The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Monday Open Thread
What's on your mind?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good morning, everyone!
Boot Josh Blackman
Another installment of I was wrong.
I was pretty critical about Trump's tariffs when he rolled.them out in April, although my criticism centered on its effect on third world countries not so much domestically and our major trading partners.
The Chief Economist of Apollo Capital (more than half a trillion under management) who was very critical of Trumps tariffs when they came out, predicting a recession by summer.
He has reevaluated his position:
Has Trump Outsmarted Everyone on Tariffs?
June 21, 2025
Torsten Sløk
Apollo Chief Economist
Subscribe to The Daily Spark
As we approach the Trump administration’s self-imposed 90-day deadline for trade deals, markets are starting to speculate about what comes next. The longer uncertainty remains elevated, the more negative its impact on the economy, as shown in the chart below.
Maybe the strategy is to maintain 30% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs on all other countries and then give all countries 12 months to lower non-tariff barriers and open up their economies to trade.
Extending the deadline one year would give countries and US domestic businesses time to adjust to the new world with permanently higher tariffs, and it would also result in an immediate decline in uncertainty, which would be positive for business planning, employment, and financial markets.
This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers. Trade partners will be happy with only 10% tariffs and US tax revenue will go up. Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us."
https://www.apolloacademy.com/is-trump-a-genius/
Of course private economists are much more volatile in their outlooks than government or academic economists. You can't afford to wait and see for 2 years to see what's going to happen and react to it.
He made a short term prediction in April, and he was wrong, no recession seems imminent, and now he is adjusting to what he is seeing because it's the nature of his job to be proactive in adjusting his outlook.
A lot of uncertainty went away this weekend with the advancement of B3 (b-cubed). The domestic market will react positively to that.
One caveat: Watch what happens with CAN. The retroactive DST ended negotiations, and one would think POTUS Trump will levy a very significant tariff on CAN in response.
No, Canada already suspended its DST so they could continue negotiating with the US.
Bloomberg:
Canada Drops Digital Tax That Infuriated Trump to Restart Trade Talks
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-30/canada-drops-digital-tax-that-infuriated-trump-to-restart-trade-talks
Worked pretty fast = tariff threat
Must be the new reality that Carney was talking about:
"These are tragedies, but it's also our new reality. We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons. We have to look out for ourselves and, above all, we have to take care of each other."
Oh, cry me a river. Canada started attacking the US on trade and other fronts decades ago, they're just ticked that it's not one way anymore.
I thought tariffs were for national security purposes only, and trade wars were dumb.
Well, I guess you and Kaz gotta align with your guy, with whatever inconsistencies as that might require.
You thought wrong.
As usual. Stop being such a bad person.
No, you didn't. You have many posts saying the contrary.
"well, I guess" what a smug lazy jerk
There is no such thing as "attacking the US on trade," except I suppose when pirates seize ships.
"the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules"
Well, looks like we have a learning opportunity here. That's what we adults call a metaphor. Imagine how much more scope your trollish idiocy will have now with this new tool? To the extent you troll clowns are paid like other left rent-a-mobs, you might even be able to charge more.
Canada started attacking the US on trade and other fronts decades ago, they're just ticked that it's not one way anymore.
Oh bullshit. This is just another Bellmore fantasy. What is it you think they did to "attack the US on trade?" Nothing. Did they impose tariffs on imports from the US? Then all they did was attack themselves.
The case for tariffs has always been stronger than most people gave it credit for.
Very broadly, tariffs help local workers, at the expense of foreign workers and executives/white collars. Low tariffs help the internationals executives and foreign workers. There are likely overall gains in GDP (assuming the tariffs are dropped equally without other trade barriers), but who benefits from those GDP gains can be very different.
I think the economists tended to overstate "how good" low tariff rates were, for a multitude of reasons...including their class.
Funny how if low tariffs are so great more countries don't have them, I don't think any of "45/47("48?")'s tariffs were higher than what they were charging us.
"I don't think"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tariff_rate
Funny how if low tariffs are so great more countries don't have them,
Funny the EU decided to have no internal tariffs. Wonder why?
“ Very broadly, tariffs help local workers”
Not really. American companies make things abroad and American factories use components that are made abroad, all of which will raise the cost of production. One way to recoup costs without raising prices (which companies are loathe to do) is to freeze hiring and pay increases. So the white collar and existing blue collar workers will be hurt. Any new manufacturing jobs will benefit factory workers through additional positions, but that will only happen if the jobs reshore to America.
You have to remember that almost no one owns their factories any more. They are virtually all contracted manufacturing facilities (think Foxconn for iPhones), so companies aren’t locked into a binary choice between America and, for example, China. Since the tariff on China is now 55%, but the tariff on countries like Vietnam and India are as low as 10%, those companies will shift their production from China to another cost-advantageous country. America is not cost-advantageous, so virtually none of those jobs are coming here.
So, broadly speaking, tariffs hurt local workers by depressing wage increases for existing workers while not adding many new jobs.
In what way do you believe they advantage local workers?
“ Low tariffs help the internationals executives and foreign workers.”
That’s not true. Low tariffs help everyone, since higher profit margins for American companies provide more money to pay American workers (of both blue and white collar) more, while tariffs hurt profits and lead to less available money, stifling wage growth. For better or worse, companies will bolster their stock prices with buybacks before they will increase wages. They only increase wages when forced to. Decreasing their profit margins will hurt wage growth.
“ There are likely overall gains in GDP (assuming the tariffs are dropped equally without other trade barriers)”
Why would you say that? There won’t be much onshoring of jobs, since cheaper labor in other countries will still lead to lower landed costs for foreign production than American production. Which foreign country the goods are produced in may change, but that won’t impact our GDP.
“ I think the economists tended to overstate "how good" low tariff rates were”
Why would math be biased? Math doesn’t care. And the math says that tariffs hurt everyone domestically, both workers of all types and consumers.
Nelson you seem to be pretty sure of a lot of things nobody knows for sure.
When tariffs are placed on a good there are four things that can happen:
1. The exporter (manufacturers, and distributer) eats some or all of the tariff
2. the importer eats some or all of the tariff
3. The consumer pays some or all of the tariff
4. The good is no longer imported because there are other cheaper sources from other countries with lower tariffs, or domestically.
All 4 can happen at once, or any combination of the 4.
What we do know so far is that tariffs are not showing up in a noticeable way in aggregate producer or consumer inflation data.
We haven't seen a lot of corporate earnings impacts yet.
The only thing we have seen is significant new tariff revenue to the government.
Microeconomically, anything can happen. Macroeconomically you absolutely can tell the effect of tariffs in aggregate.
The markets aren't paying attention, but that's a different effect than the actual econ metrics.
“ The only thing we have seen is significant new tariff revenue to the government.”
Which comes from somewhere. You tariff-lovers are as blind to the cost of policies as the lefties who think that taxing corporations has no cost.
Everything that adds costs to businesses, including things like regulatory costs, drives up prices. There are no exceptions.
Tariffs aren’t magic. They add costs to businesses. That drives up prices.
Wait, you aren’t one of those ignoramuses that think that foreign countries pay the tariffs, are you?
"Wait, you aren’t one of those ignoramuses that think that foreign countries pay the tariffs, are you?"
Sometimes they do.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-trump-tariffs-trade-war-04-10-25/card/mazda-holds-prices-firm-despite-100-million-tariff-hit
“ Sometimes they do.”
No, they don’t. Ever. There is no mechanism that exists for the US government to charge another government for products imported by a private company from that country.
For some reason I get a 404 error for that link, so I can’t see exactly how you have misrepresented the article. But I guarantee that it doesn’t say foreign countries pay the tariffs because they aren’t ever the ones charged. If you thought you read that, you read it wrong.
The link’s headline is “Mazda holds price firm despite $100 million tariff hit”. Mazda is a company, not a country.
Tariffs are always paid by the company importing the products. They may offset that tariff by charging their customers more, but the actual charge goes to the company, from the US government. Never to the government of the country that the company is based in.
"I can’t see exactly how you have misrepresented the article."
If you're curious, it's that the announcement only applied to Mazdas in the US before May 1.
And that isn’t a foreign government paying the tariffs, which is what I pointed out only the ignorant believe.
"No, they don’t. Ever. There is no mechanism that exists for the US government to charge another government for products imported by a private company from that country."
Who said anything about private companies?
Many of the businesses in China are owned by the sate.
No, they aren’t. You are working off a 20th century script.
The only thing we have seen is significant new tariff revenue to the government.>
The revenue comes straight out of the pockets of Americans. The tariffs are a tax on Americans, which of course increased revenue to the Treasury,. just like a national sales tax would.
"The revenue comes straight out of the pockets of Americans."
The revenue comes from the importer. Whether or not they choose to increase prices in response is different. But this "straight from the pockets of Americans"....it's a mistruth.
Not really. A 55% tariff (like the one Trump just negotiated from China) will make it unprofitable for companies to sell their products at the same price they have been. And no company can sell things at a loss and survive.
So they will have to increase prices. The other option is to go bankrupt. I know Trump (and therefore his sycophants) believes that bankruptcy is some sort of brilliant business strategy. But successful businesses don’t want to go bankrupt. So they raise prices, which costs Americans more.
It’s a very simple concept: you can’t raise costs on a company and expect them to eat the losses. There is no such thing as a free lunch and the one who ends up paying for it is the consumer.
Yes really. It's a mistruth.
Yes really. You can raise costs on a company, and sometimes, yes, they will eat the losses.
If a company is making a 20% profit margin, while undercutting the US companies by 5%...and you drop a 10% tariff on that company...it may make more sense for the company to take the 10% hit to profit margin, rather than have its products be more expensive than the US competition (and lose market share).
“ You can raise costs on a company, and sometimes, yes, they will eat the losses”
As a one-off while they wait to see how the landscape settles out? Sure. That’s probably what is happening right now. But a rise in prices will always, inevitably follow a raise in costs. It will always happen, it has always happened, and it always will happen. Because companies don’t respond to crippling cost increases by saying, “Oh, well. I guess we’ll just lose money until we go out of business.”.
“ If a company is making a 20% profit margin”
If a company is making a 20% profit margin, it’s on the edge of going out of business already. At roughly 15% you are no longer getting enough return to fully fund your next order. It’s where the death spiral starts.
“ while undercutting the US companies by 5%...and you drop a 10% tariff on that company...it may make more sense for the company to take the 10% hit to profit margin, rather than have its products be more expensive than the US competition (and lose market share).”
Dumbass, it’s US companies that are hurt as much as foreign companies. Most mass produced, non-IP products are produced overseas. That includes components for things that are actually produced in the US. Tariffs hurt AMERICAN businesses and lower AMERICAN business’ profits.
Are you so clueless that you think that things that are made in America only contain American-made parts? They absolutely don’t. Most cars, for example, contain less than 50% American-made parts. Guess what happens to the price of the American-assembled car when you increase the cost of over 50% of the parts they use?
If you say anything other than, “The price goes up”, you’re lying to yourself.
“ may make more sense for the company to take the 10% hit to profit margin”
You clearly don’t understand what profit margin means or even how it’s impacted by tariffs. If costs go up due to tariffs, the per-unit profit goes down. With a rate as high at 55%, which is what Trump “negotiated”, it is enough to make keeping the same price impossible, but not nearly high enough to make American production cheaper. That would take permanent tariffs of well over 100%, which would be disastrous.
Plus, of course, if the Chinese tariffs cause companies to shift their supply chains away from China (which was already the trend because Chinese labor is pricey these days), they won’t come to America. They’ll go to Vietnam or India or Indonesia or the Philippines, where quality is equal to the US and labor costs are 10-20% of the US. Not 10-20% less, 10-20% of the cost.
Mass-market production isn’t coming back to the US. Tariffs aren’t going to change that, they’ll just increase the cost to businesses, which will increase the cost to consumers.
The revenue comes from the importer. Whether or not they choose to increase prices in response is different. But this "straight from the pockets of Americans"....it's a mistruth.
WTF?
The importer is also an American, you idiot.
You think every company in the US is an American company?
If the company is an importer, yes. A foreign company is an exporter. Functionally they are the same thing, just different words for “one who pays the tariffs”, with the difference being whether the company is inside or outside the country.
Complains the people that want Trumps 2017 tax cuts to expire and give us 4 trillion tax hike.
The government needs more revenue, I am not a fan of tariffs, but I prefer that to a tax hike like this:
Bracket___now__if TCJA expires
1 10.0% 10.0% 0k
2 12.0% 15.0% 22k
3 22.0% 25.0% 49k
4 24.0% 28.0% 106k
5 32.0% 33.0% 202k
6 35.0% 35.0% 257k
7 37.0% 39.6% 652k
We aren't seeing price inflation, Nelson. How do you explain that? Too soon?
For some products, yes. Remember the products that the company paid for won’t arrive for 3-4 months after the order was paid for (90-129 day leads). The company’s cost is locked in when they place the order, but the tariff cost isn’t locked in until they enter the country.
Companies, as a general rule, are loathe to raise prices. It’s basically a game of chicken with their competitors, since whoever raises prices first will lose market share to those who don’t. After a brief period of time (a month or two) the company can then raise prices to their competitor’s level without losing those customers because everyone will eventually have to raise their prices.
So there are several possible scenarios. Here are three:
1) If they think the tariffs will be temporary, they might eat the added cost on the incoming order and delay new orders until the landscape stabilizes. The decrease in supply would start to be noticeable as the second orders would normally arrive, 3-4 months plus whatever pause they chose (maybe an additional 1-2 months) after the first order (so perhaps 8-10 months after the first tariff was imposed). Not only will they have to raise prices on that follow-up order to avoid losses, the decrease in supply will cause prices to rise even more across all suppliers.
2) If they assume the tariffs will be longer (or permanent) and start planning to move their supply chain elsewhere. Any new factory takes about a year to vet (child labor and slave labor are the biggies, but financial improprieties and corporate solvency are up there as well, since expecting an order and having the factory go under instead would be a massive disaster). In the short term they eat the added cost on the first order and then play chicken as hard as possible, knowing that their new supplier will cost more than before, but not as much as if they stuck where they were. Note that moving their supply chain will not involve restoring production in America, since there are about three dozen countries that can provide equal quality at a quarter or less of the cost of American production. So China to India or Vietnam or the Philippines, for example. No matter what, costs for the next year will rise so once someone blinks in price chicken, the price increases will remain even after moving to a new country.
3) If they are less risk averse or are convinced the tariffs will be the same in another 3-6 months or so, they may instantly start to find new suppliers. In that case they wouldn’t wait to see what happens and instead price in the anticipated tariff cost as a price increase as soon as the follow-up order arrives (3-4 months after the present order). They would still eat the cost of the first order because of the market share fallout if they didn’t, but they will have their next order arrive before their competitors, probably right around the time the scarcity starts to accelerate the rise in prices, so they will be the first full-inventory player when prices start to rise, with the added advantage of already pricing in the tariffs on the second order. Also, by starting the process of moving their suppliers, they will be getting the first deliveries from the lower-tariff countries, but will still be able to charge the higher prices because most others won’t, which will increase their margins compared to their competitors.
The danger in this scenario would be if the new country they move their supply chain to gets hit with the same level of tariffs as the old one. That would wipe out the advantages of being first to shift and also eliminate the margin advantage of having more supply than their competitors when the second order hits.
There are many other scenarios, based on the risk aversion (usually very high) of the company and the reserves they have to win the game of chicken. There will also be companies who have already moved their supply chain out of China (as I helped my company do almost a decade ago). Those people will have the best chance of winning, assuming Trump doesn’t suddenly want to slam that country with tariffs.
There are basically no great scenarios, especially when the guy who makes the decisions is obsessed with irrelevant metrics like trade deficit. Prices will rise. They will have started this month, but as more and more companies have to stop eating the cost it will snowball. By roughly October things will get really bad. Prices will probably rise 5-10%, depending on how many components are imported. Cars will be hit badly, as will basic electronics like TVs and monitors. Specialty products won’t rise much, since anyone with IP worth protecting doesn’t manufacture in China. By Christmas it will probably peak, with the plateau lasting through about March or April as companies recover and replenish their “oh, shit” funds.
Assuming Trump doesn’t do anything else, things will settle at stable, but higher, prices by May. I figure prices, in aggregate, should settle at about 5-7% higher a year from now. But further tariff disruption could make that worse.
Does all that make sense?
It all makes sense. Just remember, all of your scenarios could be wrong. None of them account for the reality of 2017-2019, with the imposition of tariffs.
That is where analysis falls apart: trying to explain the reality of inflation and prices 2017-2019.
It’s a matter of scale. 10% gives you a lot of workarounds and strategies for dealing with them, including using your reserves to cover the added costs for a slow price rise over 12-18 months. 55% instantly turns all your existing orders from profit to loss and the cost is too hard to bear long enough for a slow rise.
Watch. As soon as one major player in a sector raises their prices, everyone else will follow suit 1-2 months later. And the price jump is unlikely to be small.
You don't even question whether having pharmaceuticals made mainly by our enemies is good.
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelARothman/videos/batya-ungar-sargon-stuns-bill-maher-into-submission-when-talking-about-trumps-ra/663551469423186/
Yes. But the media are shills for the billionaires and Wall Street, which is why they hate the tariffs, and spread lies and bullshit about it being a tax on consumers.
Except it absolutely is a tax on consumers. Do you think that companies will respond to higher costs by handing out more generous wages to employees and lowering prices?
It seems you are a little fuzzy on what a profit margin is.
No, it's not a tax on consumers. It's a tax on corporate income. For starters, Nike and GM already announced that they have eaten the tariffs, not passed them on to consumers.
Racist POS, economically illiterate, and a liar to boot.
https://www.scrippsnews.com/life/money/tariffs-force-nike-to-boost-prices-costing-customers-1-billion
It is not a tax and there are not higher costs. There are barely any tariffs where there is a sole monopolistic supplier on the US side. And where there are multiple companies in the tariffed industry, prices often come down as an initial draw from companies that were too dependent on the tariffed goods. As for wages that is rather independent. If you lower wages you lose to other industries.
None of that makes any sense. Literally nothing you said is valid, starting with “there are not higher costs”. Of course there are. Orders that were purchased and paid for months ago arrived when the tariffs raised the landed cost of those goods suddenly. That’s higher costs, caused by tariffs, that can’t be avoided (unless you are a big enough company that you can redirect your ships to Canada and offload there, as several companies did).
You understand that companies that have supply chains in countries like China can’t suddenly move it elsewhere? That’s higher costs for the whole time. It’s a process takes about a year, in the meantime their previous cost analysis now has a 55% tariff hole blown in them.
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
I confidently stand by it. Let readers read and understand 🙂
You are defending the indefensible
1) Having our key industries based in enemy countries
2) Having America based mainly on financial and real estate gains
3) You take short-term necessary adjustments as having no end.
Anyway, the markets disagree with you.
“ 1) Having our key industries based in enemy countries”
What are you talking about? What “key industries”? And which “enemy countries? We’re talking about cotton shirts and widgets, not fighter planes.
“ 2) Having America based mainly on financial and real estate gains”
Again, what are you talking about? American companies dominate every sector of the economy. They just don’t manufacture many of their products here because it isn’t cost-effective. If the choice is having industry-leading companies (like we do) and manufacturing elsewhere or having foreign companies dominate and manufacturing here, the choice is clear. Vast national wealth comes from one of those, and it isn’t factories.
“ 3) You take short-term necessary adjustments as having no end.”
Your definition of “necessary” seems to be synonymous with “unnecessary”. It isn’t necessary and the negatives far outweigh the positives.
Plus, what does that even mean? That Trump will end the tariffs? Not until the trade deficit, which he is obsessed with and is largely meaningless in reality, is gone. Which would require a large-scale collapse of the American economy. As much as he’s trying, he doesn’t have enough time to screw things up that badly.
Mass market manufacturing will never come back to the US. There are too many other countries that can produce equal quality for a tiny fraction of the cost.
Economists 'tend' [ actually 'demand'] that any issue involving money is fully an Economics issue, the way REASON thinks anything where someone opened their mouth is a 1A issue.
tariffs have many good uses . Here's a history of US tariffs
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/tariffs-in-american-history/
…which does not say that tariffs have many good uses.
Aaaah, David does this a lot. He wouldn't say there are some good uses so he says not many good uses. Typical statement of amateurs that loses debate after debate. Funny to see though 🙂
“ He wouldn't say there are some good uses so he says not many good uses”
He merely repeated back to you the words you, not he, said, with the phrase “ which does not say” in front of it.
In English, this is a sentence that is read as refuting your claim, not making any claim himself. You said something, claiming that the article supported your assertion. He pointed out that your assertion was not, in fact, supported by the article.
If this is confusing to you, I’m sure your troll farm has an English expert who can help you understand our language.
…who don't buy things. Or make things using raw materials or components from abroad. Or want to sell things abroad.
Tough to buy things if the factory lays you off...
So maybe make better life choices and go into a growing, not shrinking, industry. It’s not the government’s job to artificially extend the life of a specific type of un- and moderate-skilled labor.
Very broadly, tariffs help local workers, at the expense of foreign workers and executives/white collars.
No. Not at all. They help a narrow subset of workers, at the expense of everyone else.
The establishment hated the tariffs because they come out of corporate profits, and corporate profits are need to maintain the stock market bubble for the rich.
Where’s your retirement money invested?
Look how quickly Malika can bootlick the corporations.
If you got out your mom’s basement and got a job you’d realize the health of the stock market is not just a corporate concern.
Irrelevant. The top 1% own 50% of stocks.
Not irrelevant, 50 ain’t 100.
Both wrong....
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelARothman/videos/batya-ungar-sargon-stuns-bill-maher-into-submission-when-talking-about-trumps-ra/663551469423186/
"If you allow rapacious trade policies that destroy our working class and hollow out the industrial base, you might get an extra 1% return on your stock portfolio!"
"Rapacious trade policies" is word soup.
And of course none of those effects have happened.
Anyone with a basic understanding of what a profit is used for should hate tariffs. Unless you like the idea of stagnant wages for American workers?
You are on the wrong planet
“Big Three” asset managers—BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—have swiftly ballooned into behemoths. Taken together, they constitute the largest shareholder in more than 40% of publicly traded U.S. firms, and 88 percent of the S&P 500
And they are managing the assets of people like me who work for a living and pay the taxes that fund the programs that take care of you and your extended family.
“ You are on the wrong planet”
You think hedge funds and investment firms are relevant to the wage stagnation that lower corporate profits cause and I’m the one who is on the wrong planet?
At least I don’t talk about unrelated things.
Aah, Nelson again , after my tarfiffs drubbing. 🙂
No suprise there. Obviously wrong but too proud to admit it.
Your tariff drubbing? You literally said untrue things interspersed with irrelevant things and provided no support whatsoever. I, on the other hand, make detailed posts that are based on actual things that are true.
If that’s what giving me a “drubbing” looks like, you obviously think that when the fight is done, the guy without a scratch got drubbed and the guy whose face looks like hamburger gave the drubbing.
I have a basic understanding. Since 2020, profit margins for big corporations have ballooned, and they have not used the profits for wages, but for stock buybacks.
If you get a job one day you’re free to strike a better bargain for your labor.
“ they have not used the profits for wages, but for stock buybacks.”
They didn’t use their operating profits for the stock buybacks. They used the corporate welfare from Trump’s supply-side tax cuts. You know, the ones that JD Vance just voted to continue at the cost of $5 trillion in deficit spending.
If you want them to use tax cuts for wages, you have to make the cuts dependent on wage increases. Otherwise they’ll just reward the investor class. Trusting a company to voluntarily do the right thing, rather than what’s in their best interest, is a fool’s bet.
Nelson, interesting comment = Anyone with a basic understanding of what a profit is used for should hate tariffs. Unless you like the idea of stagnant wages for American workers?
So...what actually happened? We know what happened. Look at 2017-2019.
How to you explain the wage gains of 2017-2019? We implemented tariffs, and workers wages (esp black, hispanic) increased in real terms at the fastest rate in decades. Very low inflation.
So what gives. That was reality.
“ We implemented tariffs, and workers wages (esp black, hispanic) increased in real terms at the fastest rate in decades. Very low inflation.”
That’s called a post hoc fallacy. Just because tariffs were implemented, then wages rose, doesn’t mean that the former caused the latter.
Wage growth is based on many factors, most importantly the unemployment rate. Tariffs can limit a company’s ability to raise wages by depleting their reserves and profits, but they can’t cause an increase in wages.
Tariffs add cost to companies. Those costs have to be offset somehow in order for the company to stay in business. Stagnating wages is the easiest (and, from the company’s perspective, the most desirable) way to offset some of the added costs.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The tariff revenue the government raises has to come from somewhere and that place, inevitably, is the pockets of consumers.
Also, as a point of fact, inflation was not “very low” in Trump’s first term. It was mediocre. For 2017-2020 it was: 2.11%, 1.91%, 2.29%, and 1.36%. Obama’s second term was: 1.5%, 0.76%, 0.73%, and 2.07%. His first term, even with the massive spending required to dig us out of Bush’s supply-side disaster was: 1.5%, 2.96%, 1.74%, and 1.5%. So even inheriting a massive financial crisis, Obama noticeably outperformed Trump.
Trump wasn’t bad, but he inherited a strong and healthy economy and still couldn’t do better than Obama, who inherited a disaster.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year
Profit is what keeps a business in business, you misuse the word.
As for stagnant wages, blame that on Biden
A study by 3 Ph.D. economists at the San Francisco Fed has found that “price markups for goods and services” — aka, price gouging — has “not been a main driver” of recent inflation. Instead, the root causes are “large” federal government “fiscal transfers and increased unemployment benefits” (aka, social spending) and Federal Reserve policies like lowering “the federal funds rate target to essentially zero.”
The Fed study confirms that the real cause of inflation is the big government spending agenda that Warren, Biden, & Co. supported and enacted.
“ The Fed study confirms that the real cause of inflation is the big government spending agenda that Warren, Biden, & Co. supported and enacted.”
And in related news, water is wet. Massive government deficits cause inflation. The sky is up. Marriage is the #1 cause of divorce.
No shit, Sherlock. Yes, deficit spending (like the new record Trump just set) causes inflation.
That doesn’t mean that adding costs to businesses doesn’t also cause prices to rise. Which they do.
I still have my outstanding prediction. I did not, and still don't think tariffs will balance the budget, but if they do, as with the Internet boom, Congress will rise to the challenge and spend us back into the red quicky.
Econ 101 predicts a 10% across the board tariff will hurt the overall economy even though it increases domestic production and government revenues. It might feel like it's OK compared to the egregious "reciprocal" tariffs. But, that's just PR. And while it's certainly better than the current uncertainty, it's still worse than the prior status quo.
Trump’s tariffs killed my spouse’s business.
You can’t order product if you don’t know whether you’re paying 125% tariff when it arrives.
If your spouse buys his/her/their/ whatev inputs from US suppliers there’s no uncertainty about the tariff rate.
Which btw is one of the points of Trump’s scattergun approach. So long as US suppliers are vaguely competitive some buyers will switch to them to reduce uncertainty.
“ your spouse buys his/her/their/ whatev inputs from US suppliers there’s no uncertainty about the tariff rate.”
If they did that, they would go out of business because no one would pay the price American production would cause. There’s a floor to the cost of American production and it’s roughly the same as the ceiling for goods produced in India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
“ Which btw is one of the points of Trump’s scattergun approach.”
No, that’s one of those things he says, sometimes. The rates are too low and too short to onshore anything. They would need to be over 100%, universal, and permanent to cause businesses to start sourcing from American manufacturers.
He has no point, goal, or purpose other than balancing the trade deficit, which is an asinine and ignorant metric for policy.
“ So long as US suppliers are vaguely competitive some buyers will switch to them to reduce uncertainty.”
They won’t be. Even with a 55% tariff and the much higher labor costs in China these days, it’s still a lot cheaper to source from China. And India, Vietnam, and others are a quarter the labor cost of China. It isn’t just “China or America”. It isn’t binary. There are dozens of countries with 10-15% of the labor cost of the US and just as good quality. He may have forced some supply chains away from China, but they’ll go to a different country, not the US.
You understand that it’s about landed cost vs. domestic production, right? Domestic production is about #40 or so on the cost-effective production list. There are 38 other countries that are a better place to manufacture than the US. Unless you know enough people to run a factory who will work for about $3-4 an hour? Do you? Because that’s what it would take.
If your spouse buys his/her/their/ whatev inputs from US suppliers there’s no uncertainty about the tariff rate.
No, but your spouse is still out of business if the domestic prices are too high, and remember, they are likely to rise, because hey, no foreign competition.
Maybe it needed to be killed. If it is a product you need, you order it.
Do you want China producing our pharmaceuticals, etc. Blame Biden not Trump
This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers.
This is so far wrong it's unbelievable. How many times does it have to be explained that the tariffs are largely paid by Americans - importers and consumers.
There is no gain to US taxpayers. There is a loss to the (large) extent to which they pay the tariffs.
Damn it. Why do people repeat this BS? Because Trump said so. Well, he doesn't understand it either. When a factory in China sends a shipload of TV's to Best Buy, Best Buy pays the tariff, which is then passed in some degree to those who buy the TV's.
Trust me. I've paid tariffs on imports, and passed the cost on to my customer.
It really is simple. You are one of:
1. Hopelessly gullible
2. Really stupid
3. willing to tell any lie in support of Trump.
Well I get it, you have your point of view Bernard, but this is the chief econmist of a half trillion fund stating his point of view publicly.
I don't claim his opinion is infallible or irrefutable, but I don't think you can just dismiss it out of hand as:
1. Hopelessly gullible
2. Really stupid
3. willing to tell any lie in support of Trump.
Especially since he was predicting a recession as a result of the tariffs in April.
Torsten Slok, June 25, 2025:
US tariffs have climbed to their highest level in nearly 90 years, fueling market volatility and creating uncertainty for corporations. The result? We see slower growth, higher inflation, and rates staying higher for longer. While we don’t foresee a recession, we expect headwinds on both supply and demand fronts.
Who else is excited about State-run grocery stores and Whites only taxes in NYC ?
I am. Why?
Personally, I want to see the faces of the AWFLs when they get their race-based tax bill. I think I found the appropriate clip. 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs&t=2s
AWFL = "affluent, white, female liberal."
Yep, MAGA misogyny continues to grow.
Acronyms and classes are misogyny!
Labeling a class of women is misogynistic, yes, whatever you think your exclamation point says.
The word "women" is misogynistic.
'I can't wait to see liberal women get screwed and be sad about it!'
That's taking owning the libs and adding a misogynist twist.
Like a turducken of spiteful shittiness.
You will die sad and lonely and it will be just (though I take no joy in what you have done to yourself)
S_0 would say that. It was the socialist who brought up taxes by race.
Citation?
Its been in the news a lot.
Socialist New York mayor would raise taxes on 'white neighbourhoods'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/06/27/zohran-mamdani-plan-tax-white-neighbourhoods-new-york/
Are you really that clueless or stupid? Incredible.
I don’t think Mayor Sliwa will do that
I think the state-run grocery stores are a good idea -- and not that far from what exists now. It's going to be an expansion of Meals on Wheels and summer school breakfast/lunch -- and for people already on public assistance now.
It'd be pure socialism -- "here is your box of food for the week."
Let's see,
1 box of dried potato flakes,
3 cans of SpaghettiOs's,
1 box of powdered milk,
12 packs of shrimp ramen,
... next !
The month I worked as a Busboy at a Swanky Ali-bama Country Club (Yes, I'm making up that prestigious job) they had a big Sunday morning Brunch buffet, (it was free to members, the cheap bastards) and being "Brunch" (in my entire life I've never eaten "Brunch") it ruined your entire Sunday, as you still had to be there early, and then the drunk bastards would stay until 2 or 3 pm
Members would rave about the Cooks "Southern Home Style Grits" and "Buttery Mashed Potatoes" and of course he was on a "First Name" basis with all the members (they called him by his first name, they were all "Mistuh and Mizzzz" to him)
His Secret? they were both Instant, and it was a Secret because the Manager didn't want anyone knowing, played a part in why I only worked there for a month (and my raiding the Miniatures Closet)
Frank
The writer of the Frank Fakeman character performed here must have not taken his meds and has the character performed this weird deep dive broken English soliloquy into his made up persona. More sad and pathetic than usual. This is the kind of nut job attracted to MAGA (see QAnon Shaman).
even nuttier is the Malika the Maiz character responding to another character, and I done tole you', done lost my job, how I sposed to get money to pay dis Rent? and anyway, it's only the 30th.
Instant? I have it on good authority that no self-respecting Southerner would ever use instant grits…
I'm sure that when Frank was a busboy, decades ago, the black cooks were only too happy to serve instant grits and mashed potatoes to the clueless members.
What a racist thing to say. You don't think black people take pride in their work product?
What an idiotic thing to say.
Since the members really liked the grits and potatoes, per Frank, what do you think was wrong with the work product?
Besides, what makes you think the cooks made the purchasing decisions?
Bummer they don't make government cheese anymore.
Yeah, good ideas. And who knows what benefits could accrue from defunding the police and replacing them with social workers. We could really maximize the potential if those same social workers were dedicated to globalizing the intifada. NY is on the cusp of a new golden age. Or something.
The likely mayor of NYC has some genuinely nutty ideas. He should stick to realistic policy goals he can actually accomplish like building a huge wall and having Mexico pay for it or ending a three year conflict on day one.
Or he could just do like they do in his native Uganda and have people like you entombed behind walls.
I thought that was an Italian thing.
Montresor was a nice guy, he took a 1,000 insults before he got his revenge.
I mean DeBlasio was super liberal and not much happened on his watch.
This deep cut quote farming from the right may work on the NYC electorate, who knows. But it's all propaganda and has little predictive value on what to actually expect.
Except Mayor Bill de Blasio handed his wife Chirlane McCray control of a $1.5 BILLION mental health program despite ZERO qualifications or experience. Now the money's gone and nobody can explain where.
Let that sink in. THE MAYOR'S WIFE. NO EXPERIENCE. $1.5 BILLION.
I have no truck with DeBlasio. Maybe he was corrupt as hell.
But if you're going to claim that this guy is going to turn NY into a socialist hellhole you'd better stick to those goalposts.
This is a vastly smaller arena. You're still big mad, because of course you are.
But by switching, you've already conceded your thesis.
You're such a jerk. You always attack and insult those with whom you disagree, and rarely address the issue.
I've never said I want you killed by the government, so I win the fuck out of a civility contest.
You may have missed that I wrecked your argument by pointing out the massive change in scope you made.
I said I wanted you killed by the government? That's news to me!
I don't consider myself a leftist, but you do.
So when you say you hope the government purges leftists, what did you mean by that?
Which proves you have the same hate and disdain for your friends as for your enemies. You are a cancer that can speak
Look at this lil’ economically anxious guy!
Sure and with team D out of the way, the number of illegal crossing has slowed to merely a trickle
Where’s that Mexican paid for wall?
Here's a bit of whataboutism for you: where's Joe Biden's cure for cancer?
You can't put a lot of weight on campaign promises.
More vomit and wasted bandwidth.
He is far better than the mindless old fool who proceeded him.
Who actually thinks that any of his more radical ideas will happen, given the vast power that financial corporations and other monied interests have in NYC?
I know the right loves to pretend that NYC is some bastion of liberalism, but social policy and economic policy are very different things. Socially liberal and business-centric is a weird mix, but that’s why NYC is one of the most successful cities in the world.
The Wall Street banksters control America (look at the lies and bullshit they spread about tariffs to maintain high stock prices), so I have no doubt they'll win here as well.
Moneyed interests are a problem, but if you want to claim things are other than they seem you need to provide some countervailing evidence, not handwaiving villain narratives.
He supplies just as much evidence for his claims as you do.
Lil’ Lexie of course doesn’t see logic as a kind of evidence, or rather doesn’t see logic in any sense…
How, exactly, does pointing out the negative repercussions of tariffs maintain high stock prices?
Because the negative repercussions are for corporate profits (and thus, stock prices), not prices for consumers. They spread BS about it being a tax on consumers to get people to oppose them, because telling people tariffs were bad for Wall Street but good for America wouldn't have been popular.
This is economic illiteracy in action. Not only do many people work for corporations but many also have stock in them.
If you ever tried to buy anything from abroad you would know who pays the tax.
“ Because the negative repercussions are for corporate profits (and thus, stock prices), not prices for consumers.”
Wow. I thought Jesse was the most relentlessly and shamelessly economically ignorant person here. You make him look like a genius.
At the rate people with money are leaving NY they may not have the power they used to.
Meh. This is a similar pattern to many large cities that emptied out during COVID. The data is showing reversals of this trend.
That's for the state as a whole, not the city.
“ At the rate people with money are leaving NY they may not have the power they used to.”
There are more people with money in NYC than there are in the bottom 15 states (all but one of which are red states) combined. With more being created every day, because it is the most economically successful city in the history of the country.
Do you really think they’re going to run out of rich people? More rich people are created in NYC in a day than Mississippi and Alabama have made since the invention of the automobile.
again, an amazing lack of basic Economics understanding : the record with taxing the rich more is all negative
" More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT.
French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated"
Read it, Nelson : "costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated"
And if I lived in France, I might care. I don’t, so I don’t.
You do realize we don’t live in France, right? And that our tax system is very, very different? And that the rich in America pay a lower, not higher, rate due to loopholes and tax advantages like capital gains rates?
Do the math on how much someone who makes $100,000 in earned income pays and how much someone who makes $100,000 in unearned income pays and then tell me again how someone whose income is largely capital gains is getting taxed more.
Our tax code advantages the rich. By design.
Nelson, nice to see you back.
The City Council will vote for Hizzoner's Marxist agenda; they're no better.
Define success for a city.
Thanks, XY. Every once in a while I have to take a step back because the paleocons’ relentless revelry in the suffering of those they hate makes me start to despair for the country I love. While I frequently disagree with people like you, you aren’t a mindless ball of rage and vindictiveness like Jesse and Mother and their ilk. People like you make me come back.
But on to your question. High-paying jobs. A diversified economy with multiple sectors. Opportunities for careers, advancement, and job mobility between industries. A healthy and competitive job market. High-level education (primary, secondary, post-secondary, and graduate). A strong economy. Large GDP. High demand for workers and services. Strong opportunities for upward mobility. An educated populace. High-quality, varied, and vibrant cultural organizations (museums, theaters, music venues, etc.).
You get the idea. New York is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a highly successful city.
People who don't live in NYC sure worry a lot on behalf of the citizens of NYC.
Mamdani is proposing a total of five government-run grocery stores. Given the margins grocery stores run at, it seems like kind of a silly idea, but if they are useless it's also not going to cost very much or inconvenience anyone.
Given that Mamdani ran on a platform of taxing rich people more, I imagine that the affluent people that voted for him are going to be a lot less surprised by their tax bill than the poor people who voted for Trump and are about to get kicked off Medicaid despite Trump promising he wasn't going to cut it.
jb — Grocery margins are a topic barely accessible to public discourse. The margins grocery managers announce, and support with examples, cannot be taken as illustrative. Too many other factors figure in, many of which are kept out of sight.
There are rebates from middlemen. Shelf access fees. Premium placement fees. Square-footage-reckoned profit allotments designed to push up prices for low-cost alternatives, to make them more-closely match those generated by higher-cost competitors.
It's a very tough business, and typically toughly run, with middle men having sometimes dictatorial say in what prices get charged at retail, and with middle-man markups the larger and more variable. Consider the milk rebate. Maybe this week one retailer gets paid a rebate based on the amount of gross sales. The competitive retailer nearby gets his rebate on the basis of the volume of milk sold. Thus opposite price incentives for two competitors, dictated by the same middleman who supplied both. Why? Sometimes the grocery managers do not know themselves, and the middlemen just grin amiably and change the subject when you ask them to explain.
Also, if you look at prices paid to producers, as ratios to the cost of goods on grocery shelves, the results are all over the place. A baking potato on the produce aisle might cost 20 times per pound what the farmer gets for it. That happens even though a potato is about the least perishable produce the grocer sells. Much of the more-perishable produce sells for a mysteriously lower markup. Over in the butcher department the ratios will be wildly different. Some products subsidize others, with products most reliably in demand, like milk, the most subject to manipulations.
Everything about retail pricing is founded in major part on annualized profit on investment—where inventory is a major fraction of investment. Grocery inventory turns over many times per year, aggregating profit-per-inventory-item repeatedly with each turnover. Thus, an apparently low-percentage profit-per-item-sold, can turn out to be a robust return on annualized investment for that item category, often much higher than you would see on other kinds of retail items featuring slower turnover and typically higher margins per sale. Do not try to compare retail markup percentages on groceries and other kinds of goods, without insight into turnover rates for each.
Of cource, the same process works in reverse in a consumer's budget. Small changes in profit margins per purchase can end up as large yearly increases in the food budget for weekly-purchased items—especially so for lower-cost items, of the kinds shoppers tend to substitute when they feel hard pressed by inflation.
Please take these remarks as illustrative of a long-ago situation in grocery pricing, which will of course differ in particulars from what might happen now in some different region. I have little doubt the overall thrust of my remarks still applies almost everywhere in this nation.
I learned about this stuff from grocery managers and middle men while I was in the newspaper business, and partly reliant on grocery advertising to keep a local weekly afloat. I got some great stories out of it too, with competing grocers feeding me tips they hoped would undermine the most effective pricing scams used by their competitors.
Not disputing what you posted, but pointing out there is a lot more to the story. I spent some time doing accounting for my brothers trucking business. For starters grocery stores could maybe stay open for two or three days if deliveries stopped. Not trying to dis how important farmers are but without truckers everything they grow would be rotting after it was picked. Thing is you could double or triple what workers are paid to harvest food and it would still be a fraction of what it costs to transport food to market. Included in the cost of transportation is getting the food off the truck and onto the loading dock at the store. As a general rule the trucker is not paid till the food is unloaded and as much is made about illegal aliens picking crops there is also a thriving market for workers (some legal, some not) waiting under an overpass to jump on the sideboards of trucks headed to the loading dock to pick up a quick Benjimin to unload the truck. There is also a market for peeps who have done it dozens of times a day to take over for the truck driver to back the truck up to the loading dock if it is a tricky tight space.
Point is getting produce to market is a complex operation and transportation is the biggest cost as a rule (expensive foodstuffs like saffron or caviar may be exceptions). Maybe ten years ago I was going with a girl from Sweeden, and she was shocked entering a Publix grocery store in the Florida Keys at what was available compared to the EU. When we took a road trip to Miami and she entered a Walmart she was even more shocked.
Not trying to dis how important farmers are but without truckers everything they grow would be rotting after it was picked.
Sure, but the spuds might be rotting very, very slowly, possibly a year or so in a potato barn, with forklifts being driven right over the piles. Then, with an uptick in the market, they get shipped and sold.
Strawberries, on the other hand, are a notorious shipping emergency, providing optimal Teamster's Union strike leverage.
Of course shipping is a big factor. Doesn't mean it is a rational factor.
For instance, one of those stories I mentioned featured a photo taken across an Idaho potato field, toward an adjacent supermarket. The story detailed how the spuds from that field got trucked to a rail depot, shipped to Los Angeles by rail, where they got bagged and shipped back by truck to the Idaho supermarket beside the field where they were grown.
Of course, after the harvest, pheasant hunters were free to try their luck in the potato field, where birds which sheltered in a nearby marsh would often show up mornings and evenings to peck at the leavings. The hunters would bring sacks to fill with free potatoes, which they could easily dig out by hand. Harvesting equipment turn-arounds often left areas where notable patches got missed.
If the farmers had been able to figure out how to get their produce into the local markets directly, they would have got fabulously wealthy by selling potatoes which could have been sold at half the going retail price.
The farmers did okay anyway, mostly. And of course they produced on a scale the local markets could never have dealt with.
I interviewed farmers too. Never met one who was not gloomy about costs and prices. I interviewed one guy whose neighbor had told me he made the price of the farm in one good year, when he got a big crop of onions during a general shortage. "So how did you do?" I asked him. "I tried to do too much," he replied gloomily. "I got killed in spuds." "How about your onions?" I asked. " I did even worse in beets," was the answer. "I'm probably going to have to give up farming if this keeps up. Prices are terrible." I never did get an answer on the onions.
Why are you attempting to rely on what some random grocer told you? Almost all — if not all — supermarket chains are publicly traded. We don't need to chat with someone to get details about profit margins.
Also — and I can't believe I actually need to explain this — selling more doesn't change the profit margin. If I make a 1% profit on the sale of a box of cereal, selling a second box of cereal doesn't mean I have a 2% profit. Obviously my total profit doubles, but the margin is the same 1%.
David, is that true? I would think that--because of certain sunk costs (eg, the salary of the grocery clerks, who get paid $15/hour if I sell 1 box an hour or 10 boxes an hour), my profit margin will inch higher the more I sell, due to economy of scale. [I may be using the wrong economics term, but you get my point.] 🙂
No, you are right. This is why some companies will give a poorer customer a break and just charge basically cost on a project: The workers need to be kept busy and that gives a happy customer and smooths over a period of lesser demand.
Some on here who claim Economics knowledge would be better off listening to someone with a CMA certification. There is a reason no Economist was ever elected President
No, you're correct that in the simplified example I used, economies of scale can affect net profit margin. But that's not what Lathrop is talking about. He's just talking about replacing inventory after it's sold and selling the replacement inventory.
Hmmm, there is the 3rd ,a place like Publix
Publix grew from a single store into the largest employee-owned company in the United States.
Yes, Nieporent, there is a difference between annual return on investment, and percentage return per sale. In either case, it does make sense to keep your eye on the pea.
For what it is worth (meaning, what's your point?), all the grocery store managers I dealt with were associated with grocery chains.
"Almost all — if not all — supermarket chains are publicly traded."
That's not true, at least in the Northeast. Among the biggest here are Stop and Shop, Market Basket, Shaws, Wegmans, Northeast Markets (Price Chopper, Tops, Market 32), Roche Brothers, Aldi, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods; all privately held, i.e. not publicly traded companies. The exceptions are Albertsons (never saw one) and Ahold Delhaize (never heard of them), Kroger (never saw one), and a few other minor players that don't even make the top 10 list in revenue.
Then there's WalMart, of course, probably the biggest grocer, but you can't by stock in just that part of it.
I don't know all the ones you name, but Stop & Shop is a division of Ahold, Shaws is a subsidiary of Albertsons, and Whole Foods is of course owned by Amazon.
That's all true, but they are not publicly traded companies, they are wholly owned subsidiaries.
I don't see the relevance of your quibble to the topic we're discussing, which is whether we can ascertain the finances of the grocery industry. Whether we can break out Stop & Shop separately from the other chains owned by Ahold, or Shaws from the other chains owned by Albertson, is irrelevant to that issue.
The Trump administration is mollycoddling an illegal alien, Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, who has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to “deadly conduct” in connection with a separate incident in which he drunkenly fired a gun in a Texas community.
Records reviewed by the Washington Post show that Hernandez Reyes has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house and has been given permission to stay in the U.S. for at least a year.
Prosecutors have identified Hernandez Reyes as the “first cooperator” in the case against Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, according to court filings. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that Hernandez Reyes owned a sport utility vehicle that Abrego Garcia was allegedly using to smuggle migrants when the Tennessee Highway Patrol stopped him in 2022. That traffic stop is at the center of the criminal investigation against Abrego Garcia.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/key-witness-against-kilmar-abrego-garcia-won-t-be-deported-court-records-show/ar-AA1HEjnz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=c6efbe043178407d84824e3c7dd4be1f&ei=9
Ho! Ho! Ho!
So what? They make deals every day.
True, but the usual process is to make deals with the less bad, small fish to get the more bad, bigger fish, not make deals with the big fish to get the small fish.
If you’re the guy who ran the smuggling operation that Garcia drove for, however, this is an amazing opportunity. It’s like making trades with the Buffalo Sabres.
It seems like Trump Administration strategy is that the more you resist the harder the hardball.
Were I an illegal alien and my lawyer told me don't worry we'll get an injunction in the 4th circuit to stop this, I would be less than reassured. I would.prefer Mexico or el Salvador to South Sudan.
So you'd prefer eating Tacos to being the ingredient in one?
Perhaps Garcia will be given the choice between El Salvador and South Sudan.
Yes. Abrego Garcia was probably banking on being allowed to stay in the U.S. Trump is going to make sure that doesn't happen.
In the end, they're both gone, NG.
The ordinary rationale for the prosecution cutting a sweetheart deal is to develop evidence against a higher value target. Here Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes -- the owner of the SUV that Abrego Garcia is accused of driving and the leader of the alleged conspiracy -- is a bigger fish whom the prosecutors are treating with kid gloves in order to go after someone further down the food chain who has kicked the DOJ's ass up and down the federal court system all the way to SCOTUS.
The Honorable Waverly Crenshaw is a good judge. There is ample predicate for an evidentiary hearing if the defense moves to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial vindictiveness. I will be surprised in this sham prosecution makes it to a jury.
Given your track record with legal predictions, I'm surprised you weren't too ashamed to make another.
Those are his predictions, and if you don't like them, I'm sure he has others
I wonder. Has Rob McGuire -- the Acting United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee -- ever in his life represented a client with a functional cardiovascular system? Has he ever cross-examined a snitch?
He is getting his marching orders from elsewhere.
Acting United States Attorney // Middle District of Tennessee
Robert E. McGuire was appointed Acting United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 28, 2024. A Nashville native, Mr. McGuire is a seasoned prosecutor with more than twenty years of experience in handling violent crime cases. Throughout his career, he has prosecuted over thirty murder cases and conducted more than one hundred felony jury trials in both state and federal courts. In addition to his work as a prosecutor, Mr. McGuire serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Belmont Law School, where he teaches in the Trial Advocacy program.
As I said, has he ever in his life represented a client with a functional cardiovascular system? Has he ever cross-examined a snitch?
He ran unsuccessfully in the 2014 Democratic primary for District Attorney General, and then couldn't make a living in the private sector.
He is "often in error, never in doubt", as the saying goes.
...and so far almost always wrong.
No he's not. He's an affirmative action Obama appointee.
This case is not ordinary.
As a former attorney, I'm sure you can think of instances where fighting back against the government gave a defendant a worse result than if they conceded early.
How are the interests of justice served by letting the worse guy go so they can go after they guy who got more press because the Admin fucked up?
You're a bright dude; I'm sure you can brainstorm a few ways that a prosecutor would view this strategy as serving the interests of justice in the big picture.
Well, the actual career prosecutor faced with this situation quit in disgust.
No surprise there given his career.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
Yeah, you should check multiple sources on this and explain what you mean.
Here's one way:
When I used to live in Illinois, the next town over had a group of affluent high school students who went around to other schools breaking in and stealing expensive electronic equipment. TVs, projector screens, computers, etc. They were eventually caught by the police.
The first one who plead out also faced the most criminal exposure for having participated in most of the robberies. In his plea deal he fingered the rest of his budding gang, who in turn squealed on everyone else.
The guy left holding the bag was the getaway driver, who didn't actually break in and didn't actually sell any of the items that were stolen. The rest of the group all elevated the driver's importance to save their own skins. The result was that everyone else got probation while the driver was the only one to serve time in prison.
So let's ask the question: what interest in justice was there letting the driver serve prison while the rest got off with probation?
The justice interest being served was that the first people to snitch get the best deals. That encourages snitching and resolves cases sooner, with less hassle and with less expense for the government. People who fight the government or take deals last get the short end of the stick.
Here the human smuggling conviction of Mr. Hernandez-Reyes was pursuant to his plea of guilty in Louisiana in August 2020. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdms/pr/illegal-alien-sentenced-regarding-smuggling-illegal-aliens He later pleaded guilty in Texas to illegal re-entry by a previously deported alien and was sentenced on May 29, 2024 to 30 months imprisonment. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1927546/gov.uscourts.txsd.1927546.24.0.pdf He could have been charged as a conspirator along with Abrego Garcia in Count One of the pending case, which alleges that the conspiracy began in 2016.
My PACER subscription has since lapsed, but I recall reading earlier that a conspiracy count against Hernandez-Reyes was dismissed in Louisiana pursuant to his plea agreement. The indictment there reflected that that charge was part of the same multi-state smuggling conspiracy that is now alleged against Abrego Garcia. Since that count was dismissed there, there would have been no double jeopardy impediment to charging him in the Middle District of Tennessee.
Hernandez-Reyes's early release from prison, his remaining in the United States and his not having been charged as a codefendant reflect a sweetheart deal.
No, I really can't. The only interests I can see are the administration wanting a political win after they fucked up basic due process so bad they had to back down.
I gave you an example to help make up for your lack of imagination.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/30/monday-open-thread-112/?comments=true#comment-11109377
Except this isn't not taking a plea.
You are describing the administration incentivizing being silence when you are a victim of abuse of process.
That's not legitimate.
You cheer for a police state.
I think you misunderstood what's happening. The boss copped a plea deal to testify against his subordinate. In the example I provided, it was to encourage snitching. Here, it's that plus a mix of other factors.
Anyways, I think the government would welcome a plea deal in the Garcia case. I doubt he would get a plea deal as nice as his boss got, but when you're late you get leftovers.
Ever heard of the trial tax? Or of "true believer" prosecutors?
I may not be a lawyer, but I've watched enough to understand how the system works today. Just consider how many times someone "came to the attention" of a prosecutor for bullshit reasons- including political ones!
Your anecdote does not describe snitching to roll up to anyone otherwise untouchable, it describes incentivizing pleading out to avoid administrative burden.
Here, you have rolling down to go after someone who the admin didn't treat in any way properly.
'you didn't roll over when your rights were violeted and that embarassed us. Now we will toss asside justice and just persecute you.'
It's inexcusable. Police state shit, as I said.
I may not be a lawyer, but I've watched enough to understand how the system works today.
The whole reason this case was a big deal is that it is NOT how the system works today!
You just turn away from injustice. Just another shy MAGA all the way.
So you yourself can or won’t provide an answer?
Huh? I don't understand what you're saying here.
You don't understand. The only interests involved here are Trump's. He doesn't to look like an even bigger jackass in the Abrego Garcia case, so he will tell DOJ to do absolutely anything to convict him.
He'd pardon Al Calpone.
Now Bernard you are making no sense.
Freed or not , it is not unlikely that a crime group would simply kill Garcia to make sure he doesn't get to bring down the human trafficking ring.
As for Trump, there are strong folks in the DOJ and you can't trace everything that happens back to the Oval Office. That's just a juvenille "explanation"
“ This case is not ordinary.”
Only because the normal level of incompetence that the Trump Administration displays was surpassed in this self-inflicted clusterfuck of humiliation for the Executive.
Kind of a dumb thing to hang your hat on, Reyes was already charged, convicted, and served his time, and deported over human trafficking.
There might be certain constitutional problems charging him again, for the same facts.
Now he is in prison for another charge, re-entering the US after previously been deported.
Remember, this guy kept slavishly repeating his King’s mantra that he was never coming back.
“ In the end, they're both gone, NG”
Really? Because the deal allows the guy who ran the smuggling operation to stay in America. And in return for the really bad guy, the small fry will get deported. But in Trumpworld, that’s a win I guess.
I'm sure they have some other grounds to seize him the moment the Garcia case is over.
Sure, the head of a human smuggling operation doesn’t have lawyers who understand how to use leverage to get benefits for their clients. Your weird speculation that the Trump administration is competent and strategic is adorably naive.
Trump was embarrassed by Garcia. He will sacrifice anything to alleviate that embarrassment. Born-on-third-base trust fund babies like Trump have fragile egos and will sacrifice anything to protect their self-image.
And that would be a major stupid move. DOJ and others will be watching what lawyers get hired, checking the bank accounts, phone records, etc. A terrible move it would be for the smugglers to do anything but move on.
To think they would not stop at killing Garcia is to be naive.
“ DOJ and others will be watching what lawyers get hired, checking the bank accounts, phone records, etc.”
The government will be investigating lawyers because they are representing a client well and getting them the best deal? Other than sheer spite and blatant retribution, what would the justification be for treating those lawyers that way?
“ To think they would not stop at killing Garcia is to be naive.”
Why would they want to do that? He’s the golden goose for them. The DoJ will cut any deal to get Garcia. Anyone who tells them anything they want to hear will get a deal. There are probably serial rapists they’re giving immunity to so Trump can feel like less of a buffoon.
Until tomorrow.
Really you say things that show no sense of life. Much more likely that if Garcia could even theoretically bring down a trafficking cartel,they would kill him. He knows that. You should too.
“ Much more likely that if Garcia could even theoretically bring down a trafficking cartel,they would kill him.”
He can’t. But apparently it’s so important to get a driver that they will cut deals with kingpins. And you don’t find that insane?
Nelson, do you think they're going to let that POS Hernandez-Reyes just waltz off into the sunset to live happily ever after as an illegal alien in America? LMAO. You weren't born last night.
They'll both be gone when this is all over.
To paraphrase Animal Farm, all illegal aliens are equal, but some illegal aliens are more equal than others?
“ Nelson, do you think they're going to let that POS Hernandez-Reyes just waltz off into the sunset to live happily ever after as an illegal alien in America?”
No. But I also don’t think that cutting deals with kingpins to get a driver makes any sense, either.
Trump is embarrassed and if it takes cutting deals with really bad criminals to make him feel better, that’s A-OK with you?
The idea of freeing really bad guys to convict a rather innocuous guy is acceptable to you as government policy?
Would it have been smarter to deport him before he could provide testimony at the Maryland man’s trial? You’re sharp today counselor.
Garcia is not being well-served by his attorneys here.
...all in the fine Democrat tradition of use 'em, throw 'em out.
Garcia is no longer in CECOT, so he has been very well served by his attorneys here.
Garcia was possibly never in CECOT. He even admitted he was being treated well in El Salvador.
However, he might actually end up in CECOT if he's convicted in Tennesse. Furthermore, if he can't go back to El Salvador because he stands on his WOR, he might be sent to South Sudan. Or another swell vacation destination.
As I said, I don't think he's being well-served by his attorneys.
Be less gullible:
(Emphasis added.)
He was in CECOT. He was moved from CECOT after his lawyers got involved to help him. So that's already a big point in his lawyers' favor.
Yawn. I trust Van Hollen about as far as I can throw him.
Tyler trusts Trump as much as he can hug him. Please let Tyler hug him!
He was the source for your claim that Abrego Garcia "admitted he was being treated well in El Salvador"!
He was photographed in CECOT.
Oh, but of course you've seen a photo with "M-S-1-3" tattooed on his knuckles...
Instead you trust your own made-up lies.
"Garcia is not being well-served by his attorneys here."
Tylertusta, what do you posit, based on your vast experience as a criminal defense advocate, that Abrego Garcia's attorneys should be doing that would better serve their client?
The Trump Administration 2.0 is out to get Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia because their own treatment of him was an embarrassment. They Adminstration would give Charles Manson, were he alive, a pardon to just to dump on Garcia.
I don't know about Manson, but Garcia's value as a target of prosecution was greatly elevated by the firestorm surrounding his deportation and Judge Xinis's tirades.
Until people who know what they're doing look at the evidence and realize how bad it is, anyway.
That's a pretty Trump-serving definition of value.
What a low expectation you have of your guy.
We are both merely stating the obvious.
He's not my guy, pal.
Fair re: Trump, but then what is your pushback to Moderation4ever?
There is no value to prosecutors, only to Trump's MAGA political team.
Cynicism is its own reward for some.
I said what I meant in my original comment, which was merely an observation: the only reason that the DOJ is going after Garcia this way is solely because he was elevated politically.
Is it also vindictive? I'm unsure about it in a legal sense, but in a common, everyday sense of the phrase, it absolutely is.
But it wasn't the DOJ that turned Garcia into a political football: it was his attorneys, Judge Xinis, and the media who did that. The DOJ is responding to incentives and has decided to play the game after all.
But it wasn't the DOJ that turned Garcia into a political football: it was his attorneys
Nope. The admin went against a court order. Saying council should have been cowed and just let that happen is massively fucked up.
And no, DoJ is NOT responding to incentives. Vindictiveness is not an incentive.
As DMN observed, this kind of acceptance of Trump's bad behavior and condemnation of others for not knuckling under is MAGA monarchist bullshit.
It was his attorneys that sued in Maryland court. It was Judge Xinis who went beyond the requested prayer for relief. It was the left-wing media that made it into front page news.
That was before the government even got to make a decision.
It is if your policy involves convincing illegals to remove themselves. Sending a message of 'even if you win, you still lose' is a powerful argument.
That's the incentive that the government has here.
In many ways this is just another front in the Culture War, and like in actual shooting wars, once it is started, it starts to take on a life of its own. And just like in shooting wars, the other side gets a vote, too.
Um, no. What precipitated this was the government making a decision: to illegally send Abrego Garcia to CECOT. The suit followed that; it didn't cause that.
David, I have yet to see you refute my original claim:
His value was not created because the government mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. His value was created because of the three-ring circus you and your ilk created in response to it.
If your claim is that they wouldn't be prosecuting him if his lawsuit had never been filed, I certainly agree with that. Why would they have bothered, since they had already sent him to lifetime imprisonment in a foreign concentration camp?
But if his lawsuit had never been filed, he'd be in prison. In a foreign concentration camp.
The "three ring circus" was, also, not created by his lawyers; all Trump had to do was say, "Oops, we screwed up. We'll get him back and do this the right way," and it'd have been a one day story (if that). Instead they went with, "Ha, ha, nothing anyone can do about it, so nyah nyah." It was that response that created the circus.
the only reason that the DOJ is going after Garcia this way is solely because he was elevated politically.
WTF are you talking about. That's deranged. He was "elevated" because ICE mistakenly deported him, sent him to CECOT, and then Trump lied repeatedly about getting him back.
You're so far off the rails they are going to send out a search party.
If you walk like a MAGA and quack like a MAGA, you're a MAGA.
Yawn.
The administration defies a court order to throw someone in jail in another country with no process.
The fucked up so badly they had to reverse what they did. Which for this administration is a huge concession.
You defend that action, going so far as to blame the person the admin went after.
You have no sense of justice, only tribe. That's a MAGA trait.
It is not exclusively a MAGA trait, but it is easily most common among MAGA now.
that is not true either. How you walk and quack is not the essence of a MAGA. There are many in the media who walk and quack like a Nazi but a real Nazi would off them in seconds.
Your idea of MAGA maybe but you live off steam generated by hate.
REALITY CHECK TIME
Reyes is gone as soon as Garcia is gone. Reyes will probably get kicked out of America to a nicer location than Garcia. Need to keep in mind Garcia had his day(s) in court and was subject to removal, so one way or another he would be deported.
As for Garcia's legal counsel their best bet is to stop fighting and plea bargain. There is no way to stop a deportation order, only delay it; and every delay only means a worse final destination Garcia will wind up being deported to.
"As for Garcia's legal counsel their best bet is to stop fighting and plea bargain."
There is a pejorative for defense attorneys like that. They are called dump trucks.
It's just terrible advice anyway. If his choice is a criminal conviction plus deportation or just plain ol' deportation, why would he choose the former?
Am I the only one wondering why we haven't heard anything about the Idaho sniper?
Probably one of those Idaho Trannies
With a Spud Manifesto
Or Travis Decker.
Hey! I'm the one who makes references nobody understands!
It doesn’t advance any media narratives. So they essentially ignore it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/us/coeur-dalene-idaho-shooting-ambush.html
Literally one of the top stories on the NYT. Why bother looking when you can make up your own narrative, though?
When you’re a nutty conspiracy bot hammer everything looks like a conspiracy nail if you glance at it briefly enough.
It's a game! Will he be a Muslim? A neo-Nazi? A kid pissed at Israel?
A mundane psycho or guy whose gf was stolen by a fireman are so boring.
Why is the FBI rolling heavy into Idaho if the only perp is dead?
Well now that the FBI is not being used to persrcute traditional Catholics, parents who attend school board meetings and J6ers a lot of FBI agents have a lot of time on their hands and need something to do. Also they would probably prefer to deal with a dead perp than their buddies in Antifa.
Didn't write that the story was completely ignored. The import was the press is not obsessing about it like they would with part of a leaked incomplete intel report that could be exploited to create a false narrative against the Administration. Why bother actually reading the comment and thinking when you can reflexively respond with an idiot trollish response?
It was completely ignored by being highly featured! Riva bot still hasn’t run that diagnostic I see.
“ like they would”
I see. Actual prominent coverage is downplayed with partisan hypotheticals. Conservatives (and Russian troll farm workers like Riva) really struggle with the difference between actual and hypothetical.
Hint: partisan hypotheticals aren’t real.
At 8:31AM (EDT), I counted 19 stories that were higher on the front page than the Idaho story. You say: "Literally one of the top stories on the NYT." And yet, beneath "35-minute Crispy Sheet-Pan Noodles With Glazed Tofu."
"Literally."
Glazed Tofu?
That's pretty dang important to the soy-boy crowd.
You must like glazed tofu a lot because I don't see that. I guess the website is doing some personalization. In both the app and on the website, I see nine stories clustered into three topics (OBBB, MS-13, and tariffs) above it.
Importantly, it's above the Opinion pieces, which is where I usually stop scrolling.
Here is an archive of the NYT home page with the Idaho story below the opinion pieces (from 05:21 am this morning):
https://web.archive.org/web/20250630052114/https://www.nytimes.com/
It has dropped much lower down now.
I was looking on mobile, so the layout is pretty different. Having said that: that layout roughly matches what I described. There's three clusters of news above it (OBBB, Iran rather than MS-13, and tariffs). So it's the fourth-leading news topic on the site.
If we analogize to a physical paper, it would still be front page, but below the fold.
"Literally one of the top stories."
Nope. And I wouldn't expect it to be.
I'm pretty sure most people think of "top four" as "one of the top". But I guess people can decide on their own since neither of us are King of the Internet.
Regardless of your semantic quibbling, you'd have to be trying kind of hard not to hear anything about the story since there's stories about it on just about every news outlet I've seen.
"Top four"
If you look at my archive.org link above, you'll see that there were 12 (twelve) headlines above the Idaho story. There are also blank placeholders there that contained 7 other stories, including the one about "Crispy Sheet-Pan Noodles With Glazed Tofu."
Not sure how (or why) you count that as in the "top four."
Unlikely, any NYT subscriber knows the cooking stories are far below that.
Yeah. I make up stories about what the NY Times home page looks like, and Frank Drackman isn't really a doctor of some kind (other than the Jill Biden kind).
The world of Malika: reality dismissed.
How are those coping skills of yours working in real life? You sure you're only denying the unimportant parts?
Can I have a link to the glazed tofu recipe? Sounds delicious.
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1022637-crispy-sheet-pan-noodles-with-glazed-tofu
As always; food brings together those of us who agree on pretty much nothing else. Much thanks for the link. My stomach will be occupied by food for the Fourth. But I'll try this the week after. Looks promising!
Harvested the first of our Zucchino Rampicante squash.
Actually pretty good, and they look great on the garden arch, too. I just wish my wife had planted them by the NEW garden arch, not the old one; The new one used fence panels, not wire fencing on a frame, and the openings are much bigger.
If you build a garden arch, don't cheap out by skipping the heavy fence panels, the large openings are critical to allowing you to harvest through the arch.
The Guardian reports Trump sent an explicit threat to the University of Virginia, threatening funds cut offs if the President of the University did not resign. He did.
Intensely mindless for the Univ Pres not to see he was headed over the cliff. Everybody else saw it.
You already told us what Trump did, so what did the President of the University do?
He claims he was going to retire next year anyway, but the subtext seems to be that he didn't think the university's racial discrimination programs were legally defensible, but didn't want to preside over their being dismantled, either.
But he didn't wait til next year, so not really an explanation.
"legally defensible" is an interesting take. I'd buy "politically defensible" under the current administration and Congress--where the President is hell-bent on bending every law in his way and Congress is cheering him on.
No, I think the right term is "legally defensible"; We're talking about policies that have been contrary to statutory law all along, but sheltered by a policy of prosecutorial discretion which has now ended. They were only ever politically defensible, never legally.
That didn't formerly matter, now it does: The former legal regime where nominally color blind civil rights law was interpreted to only apply in one direction is ending. The day for Roberts' “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” is dawning.
And people who've committed their whole careers to the former regime of compensatory discrimination can't cope with that.
Biden's border policies are legally defensible.
You can't hide behind formalism and then switch to functionalism when it doesn't suit.
I mean you can, you just look like an integrityless outcome-oriented tool.
But his border czar waited 3 years to visit the border. Do you not know this ? Really !!! ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoQoQ7QITDY
Harris makes first trip to U.S. southern border in three years
NBC News
Do you not know that Harris was not actually a "border czar," and her immigration-related responsibilities were about negotiating with foreign countries, not about enforcing immigration law at the border? Do you not know this? Really?!?!???
The Guardian reports that Trump has threatened the City of New York with funds cut offs in connection with the mayoral candidacy of Democratic Primary winner Zohran Mamdani.
The U.S. Supreme Court seems determined to avoid taking judicial notice of Trump's ongoing lawless attacks on American constitutionalism. Unless the Court reverses itself, it will have to be treated as a complicit participant in a would-be fascist takeover of the United States.
Maybe you can have the NYC District Attorney charge "45/47("48"?) with 34 more (redacted, keepin it clean EV!) "Felonies"
That's not what he said. He didn't say that he'd cut off funds if Mamdani won. He said "I can’t imagine it, but let’s say this, if he does get in I’m going to be president and he is going to have to do the right thing, or they’re not getting any money."
Meaning that if he's elected and does what he says he's going to do, Trump will cut off federal funding.
Down with federalism!
Trump's lawless threats to impose arbitrary tariffs on Canada seem to have accomplished one purpose. Canada yesterday agreed to rescind a tax on tech company revenues which would have raised an immediate $3 billion for the Canadian treasury, and more going forward.
Is that 3 Billion Canadian dollars or real ones? Theirs are only worth about 3/4 of ours, makes them feel richer.
What would you expect from a country (state?) whose dollar is called a loonie?
and for a people who love Hockey so much (I still don't get the "Offsides" Rule, in Soccer, or Hockey, in (Amurican, i.e. Real) Foo-bawl it's simple, somebody crosses an imaginary line too soon, where was I,
they love Hockey so much, when was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup?
"The last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup was in 1993, when the Montreal Canadiens defeated the Los Angeles Kings. This win marked the end of a 32-year drought for Canadian teams." So, it seems they go at least 32 years between wins. But that's technically speaking. If you count up the Canadians playing on U.S. teams you might say Canada wins every year!
Its clear we need a tariff on them
IOW
Tariffs against us by foreign nations are totally legit, normal, moral, and don't have any harmful local side effects.
Tariffs by us against foreign nations are illegal, immoral, and harm our sacred economy.
Stephen,
Happy Monday. If you removes one word, "lawless" no one would have anything to argue about.
So King Trump said he would end the Ukraine-Russia War on day one.
“Russia launched its biggest aerial attack against Ukraine overnight, a Ukrainian official said Sunday, part of an escalating bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in efforts to end the 3-year-old war.”
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-biggest-aerial-attack-9fda235a9345d506cf6c796ddfa80e33
He said the same thing about Afghanistan. He seems confused about what “Day One” means.
You that scoff,
Let's hear your suggestion about how to stop the killing.
I’m scoffing at his ridiculous claim that he failed to accomplish. Why do you defend it?
I am defending nothing. He was wrong that Mr Putin had any motivation to stop the war.
As for you, do you have anything at all useful to say? anything at all?
What do you think should be done? C'mon, lets hear it.
Don,
I'm not Malika, of course. But if you're asking what should be done; how about: Donald Trump should stop making moronic and idiotic promises that are either lies or stupid things that he will never (and could never) accomplish?
That's something that Trump could do today that would be helpful and useful.
You're welcome, America.
But you are silent on atrocities.
BOMBSHELL REPORT: Biden Admin Left 9K Americans in Afghanistan, Originally Claimed 150
February 3, 2022
Still lying about this.
Also, are you allergic to linking, or are you just deliberately not doing it to make it harder to check up on you?
Neither MtM nor Nelson claimed to have a solution. Trump ran for office on a platform that included this promise. Flipping the question back on those "that scoff" and not holding the promise-holder liable is just a diversion from the overall point:
Trump lies*. His supporters defend him for that.
* exchange "lies" for "is addled" if you feel that's more accurate. We've all heard him speak, amirite?!
Sure, Trump lies. Biden lied. Harris lies. It's something politicians do.
But what has his foes pissed off is finding that his campaign promises weren't lies, that he actually is trying to do what he ran on doing.
Clumsily. Often with insufficient attention to details, including legally mandatory details. But, he's actually trying to do what he ran on doing.
And that's so novel in a Republican President his base is going to cut him a lot of slack.
“Sure, Trump lies. Biden lied. Harris lies. It's something politicians do.”
Sure, my brother shit in the bathroom floor when he slept over. But your brother didn’t flush the toilet after he peed and your sister left the cap off the toothpaste!”
Yeah, you treat lies by your politicians as less serious than lies by politicians on the other side. On the other side it's the inverse.
But the fact remains, that what you're complaining about aren't the lies, it's his efforts to actually deliver on his campaign promises, the non-lies.
Wow, your mindless BS snarks aren't even clever. Why are you wasting bandwidth.
“ Let's hear your suggestion about how to stop the killing.”
Punish Russia in as many diplomatic and economic ways as possible until it leaves the country that it invaded.
Why should Russia benefit from creating hundreds of thousands of casualties with their unjustified invasion?
Thank you. I don't think that worked for the last three years, but at least it is an honest answer.
If you want something that can work, that only comes from Putin. Nothing we could possibly do will work as long as he wants this war, because Russia’s the only one who wants this war. This will be like the Soviets in Afghanistan, where they keep losing people and material until, years (and thousands of deaths) too late, they finally give up and go home.
Anyone with a brain could see that nothing anyone did could stop the war. That never stops Trump from saying idiotic things, nor stops his sycophants and apologists from accepting and defending those idiotic things.
Well at least you didn't say 'Send nasty postcards addressed to Jerk Putin" --- nothing even real-world about your 'suggestion'
Putin is worth as much as Bezos and more powerful. He barely thinks of 'hundreds of thousands of casualties" and a little late on 'unjustified' don't ya think
“ Putin is worth as much as Bezos and more powerful”
Yes, we’re all aware that Putin is the chief kleptocrat in the Russian Kleptocracy.
“ He barely thinks of 'hundreds of thousands of casualties"
Yes, we’re all aware that Putin is a psychopath that doesn’t care how many of his own citizens die.
“and a little late on 'unjustified' don't ya think”
It’s never too late, because accurately identifying a clearly evil side in a war is important. Here in America, Confederate apologists have been trying your strategy for almost 170 years. Fortunately we are smart enough to know it’s bullshit. Your troll farm is engaging in the Lost Cause of Ukraine, hopefully with similar results.
Saying that his illegal and unjustified invasion was legal and justified should never happen. Might doesn’t make right.
Don,
I too scoff, and I have no suggestion.
Why should I? I didn't claim I had a one-day solution, and I have no power to implement it if I did.
The "What would you do differently" argument makes sense sometimes, but not always. If I announce I can run a marathon in two hours, and fail miserably (around here I couldn't drive 26 miles in two hours) you are within your rights to scoff, whether you can do it or not.
A reminder to those horrified by Trump's immigration enforcement: This is what an actual civil liberties nightmare really looks like:
German Police Conduct Nationwide Crackdown on Citizens Accused of Online Speech Crimes
If this were Germany, most of the commenters here would be at risk of time in jail. As it's the US, we're safe.
Well, at least until after the next Presidential election, since Democrats seem to approve of this sort of thing.
The one thing I like about Germany?? (the Bier's overrated BTW)
They actually ticket "Left Lane Bandits" (and they do warn you with the "Links Uberholen, Rechts Fahren" signs everywhere) Unfortunately, if you do get some Poltroon from Slovakia or Poland driving 100km/hr in the left lane, nobody will pass on the Right, as that's an even bigger ticket, so you get a "Stau" all the way to France.
Frank
Bellmore executes deft subject change to hypothetical future misconduct by Ds . . . which justifies Bellmore's current support for overthrow of U.S. Constitution.
"We're gonna alter or abolish section 230 unless the tech companies do something about online harrassing tweets oh look our political opponents' tweets are harrassing."
This happened and will not be memory holed. It should not be, as it's a warning about the future and what your side will do, a dire prediction.
The facebook guy said he would not do this to politicians in particular, as a democracy needs to see what those who are elected say, and you made him stand tall before Congress and explain himself.
Folks around here said the section 230 threats, a sword of Damoclese, was not so and not having such an effect. "The corporations are doing this all voluntarily, of their own free will!"
When freed of that threat when power changed hands, the CEOs said, yup, it happened!
Then you goalpost shifted and said, "Look! These companies are just pandering to whoever is in power!"
Yes. They do indeed. I wonder why. You are insidious with respect to freedom.
People are right to fear hypotherical reprisal by Democrats in the vein of Germany and the UK, in the lead with your sentiments but "We don't need no stinking First Amendment" to get in the way.
Without it, your impulse is to do that. You may try anyway.
All true and still in crisp view.
You just did what you accuse him of. You KNOW none of those things.
Across the ditch, a rap group is permitted to tell concert-goers “Kill your MP!” and “The only good Tory is a dead Tory”, yet Lucy Connolly is still serving a 31-month sentence over a Tweet she deleted.
Seems some Demographic groups are more equal than other Demographic groups
A RAP GROUP
Meanwhile, you leave out: Connolly posted online calling for "mass deportation now", "set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care," and "If that makes me racist, so be it."
Such speech should be protected, but if you're going to post the one you should post the other.
posted online!
Do you hear yourself?
Outrage based on not reading to the end of my short post just makes you look performative.
Meanwhile, here at home Ted Cruz got confused and thought the folks at a concert across the ditch were "the Democratic party's base".
Seems like you guys are getting pretty desperate: can't find anything bad that actual Democrats are doing so let's find something bad going on in another country and just pretend that's the D's fault too.
That’s not getting desperate, that’s a day that ends in Y.
The Democrat party's base is people who chant things like "globalize the intifada", or elect those who chant those things.
It’s five degrees of separation with Mikie P!
Vibes time for Michael!
Does he see how he’s proving jb correct?
“ The Democrat party's base”
You seem confused about what a base is. People who chant “globalize the Intifada” are “the Democratic base” as much as people who click their heels while saluting and shouting “Heil Hitler” are “the Republican base”. Neither are “the base” of either party, just hateful wingnuts that loathe the other side so much they will mindlessly support someone who hates the same people they hate.
Although the Unite the Right rally was organized by an avowed neo-Nazi and featured torch-bearing conservatives chanting “Jews will not replace us”, so there’s that.
With the GOP the fringe has become the rug.
So they're desperate to point to the same thing happening to the Dems.
I'm no big fan of the very old leadership the Dems have, but their boring and out-of-touchness leads to some pretty amusing straw-grasping from MAGA people trying very hard to excuse their own side's extremism by deflecting left.
But nobody take you seriously with your "i have no allegiance to Dems or Reps or anybody" . You might be a coward, that would explain it but you aren't 'above the fray' you are just too chickenshit ot put a positive statement in print. a sniper
There’s no way you’re not as bad as me!!!
A proponent of "globalize the Intifada" just won the NYC Democrat primary for Mayor though.
How could you not put 2 and 2 together on that one?
If you start with an understanding of the word "proponent" that would probably help. Kind of hard to say someone is a proponent for a phrase when asked about it he says "that’s not language that I use".
Which explains why to try attach this to the Democratic party somehow you have to convince yourself that some rap group in a different country is somehow representative of like a third of the population of the US.
“ A proponent of "globalize the Intifada" just won the NYC Democrat primary for Mayor though.”
No, one didn’t. Try to be a better person. Or at least put some effort into your lies. Lazy and dishonest is a bad look for you.
In an update, the Democrat base has been dropped by their agency and also lost their visas to the US.
https://deadline.com/2025/06/bob-vylan-dropped-uta-1236445637/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/30/uk/bob-vylan-uk-band-glastonbury-us-visa-intl-latam
All over the internet is the repudiation of the Democrats by their chief funders. How's that for actual
I usually point out that the free speech difference between the UK and the US is that the US has a Constitution which means something (unlike the ECHR), but the way that's going, there won't be a difference for much longer!
Two things can both be bad.
You think this comparison favors you, because to you these people aren't human to you so their misery doesn't count.
You would make, as they say, a Good German. Those Rootles Cosmopolitans don't get civil liberties, and that's all well and good. Meanwhile lets look at the plight of the poor German shopkeep...
Also, getting mad at Germany being extra touchy about Nazi shit seems to be kind of missing something.
Or a distraction.
Tomorrow when you wake up, try saying this out loud when you place your feet on the ground.
"Today, I will try and be a better person and not a garbage human like I was yesterday".
Could you do that?
Every accusation….
Most of the "horribles" with respect to immigration are enforcement are lies. Citizens are not being swept up regularly in raids.
The left is upset that people here illegally, or people who didn't belong here on a permanent base like the temporary protected status people, are being made to leave.
Citizens are not being swept up regularly in raids.
Except I know you'll also defend this:
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement
people who didn't belong
Yeah there it is.
Citizens are not ... regular ...
Woah, that's pretty insane, even for you.
And NPR is perfectly okay with losing all funding. GROW UP
What funding? they keep saying they get "almost" all of their Shekels from Saps, I mean, their "Valued Listeners"
Well so far according to your link the only "citizen" to have his citizenship revoked was a man found guilty of distributing child sex abuse material who admitted to doing so prior to becoming a citizen and lying about it on his citizenship application. Real sympathetic character you have chosen
So far!
The leftists commentators would have free reign for the inane comments.
“But now the semicolon is dead. Or semi-dead. Its use has collapsed, as underlined last month by a study from Babbel, an online language-learning platform. “Semicolon usage in British English books has fallen by nearly 50% in the past two decades,” the survey said — and this sudden drop followed a steady decline across the past two centuries.
A study of semicolon use in U.S. publishing from 1920 to 2019 saw a similarly dramatic slide. Newspapers, magazines, and fiction and nonfiction books all soured on the semicolon, though nonfiction after 2000 did see an uptick from the depths.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/22/punctuation-semicolon-debate/
I worry about it when Stephen answers your comment. He actually knows something about the topic.
I'd have put a colon after the second sentence "platform" to emphasize the following quote as explanatory example.
You could also have done this:
survey said — and this sudden
to
survey said; this sudden
But both the colon and semicolon would make a clumsy large sentence, with the phrases' emphasis stepping on each other.
Hmm, what's the plural of emphasis? "plural emphases" Thanks, Google!
Fortunately various popular programming languages are making use of the surplus unused semicolons.
lol good one
No one has mentioned the Bove whistleblower?
https://apnews.com/article/bove-justice-department-judge-nomination-trump-efea8c93ad892f1eb000321939a7283c
When asked if you ordered DoJ people to defy court orders and your response is "I do not recall" you absolutely did order that. That's not like what you had for dinner 2 weeks ago.
The is the best answer to Schiff regarding any of his badgering.
Of course Bove issued such an order - that's why Trump nominates him and why the cultists support him. Dear Leader's commands have the force of law, any judicial command to the contrary notwithstanding.
Trump wants to have a SCOTUS nominee ready.
Sorry, Josh!
Wrong place
“In exchange for helping President Trump carry out his deportation agenda, the United States paid El Salvador millions of dollars, adding an important sweetener at Mr. Bukele’s request: the return of key MS-13 leaders in American custody.
Officials from both countries have said the gang leaders are being sent back to face justice.
But the Trump administration has not acknowledged another reason Mr. Bukele would want them back: U.S. prosecutors have amassed substantial evidence of a corrupt pact between the Salvadoran government and some high-ranking MS-13 leaders, who they say agreed to drive down violence and bolster Mr. Bukele politically in exchange for cash and perks in jail, a New York Times investigation found.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/us/politics/trump-bukele-ms-13-immigrants.html
So it's a "Win-Win", thanks Queenie!
Link is pay-walled.
I'm surprised he'd actually pay for a subscription. Could be he's a free trial? Or maybe he's mooching off a subscription paid for by someone else (probably even with taxpayer dollars)?
Riva bot programmed to hate NYT after their anti-AI copyright lawsuit!
"New York Times investigation found"
So a fantasy.
When did marrying a US citizen stop being a pass to live in the US?
I mean, that's what I remember from when I was a kid. Its the last time I thought of such things... but with Orange Julius Caesar nabbing married partners... what gives?
In Residency (Yes, I'm making this up Queenie) one of the Attendings had married an Italian Gas-Passer (it was the 90's so yes, an XX) she came reluctantly (Hey Now!) because she didn't speak-a that good-a English, and getting licensed in the US was a pain, he was constantly getting hassled by INS accusing her of marrying him for Citizenship (in their defense he was sort of a Putz)
Gee, Orange Julius. A stroll down memory lane. There was a Nedicks on Fordham Road in the Bronx when I was a kid. The sold their signature hot dogs, which were the best, and also Orange Julius, which is odd, considering Nedicks had their own orange drink. There was so much sugar in Orange Julius that it would rot your teeth and give you diabetes on the spot! I sure do miss that place.
The local mall wouldn't have been the same without one. 🙂
I actually really liked their non-carbonated orange drink (not the Orange Julius), and I thought their grilled hot dogs with their own mustard-relish were the best, even better than Nathans. And, it was all quite affordable, even for a kid.
It was never a pass when the non-citizen seeking permanent residency by marriage was a criminal or otherwise unsuitable for residency in the United States.
Then all of the non criminal non trouble cases. The ones that are now grandparents n such. Or hell, newlyweds. Why is it different now?
Not all made it to be grandparents or newlyweds. This is the fallacy of saying what happened had to happen.
Because the deportation program is not being run by common sense but rather by quotas. Quotas mean looking for the low hanging fruit and that why you see ICE going after the easy people to find. The promise was deporting criminals and the realities is it whoever they can find without working too hard.
LOL!
Why shouldn't Trump go after the "easy people" while going after "criminals", too?
I know you're used to the last administration's open borders and their inability to close them without "further legislation", but apparently the current administration can do lots of things vis a vis illegal aliens and open borders that seem to have some people in a panic. Get over it.
Lol indeed! Could it be because that’s what Trump said he’d do/be doing?
“President Trump is putting the safety of Americans first and delivering justice for victims of illegal aliens and drug cartels.”
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/29/100-days-making-america-safe-again#:~:text=President%20Trump%20is%20putting%20the,death%20or%20serious%20bodily%20injury.
Get mad and stay mad.
I voted to have him close the border and start deporting illegal aliens. He's doing those things.
You guys are like "ZOMG he's going after the good illegal aliens !!!".
I'm ok with that, too. He can do both.
He has my permission.
I knew a couple that wanted to marry, one of them an active duty service member (officer, even), and the other a Canadian. They had to jump through a lot of hoops to prove their marriage was real and not for the simple act of giving a green card to an immigrant.
I'm not a legal historian, but I believe this has been true for at least as long as I've been aware of such things; which is several decades.
Sounds about right: We talked to the officer at the US embassy in Manila, who gave us the fee schedule, and didn't mention it was changing in a couple weeks; My package of documentation, sent by express mail, eventually bounced back to me by parcel post with an uncashed check that was deficient by less than the cost of mailing the package back to me.
Flaming hoops, set at right angles to each other.
Jesse Singal's current newsletter addresses Zohran Mamdani's proposal for property tax changes, which I haven't seen discussed much elsewhere, except in demagogic terms. There's not enough detail to make a conclusive judgment, but I tend to agree with him that reducing regressivity in property tax is a good thing. One can debate whether property and income taxes should be flat or progressive, but they shouldn't be regressive. (Sales or consumption taxes should be flat rates, which turns out in practice to be slightly regressive by income.)
Most of that newsletter is about trans litigation and PR, largely rehashing what he's written on the topic recently, so only the first part (IMO) worth the time to read.
Sales tax and consumption taxes tend to both regressive from and income point and from a generational point. Younger generations spend more as a percentage of income with costs of households, raising families , etc. than older generations (age 50+).
That's because boomers are lazy, entitled and greedy.
No - its because the younger generations including those with families have to spend a greater percentage of income on necessary living expenses than older generations.
This blame game here is stupid, reductive, and says a lot about MAGA's 'no improve, just blame and punish' mindset.
As usual from sarcastro - a stupid inane off topic snark comment
Let us know when you can contribute anything of substance
Generational blame is a dumb game. It's overgeneralized and has no upshot other than spite.
So of course you love it.
Another stupid inane off topic snarky remark.
you also just demonstrated you have no concept of the topic, yet that is par for the course.
What's the Matter with Kids Today was a satirical song...in the 1960s.
Another immature, stupid inane, off topic snarky remark
Try to contribute something of importance
The NYC property tax scheme is truly bizarre, not just in terms of its regressivity but its implementation. As you say, not enough details yet to have a serious conversation about Mamdani's plans, but just simplifying the process and making it more consistent would be a pretty big win.
No home should pay property taxes. Its like you are renting from the state.
Commercial property including rentals and non-family farms can be taxed, but no one should have to sell their home because they can no longer pay.
From a libertarian perspective (IANALibertarian), property taxes are a form of use tax where local residents fund local resources like roads and schools and fund local government.
"...no one should have to sell their home because they can no longer pay." And this is neither conservative or libertarian. It reads a bit to the left of centrist, even.
Good news, though! Many states have enacted laws to reduce the chances of this happening. Most states roll this into some sort of homestead exemption which caps increases in property taxes. California has its (in)famous Prop 13. I saw a home go up for sale near me a few weeks ago where the neighbor's homes were bought for over $1.3M and this home, which had a long-time resident who recently passed away, was evaluated for tax purposes at under $80K and being sold for about $800K. So despite their home having potentially 16 times the value they were taxed on, they were able to live there through the end of their life. But I live in California--land of the liberal. 😉 Glad you agree that this liberal policy is wise.
California property tax rate is 1%. Texas is 1.8%.
Prop 13 and its ilk are awful policy.
Why should all the people who can't afford homes subsidize granny staying in a place that's way too big for her now that the kids have moved out?
So, you're construing not taking money FROM granny to be a "subsidy"?
Yes, when one person is getting the same services as everyone else and paying dramatically less for it, they are being subsidized by the rest.
Just like in a progressive tax system poorer people are subsidized by richer people due to the relative tax burden.
"Yes, when one person is getting the same services as everyone else..."
Does granny get the same services as everyone else? She doesn't send kids to school, for example.
Sure, but she might use more EMT services. I've never seen anyone actually try to make the case that Prop 13 is good policy because it somehow aligns property tax rates to services consumed.
Prop 13 is actually even worse, though: it allows the inheritance of low property tax rates, though, so even once Granny is dead her kids or grandkids can keep paying the low tax rates.
But the opposite happens if you go after the rich as so many here don't realize
"In 2016, a report from New World Wealth, a wealth intelligence company, found that around 10,000 millionaires left France, with 7,000 of them leaving Paris. The report attributed this exodus to a combination of taxes and terror. The report also noted that millionaires are often the first to leave a country because they have the means to do so"
"From a libertarian perspective (IANALibertarian), property taxes are a form of use tax where local residents fund local resources like roads and schools and fund local government."
Use taxes are normally levied against the thing that's used, or at least something that scales with the thing being used. Like taxing gasoline to pay for roads. Property taxes look nothing at all like use taxes from that perspective.
The justification for them was Georgist, I believe: That if you taxed property on it's most valuable use, people would be force to either use it for its most valuable use, or sell it to somebody who would.
Or to put it another way, they're a direct attack on property rights.
Your comment was the reason for the passage of CA prop 13 long ago.
I think what this clown would really to debate are higher taxes based on race, and it seems that he would be open to a surcharge on jewish property owners in particular.
And why this country should subsidize the tax schemes of this radical socialist antisemite with increased SALT deductions is perhaps also worth adding to the debate.
For regular readers of this Reason who question why today's young people favor socialism, I would suggest looking at the recent Sánchez-Bezos wedding in Vienna. Looking at the display of wealth from the bride, the groom, and the guests make people wonder if capitalism is really the best economic system. I do support capitalism, but these display make it hard to argue for capitalism.
I support capitalism. But what we have in America is not capitalism, but crony capitalism for Wall Street and big corporations. Amazon is a huge beneficiary of that crony capitalism.
Plenty of distortions in the system, but hot take: America is capitalist.
That you take your unhappiness with big business getting unfair advantage and support the king of relationship-based government largesse makes me question what your actual issue are.
Why do you think its appropriate to question his motives?
Can you be a better person? Is it even possible for your kind?
LexAquilia 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Tomorrow when you wake up, try saying this out loud when you place your feet on the ground.
"Today, I will try and be a better person and not a garbage human like I was yesterday".
Could you do that?
America is capitalist by choice, and by happenstance, not by law, nor by Constitutional decree. Americans remain free at all times to choose whatever economic system it may please them to rely upon, and to pass whatever laws the Congress judges necessary and proper to support the operation of any such system.
The Constitution decrees specific protections for private property. That is the limit of its systematic economic oversight. The Congress is otherwise empowered to regulate the national economy according to the jointly sovereign People's pleasure, as expressed in election results, or otherwise.
The People, inserting themselves as corrupt dictator for a change, is a European thing. America is about freedom. Freedom from you. From corruptions that stick their fingers into every pie.
Your statement is full-on nonsense. You justify the plague of history, corrupt dictatorships grinding the economy to a halt, with "the pleasure of the people".
But the Founding Fathers knew world history, their own history, with corruption and dictatorship plaguing all human advancement and happiness. They knew men with the gift of gab stepped all over freedom as their personal wealth skyrocketed by getting in the way of economic freedom.
Your odd bleat touting the sovereignity of The People is just more gift of gab hot air in service to corruptions who wanna control freedom. It's more than just what words "are permitted". What good words if all actions are controlled?
"Amazon is a huge beneficiary of that crony capitalism."
How so? Be specific.
You shut down an economy, print trillions, make retail stores close, give trillions in unneeded stimulus to people who are staying at home jacking off, and then you're surprised when people take that money and buy shit on Amazon?
In Socialism, the extreme displays of wealth come from the governing class instead of free peoples who tend to be pushed down into a single, miserable working class.
This guy was hating on corporations and the stock market above.
Failures are all over the place with blame.
So? I don't get your point. Maybe make it directly instead of leaving everyone to guess.
That would be neat.
Capitalism supplies people with an economic ladder; capitalists try to pull the ladder up behind them.
You may need to increase your vocabulary somewhat, if you think all (or even many) capitalists are in a position to "pull up ladders" behind themselves.
"Capitalist" can describe the lowliest street-based entrepreneur as well as J.D. Rockefeller.
"Capitalist" can describe the lowliest street-based entrepreneur
...who protest when another vendor parks his truck nearby. Or, in my town, when the owner of a local liquor store tried everything he could to prevent another liquor store from opening.
"Entitlement" is not a trait limited to capitalists.
Indeed not, but it would have been more honest to respond, "good point"
We really need to decide on a definition of socialism.
This is not a new issue - I was just listening to a podcast on Churchill's 'Gestopo speech.'
Are high benefits socialism?
Is lots of regulations socialism?
Or is socialism the people determining how to distribute?
Or is socialism when industry is all owned by the state?
Lot of games being played on who is socialist, and then changing the definition about what that means.
It's the public ownership of the means of production.
That's the definition it's always been.
Idiots on the Left coopted public services to mean socialism, because they're stupid and they want to use that definition as a Trojan Horse for the real one.
Norway is not Socialism.
North Korea is Socialism.
Bernie Bros sell you Norway, while they will deliver North Korea.
Some science advisor you are that you don't even know this basic term. Good grief. No wonder you don't work in the private sector.
Your comment is right on the money. Most people supporting socialism point to Scandinavian countries in Europe which have strong social safety nets. Those people opposing socialism usually are point to North Korea, Cuba or China as examples. People first need to agree on a common country to truly compare socialism and capitalism.
Scandinavian model is capitalism with a social democracy.
Words matter. The truth matters.
In 2012, Denmark became the first country in the world to implement negative interest rates for bank accounts. Other Scandinavian countries that have used negative interest rates include Sweden and Switzerland.
Why Biden the Stupid didn't jump on that, who knows. But socialism that can do that IS NOT CLASSICAL SOCIALISM
Or, we could just use the historical definition: state-owned means of production.
I don't agree we should jettison the classic definition merely to placate people who would call everyone they don't like a "Marxist" anyway.
The wedding neither picked your pocket or broke your arm. Bezos could pay for it because he created a economic machine that everyone loves. Don't want him to have money, don't buy from him.
Think of the economic benefits to dressmakers, airlines, hotels, etc. and all the workers!
That is a misapplication of Jefferson BTW
But on to Bezos
He picks your pocket regularly
2 Examples
1
Pennsylvania Gives Amazon Potentially Unlimited Sales Tax Exemption
The tech and online retail giant will build at least two data centers in the Keystone State but pay no sales taxes on equipment.
2
" up to 22.44 million pounds of Amazon’s plastic packaging waste entered and polluted the world’s freshwater and marine ecosystems in 2019, the equivalent of dumping a delivery van payload of plastic into the oceans every 70 minutes."
You can call that an 'externality' but that is being about as uncaring and cold-hearted as you can be
I would look back to the 1920s in the US when the Gilded Age was ending, the average worker was destitute, and we were about to get the bill for all those robber baron parties--the Great Depression. And out of the Great Depression came fascism. It looks like we're repeating the mistakes of the past but just jumping ahead and aiming for fascist robber barons of the tech-bro variety.
"out of the Great Depression came fascism"
Oh? Mussolini took power in 1922.
THat Robber Baron thing is mainly BS
Would that Bezos would give the US the public libraries that Carnegie did.
"As I understand the concern, in this clash over respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab -- but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are ... (wait for it) ... the district courts. ... And the majority thinks a so-called universal injunction..."
These are the writing of a partisan moron. Add in there her "full-stop" bit, should she be expelled from SCOTUS?
This is just a Bluesky rant by a radical dressed up by ChatGPT.
How long before she starts putting emoji's in her opinions?
Now they are going after US citizens
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-naturalized-citizens
This is fascism.
That's a B.S. take on this. I read the Guardian piece and I find nothing at all fascist or nefarious about the reasons for denaturalizing and deporting these people.
"The memo, published on 11 June, calls on attorneys in the department to institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”."
"The memo claims such efforts will focus on those who are involved “in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses … [and] naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the US”.
The directive gives justice department attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue denaturalization, including in instances of lying on immigration forms, cases where there is financial fraud or medical fraud against the US or against private individuals; and cases referred by a US attorney’s office or in connection with pending criminal charges."
You have a problem with that???
The memo does not specify that those crimes must happen before naturalization. Yes I do have a problem with revoking citizenship outside of a few narrow circumstances.
"The memo does not specify that those crimes must happen before naturalization."
These things are, by definition, before naturalization:
"“illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”"
"lying on immigration forms"
Agreed. The concern for me is that the next step will be for the regime to declare that someone should be denaturalised on spurious grounds while denying them due process because they don't have legitimate status to challenge the denaturalisation.
Pure speculation on your part, not surprisingly, negative for Trump.
1. If by "pure speculation" you mean, "baseless speculation", well, it fits with current policy trajectory nor is inconsistent with the regime's general approach.
2. And if they do try this, I am 99.94% sure you will support them - and that isn't pure speculation either.
Yeah, great , but we are talking about THIS step.
You sound like Sotomayor and Kagan on that Gay filth books for kids case. They know the parents were right to yank them from class but they "worried" because they "Don't know where to draw the line" --- which must mean that parents might yank kids from Chemistry or something. So stupid
On the one hand, the instances I've seen where they are trying to take away people's citizenship don't strike me as super troubling.
On the other hand, we see this ongoing progression: first it's "we're going to deport the criminal illegal immigrants" then it's "we're going to deport the illegal immigrants" then it's "we're going to deport the immigrants" and now it's "we're going to deport the criminal naturalized citizens". I think it's reasonable to say that in January Trump had a reasonable mandate on immigration, but as policy has shifted farther and farther from campaign rhetoric, it's a lot harder to get behind the idea that this is what people voted for.
Yes, he did enjoy a massive 49.8% majority!
again, uninformed
Ok, this NYT spam-creator
If Everyone Had Voted, Kamala Harris Still Would Have Lost
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › 2025/06/26 › upshot › turn...
5 days ago — New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.
Everybody on both sides saw this was happening the moment they nominated her.
Results unexpected!
There's a thing called the SOP Standard Operating Procedure theory of history, where many big things are the result not of someone powerful swinging their weight, but of people just doing what they're supposed to do.
"VP is always presumptive nominee, right? Let's go with that. What could go wrong?"
well those nominating her didn't , don't let the Rhetoric horse throw you. SOP sound more like Butterfly Effect 🙂 , makes me wonder what the hell 'what they are supposed to do" could possibly mean? Is this like Free Will Fatalism 🙂
Remember when we were told that Trump was only going to go after and deport violent criminals among the undocumented immigrants?
"...data from ICE indicating that less than 6 percent of ICE book-ins involved individuals with criminal convictions for violent offenses in early June. More than 90 percent of those booked by ICE were neither violent nor property crime offenders." --source CATO.org
So Trump sold us a lie and we fell for it.
Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.
So yeah, I have a problem with that because I know it's just another bait and switch lie.
Shawn meant Obama but the "hate effect" kicked in
In his immigration speech, President Obama said “deportations of criminals are up 80 percent.” But an independent analysis of deportation data found the increase is driven largely by the removal of individuals “whose most serious conviction was an immigration or traffic violation.”
That maybe wrong headed, but it is not fascism. Get a better vocabulary Molly.
What do you think of masked police grabbing people, Don?
Molly doesn't even know that Fascism is mainly a LIBERAL thing !!
" hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore."
Molly will say something profound like 'not true'
Trump has bruited a national citizenship database. Make no mistake. That announces a totalitarian future.
Any such database would be the voting equivalent of a national gun ownership database, but far worse. With no more than a bureaucratic, "error," any citizen could not only be disfranchised, but also deported.
Under American constitutionalism, the jointly sovereign People remain continuously superior to their governments. Allow the government power to say who is a citizen, and who not, and the government becomes overtly sovereign. The entire Constitutional order is turned upside down.
"Allow the government power to say who is a citizen, and who not, and the government becomes overtly sovereign."
What? Who but the government will say who's a citizen?
14A sez who's a citizen.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Yes, but who evaluates each case and makes the determination?
It doesn't matter.
The 14A clearly meant that any illegal that slid past our border like they were sliding into home base and squirted out a kid on the American side, was squirting out an American.
It was the ratifiers obvious intent.
That's bullshit, the 14A was fro the kids of former slaves, not anchor babies.
Jesus, what an idiot.
Speak for yourself
That's because "anchor babies" don't exist. But the 14th amendment absolutely was for the children of immigrants.
Yes, they certainly do! Here's the google AI take on this:
The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to guarantee citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to formerly enslaved people following the Civil War. It also aimed to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states, ensuring that state governments couldn't infringe upon these fundamental rights.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Citizenship:
The amendment defined citizenship as being "born or naturalized in the United States," effectively granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people.
[emphasis mine]
Why exactly do I care what the Google AI take on this is?
The historical record is clear: while the motive was to protect the citizenship of former slaves by overturning Dred Scott, the intent of the law was far broader. (Which is why it was written far more broadly. And why all of the discussion and debate was about the broader implications, not about slaves.)
It is undisputed that in 1868 after 14A was ratified that all children born of immigrants were citizens. Thus the same must be true now. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant and thus there could not have been any intent to exclude them.
"There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant"
Yes, but there is now, and have been for many decades.
Yes, and (pace Prof. Somin) the government can craft laws relating to immigration; it can create whatever categories of migrant it wants (tourist visas, student visas, refugee, immigrant, LPR). What it can't do is constructively amend the 14th amendment with those rules, as a constitutional provision it continues to apply in the same way regardless of what categories Congress carves out of the total migrant pool.
Yes. Agreed.
Sometimes my posts are so dead-on what a liberal would claim, that people fail to see the batshit crazy as ironical.
Because I'm that good. And because libs make it easy.
"Subject to the jurisdiction??" so that excludes Invading Armies, Families of Diplomats, Illegal Aliens.....
Look at the pathetic writer of the Frank Fakeman character write him getting all riled up here!
He should wrote something about the characters Georgia drive thru faves with Lots of Capitalization and )incorrect Punctuation!)
Queenie be-a talkin’ bout the back rent, he ain’t getting’ no front rent, he ain’t gettin none of it!
The kind of mentally ill person drawn to MAGA, folks!
Who knew illegal aliens could freely commit crimes.
It's amazing that all these harsh critics of "living constitutionalism" are so eager to read all kinds of nonsense into the Constitution to achieve their ends.
I remember when Brett told us that all that was needed to interpret the Constitution was to read it. Yet this they refuse to do.
The Constitution is the law of the land. It's a governmental act.
A database of citizens? As far as I know, social security predates Trump.
So he should’ve just used that?
So if you copy the social security xls to a new folder and create a new database, now the sky is falling?
"Under the new agreement backed by the Trump administration, Palantir will build a vast centralized data platform that connects sensitive records from across key agencies—including the IRS, Social Security, immigration databases, and more.
Trump is connecting all government data into a giant, AI-searchable behemoth that can track anyone in the country along with anyone else they're connected to. He says it'll be used legitimately. Even members of his own party are alarmed.
Palantir, for its part, says that it's tech is sometimes used to kill people. So, no worries about using that technology across all US residents by an administration that is forcing visa holders to hand over social media passwords and pulling visas from people for legal speech. How could this possibly end badly?
Just read a blurb on my Facebook feed about how this will change who gets to vote in elections. Not saying some of the other concerns mentions lack merit. Still it will basically create a database of citizens which is mostly a requirement for voting; something of a chance from the current no ID required to vote in some places.
It's a hallmark of totalitarian states to verify that only citizens vote in elections? Who knew?
Yet you won't find Stephen looking up from his game show when Biden announced the great leap forward of the Governmenbt Disinformation Board. OR WORSE Kamala's attempt to force any organization to fully expose all supporters, something screechingly decried by the entire political spectrum (Stephen was asleep in the woods suckled by wolves)
How Kamala Harris Earned Rebukes from ACLU and SCOTUS on Privacy
'The Breaches of Confidentiality Here Were Massive'
By Jerry Rogers
August 22, 2024
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/08/22/how_kamala_harris_earned_rebukes_from_aclu_and_scotus_on_privacy_1053395.html
How Kamala Harris Earned Rebukes from ACLU and SCOTUS on Privacy
'The Breaches of Confidentiality Here Were Massive'
By Jerry Rogers
August 22, 2024
Beware of the Stephen-type,attacks everything , defends nothing.
Silly Stephen, he sure didn't get this upset about the Government Disinformation Board, did he 🙂
Now that was what he was thinking when he sloppily said :"Any such database would be the voting equivalent of a national gun ownership database, but far worse. With no more than a bureaucratic, "error," any citizen could not only be disfranchised, but also deported."
Because GDB was savaged on all sides and didn't last two weeks, right Stephen ?
Why would any rational, informed person get upset about a board that had no powers to do anything and was intended only for interagency coordination?
So I'm guessing a Mayor Zoran Ramadan Mandami won't be giving Lizzy Savetsky a Citation like Mayor Eric Adams did?? Still think Sliwa's got the inside track, but 45/47/"48?" has a lot of favors he can do (and call for payback later) to get Adams re-erected
Republicans used a new budget gimmick to obscure the cost of President Trump's $4 trillion tax and spending bill in a new attack on the Senate's filibuster rules.
Republicans aren't fiscally conservative.
The reason to vote for them is to own the libs, hate on immigrants, and various other social issues. Certain types of judges. Plus, generally, supporting Trump.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/big-beautiful-bill-parliamentarian_n_685ab68be4b0ede248bacb32?3lg
LOL!
Can I vote for them for those reasons AND they're more fiscally conservative than the alternative?
Please and thank you.
AND they're more fiscally conservative than the alternative?
A widely disproved myth.
Lol, HuffPo. The "gimmick" known as counting based on current policy rather than an imagined counterfactual baseline.
The "current policy" includes the sunset provision.
If you think HuffPo has an incoherent argument, I agree, although perhaps for different reasons. "Current policy" was their term.
Sorry, I didn't read the article, so I didn't know that you were using the term "current policy" in the particular way Senate Republicans were using it.
In any case, that they have to make up new meanings for common terms illustrates why (their use of) "current policy" is a "gimmick": it is nonsense in the same way other MAGARINO lies are nonsense.
A bit of trivia from today's SCOTUS Order List.
The petition for rehearing is granted. The order entered June 24, 2024, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of FCC v. Consumers’ Research, 606 U. S. ___ (2025).
When was the last time SCOTUS granted a petition for rehearing? The vacating of an order (6/24) just handed down suggests to me that they made a mistake, and this is a fix-it.
SCOTUS also took a notable campaign finance case involving a matter that the Trump Administration refused to defend. DNC was granted the right to intervene.
(Limits on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with candidates)
As far as I'm aware, 2018 was the last time a Rule 44 motion was granted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080618zr_fj37.pdf
No, the story here is that the situation changed (a contrary ruling in another circuit created a split) 11 days into the 25-day window that Rule 44.2 provides to file a motion for rehearing.
You can read all about it in the petition.
Good work to get it done in the two weeks they had left.
Okay, thanks.
I'll just admit it -- I skipped over the "2024." I thought it was "2025."
Looking at the docket page, the case was lingering for quite some time.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-402.html
Eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for wind and solar projects...I can understand that. But a new (punitive?) excise tax on wind and solar projects? Basically a kill shot to the industry.
WHY?!
Gotta own the libs!
And raise electricity prices for a bunch of your voters while you're at it:
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/chart-which-us-states-generate-the-most-solar-and-wind-energy
You realize that the shift to so-called renewables always results in higher electricity prices?
I don't realize that because it's wrong: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-renewables-bill-electricity-price-reliability-aurora/747121/
Ha, ha, that's funny. Texas has the highest electricity prices in the nation, due primarily to renewable adoption, which, by the way, has also significantly lowered grid reliability.
The piece you linked is entirely speculative. Meaning, it hasn't happened.
"Texas leads the nation in high electricity prices, a trend amplified by renewable energy growth, recent policy shifts under the Biden administration, and decisions by the Texas Legislature. With wholesale prices spiking 208% over the past three years, a growing population, and an aging infrastructure, Texans face unique challenges with the need for affordable, reliable energy."
New Research Shows Texas Has the Highest Electricity Costs in the Nation
You said "always" and then just pointed to one state?
And then you quote this to show it's renewable energy's fault?
"“The reasons for the higher prices are not surprising,” said Bill Peacock, Policy Director of the Energy Alliance and author of the paper. “Texas has reacted to the problems caused by renewable energy subsidies by giving subsidies to thermal generators rather than ending its own renewable subsidies.”" And this from a pro-oil, pro-Trump conservative think tank.
Renewable energy causes government stupidity in Texas?
How about private energy monopolies hire lobbyists to ensure they come out on top no matter what sort of energy source is used? That certainly accounts for the aforementioned Texas government stupidity.
Here's my "always" statement: People who complain about the market disruption caused by cheap, renewable energy and related subsidies *always* forget about how many US $Billions of dollars are spent annual subsidizing fossil fuels.
Where what's meant by "subsidizing" is usually just not taxing them as heavily as 'renewable' advocates would like.
Yes.
Brett, you continue to misunderstand fossil fuels. Let me once again give you the 411.
Here's how my company gets lots of free money from Brett and other tax payers.
Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263). Last year Brett gave my company about $400M to cover the cost of drilling new wells. We didn't need the money, nor did we need new wells. So we drill it, then cap it, then deposit the dough. I'm sure other manufacturers like Proctor & Gamble would love to have a new shampoo factory paid for by the government. But they ain't big oil, so they have to pay for their shit themselves. Pretty sweet for me, yes?
Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613.). When our wells start going dry, Brett pays us in tax credits for all the money we are no longer generating for ourselves. Does Proctor & Gamble get free money from Brett when shampoo sales slump?
I could go on and on, Brett. But I want to be gentle with you, Brett. Knowing that what you've been told is all a lie is debilitating.
"n the US, federal energy subsidies are significantly higher for renewable energy than for fossil fuels. While both sectors receive support, the subsidies for renewables, particularly solar and wind, are notably larger when scaled by energy produced."
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at the request of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee evaluated federal subsidies received by the various energy industries for fiscal year 2011.[i] The agency found that energy-related subsidies totaled $24 billion, of which $16 billion were spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency and $2.5 billion on fossil fuels in fiscal year 2011. In other words, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs received 6.4 times more subsidies than fossil fuels received." [emphasis mine]
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/12704/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22722818537&gbraid=0AAAAADhYN4Gdwu_NmZ3qwcvcvj9U7GGje&gclid=Cj0KCQjw64jDBhDXARIsABkk8J7JJcDsdmDquonodRNCH_kiwk482C6Q11QQuaRlWZUUJNx1j9Ud-WAaAj89EALw_wcB
" In other words, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs received 6.4 times more subsidies than fossil fuels received.""
The disparity is even larger if you normalize for the amount of energy each source is actually providing.
That renewable energy is cheap is a fallacy. It's intermittent, there's no viable, scalable storage deployed, it requires a much more expensive grid (to build and maintain), and it still requires fossil or nuclear fueled energy generation to "level" the load. Solar and wind component production are terrible for the environment, and they don't last anywhere near as long as fossil plants, and the components are virtually non-recyclable.
That renewable energy is cheap is a fallacy.
Have you been receiving English lessons from bye? It may be untrue, but if something is factually false that doesn't make it a fallacy, it just makes it wrong.
A full accounting of comparative costs of different energy sources needs to include indirect costs, e.g., taxes going towards the defence budget, health costs due to radiation (predominantly from coal, IIRC) and sadly controversially, environmental costs.
"A fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid, unsound, or misleading. It's a flaw in the structure or content of an argument that prevents it from being logically sound. Fallacies can be formal (flawed structure) or informal (flawed content)."
That pretty much sums up the arguments in favor of wind and solar electricity generation.
"A fallacy is an error in reasoning
i.e., not a factual error.
"You said "always" and then just pointed to one state?"
No, I was countering jb's post.
LOLOLOLOL. Did you look at that study? You should probably be suspicious of a study claiming that prices are *increasing* due to subsidies. The authors basically take the amount of any subsidy and attribute it is a cost to the utility taking advantage of that subsidy. It also, as far as I can tell, dumps the full cost of the subsidy into whatever year it was granted even if it's to construct a power plant with a 30 year useful lifespan.
The reality is that Texas electricity rates are...totally average: https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/
I will look into that.
Apparently it only applies to the use of equipment manufactured by "prohibited foreign entities". So, the "why" is to keep us from being dependent on equipment sourced from, mostly, China.
Gee, I wonder why they'd be worried about that?
If that's the goal, then Walmart and Home Depot should be out of business too. 90% of what they sell comes from China. I think jb is more correct. This is just to kill a liberal pipe dream. As is often said; It's all about the cruelty.
Yeah, that's a really convenient mode of reasoning: "Everything I advocate is kind, so any opposition to it must be motivated by cruelty."
Sure, an absurd fraction of what Walmart sells is from China. And I bet if you looked inside a Chinese 'smart' light bulb you'd find similar issues; Everything they sell that has more intelligence onboard than a piece of wire is generally compromised in some way.
So your complaint is that Walmart isn't being penalized enough for that? Drop a line to the administration, I'm sure you'll get a positive reception on that complaint.
You don't find it curious that one industry is being targeted with a tax that other similarly situated industries are not? Haven't you mask-hating patriots been all aghast at lawfare? So isn't this...I don't know...taxfare?
No, I don't find it curious that everything that needs doing doesn't happen first.
Walmart knick knacks aren't critical infrastructure.
How could you not understand that?
So what's the point of making critical infrastructure prohibitively expensive?
Ask that of people who insist on making the grid reliant on solar and wind, instead of sources of energy that are actually reliable as priced.
Bush sold us out to China because it was the fastest way to expand the global middle class which was his priority.
Hobie AGAIN says something stupid and uninformed
Follow this, hobie
BLM proposes opening 31M acres of public land to solar development
The updated Western Solar Plan proposal expands potential development by 9 million acres beyond the agency’s original proposal
May 9, 2024 — China dominates the production of solar power components, currently controlling around 80% of the world's solar panel supply chain.
And finally, besides putting our entire infrastructure at China's command , what are they NOW doing with the supplies
Rogue communication devices found in Chinese solar power inverters
By Sarah Mcfarlane
May 14, 202511:55 AM CDT
TRY TO KEEP UP
Does anyone doubt that Zohran Mamdani is a socialist?
I think the man has been fairly clear on the issue. I lived in Portugal 10 years. Would you like me to explain to you how modern socialism works in practice? Perhaps then you wouldn't equate it with communism or whatever fear-based notions you currently have about it. You may be surprised.
Why would living in Portugal make you some sort of expert on Socialism?
They have a capitalist economy, not a socialist one.
They are both. And it works quite well. Surprised?
Not so much.
Portugal’s Socialist Party Concedes Election Amid Far-Right Surge
"Portugal’s Socialist Party conceded defeat on Sunday night in a very tight national election that ended the party’s eight years in power and reflected the country’s drift to the right, which follows a broader trend in Europe.
That shift was marked by the ascent of Chega, an anti-establishment, right-wing party, which skyrocketed from recent irrelevance to become the third most popular party in Portugal.
The Socialist Party, which has been hobbled by a corruption investigation, had been running neck and neck with the Democratic Alliance, a center-right coalition, until late in the evening, when the Socialist leader conceded at a news conference."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/world/europe/portugal-election-far-right.html
Portugal's Socialist party's corruption problems. Who would have guessed?
"Corruption allegations and scandals involving the Portuguese Socialist Party:
Several corruption investigations and scandals have impacted the Portuguese Socialist Party in recent years.
Notable cases and investigations:
António Costa's resignation: The Socialist government collapsed in November 2023 following a corruption investigation, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister António Costa. While he has not been formally charged with any crime, the investigation involved alleged corruption in the handling of government-appointed energy projects. Costa cited the investigation as incompatible with his role as prime minister.
José Sócrates' trial: A Lisbon court recently decided that José Sócrates, former Socialist prime minister (2005-2011), should stand trial for corruption. Prosecutors allege he pocketed around 34 million euros from graft, fraud, and money laundering during his time in power.
Lithium exploration concessions investigation: The resignation of the Socialist government under António Costa was triggered by an investigation into alleged corruption in the handling of lithium exploration concessions. "
What do you mean by both?
The government doesn't control any industries. Everyone is free to buy and sell as they please. Same as the US. Property and income taxes are almost nonexistent. Government mostly funded on VAT which is about 23% compared to 8% US. There is no welfare or food stamps. You're on your own there.
So where's the socialism? Portuguese socialism can best be described as making sure everyone has free access to basic services. Every town has a set of bathrooms, showers and potable water in the central square. Trash collection is free. Free busses route hundreds of miles to reach every one-burro burg assuring every person has access to travel and also to work in the cities. Their excellent healthcare is free, except for expats like me. When I broke my arm in 2014, my hospital visit, two x-rays and a cast cost the full mount: $80.
I know it irks you hayseeds that someone somewhere is getting free stuff. But I must say, employed on a grand scale like it is in Portugal, it is actually really, really nice
Public services is not socialism. It's welfare capitalism.
Please stop. The last thing Europe needs is more Americans...
"The government doesn't control any industries. Everyone is free to buy and sell as they please. Same as the US. "
Tell that to health insurance companies. They're probably under the mistaken impression that the government is dictating the features their insurance has to have, and mandating that it be sold below cost to some categories of 'customers'.
It's not fear, hobie, it's genuine concern about a politician advocating for government run food stores and seizing the means of production, both anathema to a constitutional republic.
it's genuine concern about a politician advocating for government run food stores and seizing the means of production, both anathema to a constitutional republic.
Seize the means of production? Is he going to take over Broadway?
Maybe you should the guy advocating it.
He calls himself a democratic socialist, so at some level he obviously is some variation of a socialist. It would be reasonable to lump him in, policy-wise, with folks like AOC or Bernie Sanders who describe themselves similarly.
On the other hand, he's not advocating for the workers to seize the means of production so he's not a socialist as Marx understood the term.
Yes he is.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1939516740909621286
The term "socialism" covers a lot of ground, and many things widely accepted today could fall under its ambit.
I don't find the term upsetting.
And what about the democratic facists? Are they also okay?
Are you referring to the "Nat-Cs"?
"he's not advocating for the workers to seize the means of production"
He certainly is!
His own words: "The end goal of seizing the means of production."
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1939507833571246584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1939507833571246584%7Ctwgr%5E2b9b62021a6e99aecdc94a5ec43f8975a473a1da%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F729369%2F
So you don't like it when the government tries to 'seize' 'industries', eh?
Eh, maybe that's still his "end goal". Maybe not.
None of the policies he's advocated for NYC have anything to do with it, as far as I can tell.
I know "socialist" is a bad word for you on the right, but since you've gotten into the habit of calling everything you don't like socialist or communist (Lex did this with Hamas just last week!) it's not really a very interesting gotcha any more.
What do you mean "still" his end goal? Are you saying you think or know that he's repudiated what he has so strongly said? Why are you excusing him?
IOW, the man is a Marxist. Hopefully you have been enlightened.
I don't see him saying "The end goal of seizing the means of production" in the linked clip.
Perhaps you got lied to and didn't bother to check?
He does say that. It's about 35 seconds in.
He says, very clearly, in plain English, that he's a socialist. Why don't you take his word for it?
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1939507833571246584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1939507833571246584%7Ctwgr%5E2b9b62021a6e99aecdc94a5ec43f8975a473a1da%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F729369%2F
This post of mine was bait for the apologists, those who will rationalize it, spin it, excuse it. Some of you took the bait, it seems.
"He calls himself a democratic socialist, so at some level he obviously is some variation of a socialist. "
No he doesn't, he calls himself a socialist. Period. See the linked video.
https://www.zohranfornyc.com/
Hope that helps!
No, it doesn't. He's talking out both sides of his mouth. He also lies about a third world upbringing.
No, you should read his platform, not quote-farm.
Or, better yet, wait and criticize him based on what he does rather than being a gutter snipe.
You don't listen to what Trump says, so this looks pretty disingenuous.
Oh, so New Yorkers should vote for him and then see what he does? Why not just listen to what he says he's going to do, and extrapolate from there.
2021 and 2025 are not that far apart. I take him at his word now, and at his words in 2021, and his words at age 30, 3 years ago, when he repeated his aim of seizing the means of production.
You're not voting, you're hooting and hollering.
You're not taking him for anything - you're confirmation biased so you can attack.
And you can't use his platform, so you gotta farm out for this nonsense.
It's obvious. Probably even to yourself.
Same playbook as Obama is a Muslim. It's lame.
Omg, you called Obama a Muslim!! You are evil incarnate!! Muslims are evil!!! 😉
There are no elections right now to vote in, you retard.
Again, you attack me rather than address the issue. So tiring.
Your tactics are what I am attacking.
There is no issue, just you pounding the table.
Oh well let me help you with one more thing, then: 2021 is in the past and 2025 is right now. So if I were to look at two statements someone were to make about their political beliefs, I'd probably go with the one from right now.
Once again, though, even if he is a socialist, who cares? Happy to talk about his policies, many of which I think are kind of stupid, but the political label isn't that helpful or interesting.
Has he repudiated what he said in 2021?
He doesn't need to.
Yes, he doesn't need to, and he hasn't.
So I reviewed the video. What do you think he said?
"So I reviewed the video. What do you think he said?"
Among other things, he said this, word for word:
"The end goal of seizing the means of production."
What's the whole sentence?
In some random video from before he was an elected official? That, as far as I can tell, no one has actually discussed with him? Why or how do you would have expected that to happen?
Has Trump ever repudiated being a Democrat? I just assumed that when he decided he was a Republican, that was good enough. I didn't know people had to take anti-loyalty oaths before they were allowed to change how they thought about themselves politically.
Deflection and whataboutism, as usual. You all are saying he doesn't want to seize the means of production. He said he does. It's not a "random video," it is an intentionally created and distributed video that he made! So, you can't repudiate it if he hasn't. Simple.
It's not Whataboutism--I'm saying that people generally don't make explicit disavowals when they change their political stances, they just adopt the new ones and then people can tell what their current position is. So Trump didn't make a big announcement "I'm no longer a Democrat, I am now a Republican". He just started saying he was a Republican and people generally accepted that, to the point of voting for him to be President in primaries a few years later.
Now, some people were suspicious that Trump wasn't really a Republican and was just being political opportunist when he started running for President. Some people might also be suspicious that Mamdani is secretly a hard-core socialist. That's fine, I guess. He seems plenty far left to me without getting into a debate about what exact brand of socialist he is, and he has a policy platform that seems pretty straightforward to discuss or criticize. But no one needs to go put their hand on a bible and repudiate what they said in the past. That's not how the world works and it's dumb way to try to figure out what someone's current politics are.
"I'm saying that people generally don't make explicit disavowals when they change their political stances,"
Similarly, they don't generally make explicit disavowals when they DON'T change their political stances.
" Some people might also be suspicious that Mamdani is secretly a hard-core socialist."
No, they're concerned that he's openly a hard-core socialist, and you're hypothesizing that he'd ceased being one, without any apparent basis.
"he has a policy platform that seems pretty straightforward to discuss or criticize"
Sarc, consistently opposed to anything said in opposition to socialists.
He stands for nothing, and accedes to a far left charlatan. He's a fine representative of the people, isn't he? He's a Democrat, through and through.
Mamdani is a "socialist" by his own self-identification (like being "trans").
Sarcastr0 is not a socialist; he doesn't like that label.
Sarcastr0 consistently opposes all arguments that oppose socialism. So though he isn't a socialist, he very consistently argues in its defense.
We can call people what we want. It doesn't change what they are.
I believe he thinks he is. But I'm less sure that the hyperventilating MAGAts understand what a "socialist" is anymore other than a "bad word we call people we're supposed to hate." Kinda like how middle-schoolers use "fag" on the playground.
You may be alarmed about someone like an AOC or Bernie getting elected a mayor of a large city but I'm not sure why. And given the mess MAGAts have made in their first four months back in power, you'd need to explain why this one democratic socialist *candidate* is a problem for the country but the fascists the GOP has elected across the country and into the Whitehouse are not the real imminent threat as masked, anonymous Federal agents fan out across the country and scoop up anyone with a latino accent, citizen or not. The people doing that aren't socialists.
I also don't understand why anyone on the Right gives a flying shit what NYC does. Communities should be free to decide how to govern themselves (within some broad parameters, of course).
If the people of NYC want government grocery stores and race based taxes, then let them have it.
Define your terms, and then we can talk.
Enquiring minds want to know. Including Jefferies
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-house-dem-hakeem-jeffries-demands-socialist-zohran-mamdani-clarify-his-defense-of-intifada-chant/ar-AA1HHjWc
Without going absurdly far from the fundamental meaning - as noted above - a significant government involvement in the economy may be regarded as socialist-leaning. but you really need the government actually to operate businesses or to exercise significant control over them for it to be socialist.
And yes, Mamdani is a socialist, which is one reason why, were I still a NYC resident, I would not vote for him.
I note that Bill Ackman has said that he and some pals would fund a centrist campaign if they can find a willing politician to run. I very much hope they can.
The realistic options now are Mamdani, Cuomo, Adams, and Sliwa.
#2 and #3 are both corrupt. Cuomo is unfit for more reasons.
Mamdani is a "socialist," but that term is an overall set that includes things any likely winner will support, stuff the average Democratic nominee would support, and some additional things.
Of that last part, several won't be something he has the power to do or do much about. I acknowledge that "socialist" positions overall do not upset me, though I don't support all of them.
So, it's not going to upset me. I think someone who would vote Democrat anyhow or who likes Mamdani for some other reason, but the only reason they cannot vote for him is the "socialist" part is a small set.
I'm not sure what ANOTHER candidate is going to do to help. You already have two people who are "centrists" in various respects. Sliwa probably has some centrist aspects, though perhaps people (can see why) don't think of him as a serious candidate.
If we want candidates to criticize Mamdani's socialist positions, there are already options. A fifth candidate (putting aside other third parties) won't have much of a chance to win. Perhaps, they can do more to make the centrist case. People can already write in someone, if the main point is to have someone to support.
1.Why the scare quotes around socialist? Are you trying to say her really isn't one? Because he says he is.
2. Are you saying Mamdani is a centrist?
3. Adams' corruption consisted of a few airline upgrades. The charges were dismissed. That hardly disqualifies him.
4. Sliwa is a good man but can't win.
5. Cuomo would probably be the best executive, despite his past issues.
On #5, it turns out Democrats prefer not to vote for habitual sexual predators even if they might otherwise be good at the job. I know that must be hard for Republicans to wrap their heads around, but it wasn't that long ago both parties had some lines for personal behavior that they mostly paid attention to.
As for Adams, his entire administration has been scandal-plagued throughout. Something like 75% of voters think he's corrupt based on polling I've seen. Maybe you think the Turkish bribes shouldn't be disqualifying, but it's very likely the people of NYC do.
P.S. Sometimes people use quotes around terms like "socialist" to show that they're trying to refer to that particular use of language. That seems pretty obviously the case in Joe's post.
Name a Black Politician who's career hasn't been "Scandal-Plagued Throughout"??
"Name a Black Politician who's [sic] career hasn't been "Scandal-Plagued Throughout'??"
President Barack Obama. The late Rep. John Lewis and Mayor Tom Bradley also come to mind.
So Trump and the Republican party are passing a bill that keeps massive deficit spending going. No surprise there.
Republican dissenter Thom Tillis just announced he is not running for reelection right after Trump team said they are going after him as he disagreed with the party. "citing political polarization and a desire to spend more time with family." Usually that sort of language is eyewash and there is something else going on. Who knows . . . but seems doubtful it's all due to he suddenly decided now was just his moment to stand up for principles.
And what was Tillis' disagreement and principles? Apparently he slammed the phase-out of clean energy tax credits, and cutting of medicaid/welfare. So not a small government dissenter like Paul or Massie, he's dissenting in the opposite direction.
So Trump and the Republican party are passing a bill that massively expands deficit spending. No surprise there.
Fixed that for you.
Also no surprise that people who purport that they really care about the deficit all voted for these guys.
The Republican party has been a big government, corporatist party from inception. The best that can be said today is they are nonetheless significantly better than the alternative.
Always strange though to see people from the left try to "concern troll" and criticize GOP spending when they actually favor even far higher spending.
Certainly not significantly better than the alternative in terms of deficits, regardless of what you may think of the rest of their policies.
I'd start with overall spending, that's the main problem from any sort of conservative viewpoint.
As far as deficits, from a quick look at a chart seems like 2016-2020 average was appreciably lower than 2021-2024. If you adjusted 2020 for COVID then it'd be a blowout.
Nope, Obama had us at 3% deficit/GDP ratio and even before Covid Trump had the ratio at 4.5% with no increase in GDP growth. Biden was on track to get to 3% by 2026.
Both the pubs and dems have paid lip service to the idea of deficit spending being bad while ignoring it in reality. The difference is that while the dems are driving the car off the fiscal cliff at top speed the pubs insist on driving the car off the fiscal cliff while going the speed limit.
Nope, Democrats have balanced the budget and then under Obama returned us to fiscal sanity.
Sam, has some fantasy-inducing bug bit you
Demorcrats have done the opposite in almost all state cases and since one is a citizen of both federal and state your claim is silly.
As of September 2023, California has the largest amount of unfunded public pension liabilities in the country, estimated at $245 billion
Now I figure Biden's so-called Covid cash to CA probably brought some of that down but your statement is absurd
No True MAGA.
Big spending is pretty true MAGA, seems to me.
But not Tillis. Him, you go after.
Claim mild dissatisfaction about general things. But defend everything specific to the hilt.
Do better.
It’s like Mattis resigning over Syria and not all of the other asinine operations we’ve been in since 9/11.
So far not much discussion about the move by DOJ to start enforcing an on the books law about fining illegal aliens big bucks for being in the country illegally. In some ways this seems like the student loan mess in that I doubt any of the fines will be collected. Still saddling millions of illegal aliens with a huge debt they will never be able to get out from under is a real change. On the other had DOJ is also pointing out if an illegal alien self-deports there is a quasi-amnesty available.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/27/dhs-and-doj-announce-streamlined-process-fining-illegal-aliens
Will they bestow amnesty for this fine for the alien terrorist radish-pickers in Iowa? I think they will.
This whole "Byrd rule" thing seems like a massive gray area.
The Senate can always change its own rules. All it takes is a simple majority...
On Sunday tens of thousands of Antisemitic Terrorist Israeli Jews gathered in Tel Aviv to protest the Gaza war. Which, as we all know, means they hate Jews and support Hamas.
Yeah, but hobie, that's different. Oh no it isn't.
Let me enlighten you rubes on how people outside the MAGA bubble perceive all this. Like communists/socialists/marxists/pedophiles before it, Antisemitism is the latest handful of shit thrown at the wall to own the libs. In this case, the cynical exploitation of Jews and their plight by conservatives to attack traditional enemies such as universities and immigrants. No one believes that a political party so married to rank racism and antisemitism would suddenly change their stripes. But nice try though.
Uh, MAGA supported the sacrificing Americans to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims.
no Moose-lum's innocent
Everything with you is hate so I follow the Bible's wisdom about people like you
Don't ask a woman for advice about a rival of hers,
a coward about war,
a merchant about a bargain,
a buyer about selling,
a stingy person about gratitude,
a cruel person about kindness,
a lazy person about work,
a casual worker about finishing a job,
a lazy slave about a difficult task.
Those words of wisdom appear in what book, chapter and verse of the Bible?
Ecclesiasticus 37:11
"Beware of a counsellor, and know before what need he hath; for he will counsel for himself; lest he cast the lot upon thee, 9And say unto thee, Thy way is good: and afterward he stand on the other side, to see what shall befall thee. 10Consult not with one that suspecteth thee: and hide thy counsel from such as envy thee. 11Neither consult with a woman touching her of whom she is jealous; neither with a coward in matters of war; nor with a merchant concerning exchange; nor with a buyer of selling; nor with an envious man of thankfulness; nor with an unmerciful man touching kindness; nor with the slothful for any work; nor with an hireling for a year of finishing work; nor with an idle servant of much business: hearken not unto these in any matter of counsel. 12But be continually with a godly man, whom thou knowest to keep the commandments of the Lord, whose, mind is according to thy mind, and will sorrow with thee, if thou shalt miscarry. 13And let the counsel of thine own heart stand: for there is no man more faithful unto thee than it. 14For a man's mind is sometime wont to tell him more than seven watchmen, that sit above in an high tower. "
Basically, don't take counsel from people with conflicts of interest or a conspicuous lack of subject qualifications.
You were promised the Big Beautiful Bill would do these things but it does NOT:
❌ Prohibit welfare for illegal aliens
❌ Stop funding sex changes for kids
❌ End registration of suppressors
❌ Defund planned parenthood 10 yrs
❌ Implement REINS Act
❌ Reduce the deficit
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1939339702395642192
How you make the red X?
❌ Try C&P'ing it
That works. It’s Unicode character 274C (hex). Displaying it in red rather than black is something that Firefox (and perhaps other browsers) do automatically.
Things is does do:
✅ Kicks a bunch of poor people off of Medicaid and SNAP
✅ Reduces funding for hospitals
✅ Stops the IRS from making it easy for you to file your taxes
✅ Tax coal less and renewable energy more
✅ Makes sure rich people don't have to pay more taxes
THey need MEdicaid because Biden made living too expensive
A study by 3 Ph.D. economists at the San Francisco Fed has found that “price markups for goods and services” — aka, price gouging — has “not been a main driver” of recent inflation. Instead, the root causes are “large” federal government “fiscal transfers and increased unemployment benefits” (aka, social spending) and Federal Reserve policies like lowering “the federal funds rate target to essentially zero.”
The Fed study confirms that the real cause of inflation is the big government spending agenda that Warren, Biden, & Co. supported and enacted.
Hospitals, like schools, have inflated costs precisely because Uncle Sam was footing the bill.
IRS is tyrannical, what is good about making easy what ends up putting you in their tyrannical hands
Coal needed to be taxed less
RIch people losing money does not make you richer. And attacking the rich fails misearably
"It is estimated that, only in 2015, around 10.000 millionaires left France for tax purposes." YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
Here's the study by the SF Fed you mention:
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/05/are-markups-driving-ups-and-downs-of-inflation/
But while you're correct that they conclude that (outside of a few industries) price gouging wasn't generally the cause of price increases, the acknowledge numerous other potential sources of inflation, including supply chain disruptions. And in fact, supply chain disruptions and then a lack of production capacity turn out to be the primary drivers of Covid-era inflation:
https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation
If you decided you were just going to ignore that study and blame government stimulus instead, you'd really want to blame Trump since Biden's Covid stimulus was merely a smaller extension of Trump's Covid stimulus plan.
Cost disease in the US medical system is a complex topic with lots of causes, but I kind of doubt you're interested in a serious conversation about it. In any case, it doesn't matter--the rural hospitals that Trump voters depend on will go out of business either way under the One Big Beautiful Bill given the lower reimbursement from Medicaid (and for emergency hospital room care) and lower insured customer base generally. That's not a price problem, it's a revenue problem. But I guess you can chuckle and be happy that Uncle Sam isn't subsidizing them any more.
If you want to blame inflation on the various stimulus programs, you really need to understand that those programs were major contributors to the success of the US economy post-Covid.
The chief contributor to the success of the US economy post-Covid was just that we stopped hitting ourselves: Ending the lockdowns.
If that were true, we would not have outpaced everyone else who also opened back up.
List of countries by real GDP growth rate
2013: #134
2014: #120
2015: #99
2016: #137
2017:#131
2018:#107
2019:#104
2020:#68
2021:#83
2022:#153
2023:#109
2024:#?
2025:#148 (Probably for 2024)
We didn't outpace everybody else in ANY of those years.
The US post-Covid recovery famously outpaced the entire first world, i.e. the comparable subspace.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-us-economic-recovery-in-international-context-2023
It's a little wild you would post this list and fail to notice that 2020 and 2021, the two years where Covid stimulus was provided (and 2020 being primarily when the lockdowns were in effect!), were the best relative performance of the US economy in the entire series.
(Also weird that you think it's useful to compare the US's GDP growth to Guyana and Bhutan, but the relative rankings still make Sarcrast0's point pretty clear.)
FWIW, I think there's a general consensus that the last round of stimulus probably wasn't necessary.
Having said that, it's also pretty clear that stimulus was not the primary reason for post-Covid inflation. (I'm not going to bother responding to minus the clever name below since I got the exact "now that you have linked to the actual study and more data on the topic I am going to call you names and declare an end to the discussion" that I expected.)
Utter horseshit, as Economist Gary Becker said , referring to programs like the Inflation Reduction Act, NO small or medium business is going to take any incentives beset with so much regulation and paperwork and government interference.
One Year Later, Even President Biden Admits the “Inflation Reduction Act” Failed to Lower Costs for Americans
Aug 16, 2023
https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/one-year-later-even-president-biden-admits-the-inflation-reduction-act-failed-to-lower-costs-for-americans
Let me guess, you are for legalization of drugs. How did I know 🙂
This is so unhinged I won't reply, I have confidence that a fair reader will see you make no sense.
THE STUDY DOES BLAME BIDEN
COVID Vaccines Heart Risk Warning Update Issued by FDA
https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccines-heart-risk-warning-update-2091566
"CDC announces that warning notices for Covid vaccines must include very rare events that in no way diminish the overall advantages of taking the vaccine but declines specifically to say so"
I like how MAGA went from “experts” are dumb to RFK Jr is an “expert”! I will say the War on Opioids is the dumbest thing in history but the original CDC guidelines weren’t that dumb. So that is something experts got wrong recently but it was CYA from the health care industry that is really the problem.
I don't know what is happening to Sam but he is really going down the wrong path lately
Here is the poop on RFK
https://brokenscience.org/investigations-page-launched/
" Kennedy is often called an anti-vaxxer, despite being fully vaccinated minus the Covid vaccine, as are all his children"
Two manufactured quotes, kids, would get you the gong in a refereed debate.
The FDA has no scientific integrity under current management.
They only have scientific integrity when they rubber stamp everything Big Pharma does!
Big Pharma!! Ooooooooooooooooh. Nobody ever thinks of the poor cancer cells that Big Pharma is attempting to kill!! Whaaaaaa!!
When half a million hayseed children end up crippled from polio, they'll still blame gays or Bill Gates and not themselves. Basically, parenting as a hayseed is fairly equal to child abuse
"fairly equal" --- what a stupid childish writer you are.
and Valor Thief
When we have a half million cases of polio, it will be because your guys let polio carriers walk across the border.
More like “roll”
Who are you to question the FDA? Are you an epidemiologist?
My issue is that this shit isn't getting put out by epidemiologists.
Do you even know what scientific integrity is?
Trust the science, bigot.
RFK Jr. has made it clear science is done; it's all politics and new age vibes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Declaration
Trump’s first term was an unmitigated disaster…so you voted for him again!! Lololololol!!
Tragedy always gets a laugh from sick Sam, the disgusting Man.
Let's see Sam go after the NYT as too conservative
If Everyone Had Voted, Kamala Harris Still Would Have Lost
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › 2025/06/26 › upshot › turn...
5 days ago — New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/joint-task-force-harvard-letter-notice-of-violation.html
YES....
It could be worse.
Harvard could had a senior member of the administration give a Nazi salute during a major event. And the aforesaid member could have followed up with repeated Nazi-themed jokes while experiencing zero repercussions for the act.
So early reports has that Idaho sniper being a troon.
How much troon violence do us Normals have to suffer before they are properly declared a menace?
"declared a menace?" that happened in EO14168. I'm still here. so what do you propose to do with me?
ban HRT? I'll buy on the black market. bring back "cross-dressing" bans in public? maybe in red states under this Court, but even that seems unlikely. censor me online? obvious 1A violation. send me to the camps? don't make me laugh.
you can't touch me.
Stay away from our children.
I have no desire to go anywhere near you or your kids. stay away from me and my community.
In a perfect world, we'd never see any gross tranny freaks. It's loony troonies that keep forcing yourselves into everyone's bathrooms, locker rooms, and pre-K libraries.
Oh and don't forget the "egg cracking", which is some sick sub culture where troons groom little children.
It's true. This morning when I got up to go shower before work,
BruceCaitlyn Jenner was just brazenly brushing his/her teeth at my sink.it must suck for you, to be this seething ball of rage convinced that we're the spawn of Satan, a plague upon society... and you can't do shit about it! you can't touch me! I have free speech, I have due process, I have the right to bear arms, the right to go anywhere I want. I have all the same rights and privileges you have. you can't lay a finger on me: where I live, the police protect people like me from people like you.
that's the beautiful thing about this country: you're free to call me a "tranny freak," and I'm free to be a tranny freak 🙂
Explain to the audience what this sub culture of "egg cracking" is all about.
LexAquilia, why should there be any onus on another commenter to explain a pejorative characterization that you brought up?
If you're worried about that, start with pastors and sports coaches
The term is a portmanteau of the words 'trans' and 'goon,' and carries the connotation that those accused of being 'troons' are using gender identity to hide sinister and potentially violent ends.”
An 81-year-old female victim of Boulder antisemitic attack died from her wounds.
May her memory be a blessing.
Bob, shamelessly exploiting Jews for your political ends is disgusting. Try some other way to express your hate
Now you're Otter from Animal House
"They can't shamelessly exploit Jews for their political ends! Only WE can shamelessly exploit Jews for our political ends!
Fetterman's doing his best, but I gave up on the DemoKKKrats when that Fire-brand Joe Lieberman had to leave because he wouldn't endorse Barry Osama (Peace be upon Him) and now the Big Apple, that not that long ago had a Jewish Mayor, may get its first Ayatollah, Seriously, this Zoran Ramadan-a-ding-dong makes Meir Kahane look like Pete Booty-Judge. Most of you (redacteds) don't even know who I'm talking bout (Willis), but there's a good chance there'll be a "USS Kahane" probably an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, you heard it here first
Frank
hobie,
That comment is pathetic, even for you.
The defendants have today filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit from Judge Beryl Howell's issuance of a permanent injunction in the Perkins Coie LLP matter. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.188.0_2.pdf
Maybe that case is not looking so good for the plaintiffs, eh?
Where do you get that XY? The Plaintiff cleaned the Defendants' clock before the District Court. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.185.0_2.pdf
Why would you think matters will be any different in the D.C. Circuit?
Please show your work.
Commenter_XY, you wrote "Maybe that case is not looking so good for the plaintiffs, eh?"
What on earth do you base that assertion on?
Hiding school children from knowing of slavery and gays had me thinking. Living in an all-black hood gives me some unique insight. Here...I'm the gay guy...so to speak
The littlest kids here (maybe ages 4-8 years) absolutely love me. Being a man with no children I try my best to entertain them.They'll come to my porch and ask me question after question. So hungry for knowledge. They'll ask to hug me or see the inside of my house. To avoid getting shot by parents I politely refuse. I love these little kids.
To these innocents I'm not the white devil at all. They don't know they're supposed to hate me. The kids around 11 years and up have started to absorb the indoctrination. They ain't friendly to me very much at all.
Eventually, some dumbass tells them who to fear and hate. Who not to sell a cake to. Sadly, maybe their own president or congressman does it.
Like I said, I love these little kids. And I truly believe they would stay loving and accepting if it wasn't for the hayseeds - black and white - who poison them with their prejudices
That's B.S, it's their parents, black preachers, progressive school teachers, et.al., who teach them to hate whites. Duh!
My dude, you're so blinded by your own hate you don't realize how much you agreed with the post you replied to.
Of course, dumbass. That's exactly what I implied and meant. Now substitute 'white' for 'black' in your statement and you have your side of the equation. I'm working on my end to erase hate for gays and whites. Are you doing the same?
Ethics, senses of right and wrong, are typically reliably instilled by parents, if anybody. Parents are the most able gatekeepers of cultural norms for their children; parents pass through what poisonous ideas they choose, if any.
Lots of hate is always kicking around out there, and we can easily be taken by it (like hobie often is). Hate is the default way of humans, our fears, and our inclinations toward shortcut rules of thumb. On the other hand, love, if present, is practiced and learned, especially in families. This is to say that it's not the society that needs fixing; it's that the problem is much less prevalent amid healthy family life and strong familial relationships; amid loving relationships.
If bad outside influences end up taking hold in a child, influences such as from teachers or preachers or even friends, then the parents have failed in one of their essential roles. Once the parents have failed, the "horse has left the barn" (so to speak). Good luck getting it back inside; that's not likely to be a successful endeavor. (How do you fix an unloved child once he's grown up? Probably only he can fix himself.)
Promoting homosexual behavior is promoting slavery, to lust and perversion. Get your words right.
I take it you've never met or spoken to a gay man
Hell no, not if I can help it. Gross. I have high social status and don't socialize with degenerates and freaks.
Wow, what a blessing to have a Legal Eagle with such "high social status" share his wisdom and insight with us on this blog! I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes you'll give us a little understanding of just what "high social status" means in your world. Do you have to wait in line at the DMV like the rest of us do?
Who goes to the DMV?? In Primitive Georgia you can get your car registered at a DMV Kiosk at Kroger (Why not Publix? probably because they're a "Florida" company) same with your drivers license, unless you're a really old (redacted) in which case you do have to go in to prove you're alive.
you needn't redact yourself. certainly your colleague LexAquila shows no such compunction.
LIved wth them for 5 years, you dumb asssss
but I am not one. I ended up leaving that 'group' because of the gays (among other things)
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
That's from Shakespeare. Look it up and doesn't mean what you think.
It means : someone's excessive denial or overcompensation might actually reveal the opposite of what they claim.
Zoran Ramadan-a-ding-dong gets erected (I go to New York 3-4 times a year (well, Long Goy-land, it's "New York") I know New York, New Yorkers are friends of mine, you, Mullah Ramadan, are no "New Yorker"
"45/47("48"?) needs to send in the National Guard, Article IV Section 4 guarantees every state a "Republican Form of Government" not a Sharia-Law Theocracy
Frank
In the 5th Circuit oral argument in the Alien Enemies Avt case, the petitioners were asked “Can you give me a case where the Supreme Court of the United States has said you can, as a federal court, countermand the President of the United States in his determination that we’re in an armed conflict?”
Counsel for the petitioners conceded he couldn’t.
He was mistaken. It’s right there in Ludecke. Ludecke said: “Whether and when it would be open to this court to find that a war though merely formally kept alive has in fact ended, is a question too fraught with gravity even to be adequately formulated when not compelled.”
In other words, the Ludecke Court expressly reserved to a future case whether the judiciary had the power to override CONGRESS’s determination when Congress formally declares war but there are no hostilities and no actual efforts at war. It found that question unnecessary in the case before it because it judicially noticed what it called “facts of public knowledge,” that the country was still on a war footing with armies in the field occupying conquered enemy territory, and this was enough of a state of war to satisfy the AEA.
This means that Ludecke itself reviewed the President’s proclamation against external facts before finding that a factual state of war existed. It did not leave the Presidential proclamation unchallenged or say that it was unreviewable.
Review under Ludecke is clearly highly deferential. But it is not completely barred. Ludecke itself suggests that judicial review is at least potentially available to prevent use of a mere paper declaration of war or a mere paper proclamation of an invasion or predatory incursion as an excuse to take advantage of war powers to treat a group of undesirable aliens as enemies of the country on a wholesale basis, with no inquiry into their individual undesirability.
HHS’ Civil Rights Office Finds Harvard University in Violation of Federal Civil Rights Law
"The Notice of Violation may be found at [PDF, 747 KB]. This investigation is the second OCR investigation completed in this Administration under Title VI that examines the civil rights liability of a Federal funding recipient for race and national origin discrimination under a deliberate indifference theory. The scope of the findings released today do not address OCR’s ongoing investigation under Title VI into suspected race-based discrimination permeating the operations of the Harvard Law Review journal."
So, the first shoe has dropped, and the second is on its way down.
What is the penalty?
I believe the starting point is a complete funding cut-off.
The disgraced television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart has died at age 90.
I have long found it interesting that the same family produced Swaggart and his cousins Jerry Lee Lewis and Mickey Gilley.
I wonder. Was Swaggart the inspiration for Gilley to write "The Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time"?
I thought Swaggart was one of the great pros in TV evangelism.
Sin, and the opportunity for redemption, were always central to his take on the gospel. He presented them with a deeply emotional connection, as if he were battling with himself as much as he was trying to help others with their salvation. The sweat on his brow was typically palpable during his exhortations.
Though I was never much of a believer nor a follower, I enjoyed his messages as a listener. I hope you're not so cynical as to miss the helpfulness of those messages despite the imperfections of the messenger. He provided useful context to the spiritual pursuits of many, many people.
I think the contrast goes the other way.
"Shortly before his death, Lewis’ wife Judith said he was “ready to be with Jesus.”
Lewis did not live a godly life, but his Christian faith in his later years was truly impressive"
married 7 times, (I think his sister racked up 8)
Swaggart fell but JLL actually rose.
Elsewhere a REASON writer said "A university campus should be a place where people who disagree about important issues can discuss their differences openly"
Not every thing people disagree about is important though. You go to university , for what ? To learn... discussion is strictly tertiary, behind learning and behind acting appropriately. If you did this stuff in a real world job you would just be fired and rightly so. X might be an important issue but you don't go to school to voice your opinion on X.