|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
In US politics news I’m hearing/reading a few whispers that Trump is going to kick Musk to the curb already, or well, at least from his DOGE role.
That's what the headlines suggest but it's not as good as it sounds. It's the rest of Trump's people who want Musk kicked. Trump seems to be pleased with Musk so far and it's not clear if he wants him to stay or go or just remain in his team for a little bit longer.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/02/trump-musk-leaving-political-liability-00265784
|
On April 03 2025 04:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2025 04:12 decafchicken wrote:On April 03 2025 00:31 oBlade wrote:
The president used a power to grant temporary protected status to 350,000 Venezuelans - without a hitch - but would you believe it? arandom federal judge blocked the current president, who has the exact same powers, from reversing that status. Because of course a Republican shouldn't be able to just do the opposite of a Democrat, that must be an illegal executive overreach. Or maybe this is. Biden tried to cancel $400 billion in student loans, and after getting blocked by the Supreme Court, he canceled... $200 billion. Where were those 235 judicial activists? Mum. Perhaps the right-wing analogues should have intervened? No, because they don't exist on the "conservative" side.
Every president after Carter has killed people on purpose. If you include getting people killed then it becomes every president since at least Hoover - no offense to Mr. Peanut, he just ran some bad luck. This is the job. This is reality. It's an enormous power. It is messy. Obama droned an American citizen on purpose. Selective application of the Angel Standard for Presidents is itself norm-breaking absurdity. Like I'm truly sorry if Trump fired someone using the wrong font or didn't cross a t and dot an i when deporting a Tren de Aragua gang member. But it absolutely pales compared to above Democrat trampling of law and there are certain things they need to learn which is to suck it up when they lost and it isn't their turn - if the American people should ever find they deserve another one. "Cross a t and dot an i" he literally admitted to accidentally deporting an el salvador refugee, that had been specifically granted residence by an immigration judge, away from his american family without due process to a fucking el salvador prison, then refused to do anything to rectify it. That's not a grammatical error, it's cruel and unusual behavior toward someone who "did things the right way" (even though that doesn't matter, all persons in america are entitled to constitutional rights outside of voting/holding office) Also lol at comparing trying to help students with debt to violating the bill of rights. Democrats have also never threatened to fire judges for ruling against them (on top of dismantling all of the federal bodies in charge of internal investigations) To quote KT Elwood ‘ oBlade doesn't apply global logic, only stricly seperated sandboxed logic.’. Which puts it better than I could, much as my arrogant arse hates to admit it it! Either the Blade is a myopic lunatic, or a dedicated devil’s advocate who’s set themself the hard mode task of defending Donald Trump on the reg. Hell I’d argue if one didn’t you know, actually know things outside of their framing they do a passable job on. Although the former tends to render the latter entirely moot. In US politics news I’m hearing/reading a few whispers that Trump is going to kick Musk to the curb already, or well, at least from his DOGE role.
While that would be hilarious and excellent, I have a feeling it won't happen for quite some time (unless Elon Musk does a 180 and starts being anti-MAGA, but I have no reason to think he'd do that).
|
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government. not to mention pressure from shareholders (and his bank account) to reverse the TSLA damage instead of ruining peoples lives
|
On April 03 2025 05:55 decafchicken wrote:
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government. not to mention pressure from shareholders (and his bank account) to reverse the TSLA damage instead of ruining peoples lives
As if those people give a crap about what they can do legally. If they want Musk to keep on working, he will do that, and ignore any regulations that they don't like. Legality doesn't matter to Trump.
|
On April 03 2025 05:55 decafchicken wrote:
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government
LibHorizons: Trump has really outmaneuvered Democrats. If the government keeps working, Trump/Musk look like they were right about the massive bloat and waste. If the government implodes, Republicans will say "we told you government doesn't work! We're bringing back company towns!".
|
On April 03 2025 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2025 05:55 decafchicken wrote:
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government LibHorizons: Trump has really outmaneuvered Democrats. If the government keeps working, Trump/Musk look like they were right about the massive bloat and waste. If the government implodes, Republicans will say "we told you government doesn't work! We're bringing back company towns!".
How would we assess this though? Watching underfunded/reduced agencies have more problems and being less able to get work done, could still technically be considered "working", even though they aren't working nearly as well as they used to work. Surely we can't lower the bar all the way down to "working = not completely 100% closed down and doing literally nothing with precisely zero employees", right?
|
On April 03 2025 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2025 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2025 05:55 decafchicken wrote:
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government LibHorizons: Trump has really outmaneuvered Democrats. If the government keeps working, Trump/Musk look like they were right about the massive bloat and waste. If the government implodes, Republicans will say "we told you government doesn't work! We're bringing back company towns!". How would we assess this though? Watching underfunded/reduced agencies have more problems and being less able to get work done, could still technically be considered "working", even though they aren't working nearly as well as they used to work. Surely we can't lower the bar all the way down to "working = not completely 100% closed down and doing literally nothing with precisely zero employees", right?
The thing is that the criteria to measure if they work well or not is not agreed upon. Since the two parties have opposite views of what different agencies should achieve. So from a Democrat perspective there might be less actions against known polluting companies and thus worse performance. From a Republican point of view there is less employees required in government (including courts) and nothing worth measuring was lost.
|
On April 03 2025 06:28 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2025 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 03 2025 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2025 05:55 decafchicken wrote:
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government LibHorizons: Trump has really outmaneuvered Democrats. If the government keeps working, Trump/Musk look like they were right about the massive bloat and waste. If the government implodes, Republicans will say "we told you government doesn't work! We're bringing back company towns!". How would we assess this though? Watching underfunded/reduced agencies have more problems and being less able to get work done, could still technically be considered "working", even though they aren't working nearly as well as they used to work. Surely we can't lower the bar all the way down to "working = not completely 100% closed down and doing literally nothing with precisely zero employees", right? The thing is that the criteria to measure if they work well or not is not agreed upon. Since the two parties have opposite views of what different agencies should achieve. So from a Democrat perspective there might be less actions against known polluting companies and thus worse performance. From a Republican point of view there is less employees required in government (including courts) and nothing worth measuring was lost.
Agreed. It's too subjective and everyone is probably going to consider themselves "correct" based on their varying metrics.
|
Northern Ireland25257 Posts
Mocking US trade partners, Trump says: "We want to send you our cars. We want to send you anything, but we won't take anything you have."
He complains that EU countries don't want American poultry, and that Australia refuses to purchase American beef.
"They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it, they don't want it to affect our farmers."
Japan, South Korea and China "don't want us to sell our rice there", he adds.
Jesus Christ, couldn’t be anything to do with food standards?
Trump says that between the late 18th century and early 20th century the US was "proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been".
"So wealthy in fact," Trump continues, "we were collecting so much money so fast, we didn't know what to do with it."
Trump says that in 1913, income tax was placed on US citizens "for reasons unknown to mankind".
"They established the income tax so that citizens, rather than foreign countries, would start paying the money necessary to run our government," Trump says.
I don’t think I need to add commentary on this as every sentence of this is utter, utter bollocks.
Fuck me this is a circus. It’s a complete fucking shambles.
Full love to all the many Americans on here who I have chatted to for years and have much love for, but I hope this backfires spectacularly.
|
On April 03 2025 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2025 06:28 Yurie wrote:On April 03 2025 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 03 2025 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2025 05:55 decafchicken wrote:
he can only work like another 60 days legally anyways and he lost the wisconsin race. not like he really needs elon to cut any more shit they've already fired half the government LibHorizons: Trump has really outmaneuvered Democrats. If the government keeps working, Trump/Musk look like they were right about the massive bloat and waste. If the government implodes, Republicans will say "we told you government doesn't work! We're bringing back company towns!". How would we assess this though? Watching underfunded/reduced agencies have more problems and being less able to get work done, could still technically be considered "working", even though they aren't working nearly as well as they used to work. Surely we can't lower the bar all the way down to "working = not completely 100% closed down and doing literally nothing with precisely zero employees", right? The thing is that the criteria to measure if they work well or not is not agreed upon. Since the two parties have opposite views of what different agencies should achieve. So from a Democrat perspective there might be less actions against known polluting companies and thus worse performance. From a Republican point of view there is less employees required in government (including courts) and nothing worth measuring was lost. Agreed. It's too subjective and everyone is probably going to consider themselves "correct" based on their varying metrics.
LibHorizons: The bars can seemingly always get lower, but I don't think it really matters since it is more of a rhetorical trick than some sort of set of objective metrics.
If they fire all the secretaries, then no one answers the phones, that's proof of how incompetent the agency is ("thousands of employees and they can't even answer their phones!"). If they fire all the secretaries and the phones still get answered ("worse" or not), then they were bloat/waste that was rightfully scrapped.
|
Many will be liberated from their money tomorrow. It's fantastic stuff. Also, I could not spot Russia in any list yet. Hopefully, the EU has its counter package ready already.
|
The funniest end result would be the rest of the world piling on counter tariffs, then Trump trying to pull his usual “teehee, never mind, I’m delaying the tariff!” and then the rest of the world just keeps their tariffs as is on the US.
|
People opposed to tariffs frame everything as directly going up by that % when the whole idea is to divert purchasing towards barely more expensive local alternatives. If Chinese bikes going up 50% means American bikes are way cheaper, but still 5% more expensive than the previous Chinese ones, we aren’t paying 50% more. Many products or services already have local alternatives that just aren’t as popular
I don’t have the background or the general know how to predict the reality of the situation, and I think it’s probably insanely bad. But I feel like a lot of messaging is kinda obviously dishonest. Its like every model/prediction is built as if the tariffs do not change a single purchasing decision.
That being said, I would have a lot more faith these tariffs are being imposed in good faith if Trump was also being very clear about the domestic alternatives. "Cambodia was harming American apparel and footwear, so they have been tariffed, so please do keep in mind we have a wonderful domestic product offered by these 5 companies. These companies are now the cheapest option due to the tariffs on Cambodia. Yes, it is 8% more expensive on average than Cambodia, but our country will benefit in many separate ways by protecting our domestic manufacturing"
|
On April 03 2025 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:
People opposed to tariffs frame everything as directly going up by that % when the whole idea is to divert purchasing towards barely more expensive local alternatives. If Chinese bikes going up 50% means American bikes are way cheaper, but still 5% more expensive than the previous Chinese ones, we aren’t paying 50% more. Many products or services already have local alternatives that just aren’t as popular
I don’t have the background or the general know how to predict the reality of the situation, and I think it’s probably insanely bad. But I feel like a lot of messaging is kinda obviously dishonest. Its like every model/prediction is built as if the tariffs do not change a single purchasing decision.
That being said, I would have a lot more faith these tariffs are being imposed in good faith if Trump was also being very clear about the domestic alternatives. "Cambodia was harming American apparel and footwear, so they have been tariffed, so please do keep in mind we have a wonderful domestic product offered by these 5 companies. These companies are now the cheapest option due to the tariffs on Cambodia. Yes, it is 8% more expensive on average than Cambodia, but our country will benefit in many separate ways by protecting our domestic manufacturing"
If your plan is stupid, I don't think you can afford to list steps to your plan. Doing so just opens your plan up to precise critique that exposes you as stupid.
|
United States24676 Posts
Yeah. Tariffs are not evil. When used surgically they can be beneficial. This approach is just "hey everyone, I'm going to tax you more." It's not the typical GOP M.O. but here we are.
|
Northern Ireland25257 Posts
On April 03 2025 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:
People opposed to tariffs frame everything as directly going up by that % when the whole idea is to divert purchasing towards barely more expensive local alternatives. If Chinese bikes going up 50% means American bikes are way cheaper, but still 5% more expensive than the previous Chinese ones, we aren’t paying 50% more. Many products or services already have local alternatives that just aren’t as popular
I don’t have the background or the general know how to predict the reality of the situation, and I think it’s probably insanely bad. But I feel like a lot of messaging is kinda obviously dishonest. Its like every model/prediction is built as if the tariffs do not change a single purchasing decision.
That being said, I would have a lot more faith these tariffs are being imposed in good faith if Trump was also being very clear about the domestic alternatives. "Cambodia was harming American apparel and footwear, so they have been tariffed, so please do keep in mind we have a wonderful domestic product offered by these 5 companies. These companies are now the cheapest option due to the tariffs on Cambodia. Yes, it is 8% more expensive on average than Cambodia, but our country will benefit in many separate ways by protecting our domestic manufacturing"
You’re thinking like a non-moron though, which while desirable in general also limits one’s ability to assess this nonsense.
|
On April 03 2025 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:
People opposed to tariffs frame everything as directly going up by that % when the whole idea is to divert purchasing towards barely more expensive local alternatives. If Chinese bikes going up 50% means American bikes are way cheaper, but still 5% more expensive than the previous Chinese ones, we aren’t paying 50% more. Many products or services already have local alternatives that just aren’t as popular
I don’t have the background or the general know how to predict the reality of the situation, and I think it’s probably insanely bad. But I feel like a lot of messaging is kinda obviously dishonest. Its like every model/prediction is built as if the tariffs do not change a single purchasing decision.
That being said, I would have a lot more faith these tariffs are being imposed in good faith if Trump was also being very clear about the domestic alternatives. "Cambodia was harming American apparel and footwear, so they have been tariffed, so please do keep in mind we have a wonderful domestic product offered by these 5 companies. These companies are now the cheapest option due to the tariffs on Cambodia. Yes, it is 8% more expensive on average than Cambodia, but our country will benefit in many separate ways by protecting our domestic manufacturing"
I think one of the issues with this, though, is that American bikes aren't going to stay "way cheaper" when a tariff is giving American companies extra runway for profit, because they no longer need to be priced competitively. It might not be the exact percent increase of the tariff, to your point about "50%", but it's still needlessly costing Americans more money.
If the deciding factor between a Chinese bike and an American bike is cost, then tariffs will directly lead to customers paying more. If an American bike is $150, and a Chinese bike was $100 but Trump makes it $200 (increased costs that then get passed on to the consumer if a Chinese bike is bought, yadda yadda), then the American bike prices are going to increase to $190, because of course the American company isn't going to turn down $90 of free profit. So now we're deciding between $190 or $200 for a bike instead of $150 or $100 for a bike. It may not be 50%, per se, but the cheapest option just got $90 more expensive.
That's why tariffs need to be strategic, specific, and for very nuanced reasons, which sadly is not what Trump is doing. Your third paragraph is exactly what I wish would happen!
|
United States24676 Posts
Don't forget that American companies also need to compete with each other. That system may also be broken, but in theory, we shouldn't need to rely on other countries for this.
|
On April 03 2025 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:
People opposed to tariffs frame everything as directly going up by that % when the whole idea is to divert purchasing towards barely more expensive local alternatives. If Chinese bikes going up 50% means American bikes are way cheaper, but still 5% more expensive than the previous Chinese ones, we aren’t paying 50% more. Many products or services already have local alternatives that just aren’t as popular
I don’t have the background or the general know how to predict the reality of the situation, and I think it’s probably insanely bad. But I feel like a lot of messaging is kinda obviously dishonest. Its like every model/prediction is built as if the tariffs do not change a single purchasing decision.
That being said, I would have a lot more faith these tariffs are being imposed in good faith if Trump was also being very clear about the domestic alternatives. "Cambodia was harming American apparel and footwear, so they have been tariffed, so please do keep in mind we have a wonderful domestic product offered by these 5 companies. These companies are now the cheapest option due to the tariffs on Cambodia. Yes, it is 8% more expensive on average than Cambodia, but our country will benefit in many separate ways by protecting our domestic manufacturing"
Your first paragraph is an over simplification to the point that it is no longer true. American companies are going to be have to pay more as well because they almost certainly get their supplies or raw materials not 100% from America. Next the tariffs against Canada for example are going to raise the cost of gas in much of the US, that is going to make everything more expensive for consumers. Also, if possible it is American corporate culture to raise prices to the highest the market will take to maximize profit. So in the rare cases as simple as you example the American companies are going to raise there prices to be just low enough to beat the Chinese or match them if they feel Americans will pick their products over Alternatives.
Trump can't have it both ways, it can't raise billions of dollars and not raise prices. It is going to raise prices, and more than you think because if middle people are involved they are going to add their mark up to the raised cost of their materials or end sale goods.
It is going to be really bad for Americans as far as prices go. And considering most of the world thinks Trump will back down, who is going to invest the billions it would take to move their production state side? Hell I'm not sure they would do it if they knew Trump was going to do it for his entire term.
It is simply bad policy.
|
Thanks for the thoughtful replies, all. The point regarding excessively huge tariffs giving domestic companies breathing room to increase their prices highlights the other point made regarding the need for tariffs to be precise.
I think most of us agree precise tariffs would be great for lots of critical manufacturing. Its important for any major nation to have the skills to make materials, medicines, and other critical components of keeping the lights on. We would be harming ourselves if we let those industries rot domestically to save a dollar.
At this point, all I can really do is hope the whole world decides appeasing the US is necessary in the short term while they work out ways to decouple from the American hegemony. Very similar to the decision made with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia was an asshole, but it was also impossible to just cut them off overnight.
I want to make a point very directly because I think its a worthwhile devil's advocate of sorts. Russia, Iran, and other adversarial countries benefit enormously from framing themselves as irrational actors. Countries who walk off a cliff because they know other countries will catch them are able to reap incredible benefits by other countries being critically connected to them. Trump actually walking off this cliff and setting in motion a collapse of the world economy would be so destructive it would clearly make sense to simply appease Trump. I think this is only a card the US can play once, but its possible it would turn out to be unbelievably beneficial if we pull it off.
Just like how we've all discussed Europe's pitiful reaction to Russia was largely due to their robust and well-preserved democracies, these same weaknesses also tie the hands of many other nations. Even though there's all this talk of unity and whatnot and everyone is extra fired up to disengage from the US, these perspectives would quickly vanish if Europe's unemployment rate doubled. People would be saying "I hate the US and I want us to make sure this never happens again, but if we are unprepared to wage this trade war, I want to surrender and live to fight another day".
I say all this knowing I truly have no way of understanding what the "real" situation is. Maybe the world really can simply isolate the US and force the US to backtrack without feeling pressure within their democracies. Maybe they'd just get an uptick in inflation while mostly weathering the storm. I truly don't know.
But everything I've learned from Russia and Iran indicates the costs of decisively fighting back against international belligerence is way too high for most countries to actually consider. Right now everything feels like a huge game of chicken and I really think its possible the US pulls off a heist but then needing to find a new way to maintain their control over the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
