a worse President than either.
He completely mishandled the Iranian hostage affair which allowed the Ayatollahs to rise to the level they're at now - and post 1980 Iran
WAS beyond question and remains the guiding force between HAMAS, the
Houthis and the now former Syrian government.
Agreed it would be excessive to blame Carter for every nefarious act
the Iranian mullahs have done over the last 45 years but he was
definitely all in with bells on at the start of their reign of terror.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:39:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Trump is the more vile human being but George W. Bush was the worse >>>president. I may re-assess depending on how much Trump allows Russia to >>>recover militarily.
Similarly Jimmy Carter was a better human being than either of so two
but a worse President than either.
Why do you ignore George W. Bush and the phony justification to invade
Iraq and the completely bolluxed up war in Afghanistan?
Targeted tariffs make sense to me. Blanket tariffs on nations don't
make much sense to me. If we had a particular industry we wanted to
help, like the EV car industry then we might introduce tariffs on EVs
from China. If Canada introduced an across the board tariff on US
goods then I would have no issue if we did something similar to them,
but as far as I know that isn't what Canada or Mexico did to the USA.
Tariffs contravene our vaunted free-market principles. They're a >protectionist tool that admits our economy needs protection.
They're also a stable fact of life. And if one intends to fuck with
them (pursuing "reciprocity" or any other supposed ideal) it'd probably
be best to start with a little foreplay.
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why it's no big deal >when other countries tariff us-- including our friends, like Canada-- but when >we do it, it's an absolute horror show that will undermine the world economy >and risk turning our allies into enemies.
Much like borders, tariffs are apparently fine for literally every other >nation on the face of the earth except the U.S.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif
https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:31:46 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why it's no big
deal
when other countries tariff us-- including our friends, like Canada-- but
when
we do it, it's an absolute horror show that will undermine the world economy >> and risk turning our allies into enemies.
Much like borders, tariffs are apparently fine for literally every other
nation on the face of the earth except the U.S.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv01p4LH/temp-Imageuk9-FBr.avif
https://i.postimg.cc/HjGHg5rW/temp-Imagej9-Su-Zk.avif
Just for starters, when other countries impose tariffs it's usually in
the 5-15% range not Trump's 25%.
. . .
Would you believe these insane tariffs that the U.S. is bullying Canada with?
250% for milk?
291% for butter?
208% for whey?
241% for CHEESE?
Oh wait... those are actually tariffs that Canada imposed on the U.S. last >year.
He completely mishandled the Iranian hostage affair which allowed the >>Ayatollahs to rise to the level they're at now - and post 1980 Iran
WAS beyond question and remains the guiding force between HAMAS, the >>Houthis and the now former Syrian government.
No. The Shah had long fled the country. The hostage affair was about
giving the Shah a safe place to land in order to receive medical care.
Carter had no ability to keep the Shah in power nor make a smooth
transition to a republican.
Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:23:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
He completely mishandled the Iranian hostage affair which allowed the >>>Ayatollahs to rise to the level they're at now - and post 1980 Iran
WAS beyond question and remains the guiding force between HAMAS, the >>>Houthis and the now former Syrian government.
No. The Shah had long fled the country. The hostage affair was about
giving the Shah a safe place to land in order to receive medical care.
Carter had no ability to keep the Shah in power nor make a smooth >>transition to a republican.
Oh I'm well aware of that - and also that the Iranians had threatened
hostile action if the Shah was given entry to the United States.
If you were arguing the rescue mission wasn't sufficiently provided
with helicopters (they only had 3 and one failed mechanically over
Iranian territory) I'd completely agree with you - no question the
special forces had learned their lessons by they time they hit Bin
Laden in 2011
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:23:39 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,381 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
