|
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 |
On September 04 2025 21:14 KwarK wrote:
Tillerson lacked the experience and confidence to lead the state department and was routinely bullied by his own staff. It took a man with the strength of character of Marco Rubio, who Trump famously described as incapable of running one of his smaller companies, to get the state department in line. That is why the state department was able to achieve as much as it identifies as having achieved. Rubio has achieved so much boat rocking, the boat is rocking all over the place, it’s taking on water, people are grabbing life jackets, we’re winning so hard.
people wanted to shake things up by voting for the human hand grenade - twice.
great success! the boat catching fire and leaking from drunken sailors like Hegseth... just happy little accidents on a super power level.
|
On September 04 2025 19:24 LightSpectra wrote:oBlade's an expert on management, he was the one who came up with the brilliant idea of canceling out tariffs by firing your social media manager. Maybe we should listen to him despite almost every sentence immediately contradicting the previous one.
Okay I see we're taking old stuff we failed to understand and bringing it up out of nowhere.
Tariff passthrough to consumer is not 100% - it just isn't, people measure it. It's not 0%, but it's not 100%. It's a tax on importers (companies). But we can even assume it could be, or is, 100%, for argument.
Do you believe the corporate tax rate should be 0% because a tax above 0% gets "passed on" to be paid by "someone" - in part or in whole by, invariably, Americans? And since Americans shouldn't pay tax, that should be 0%? I don't. This is a question, not an accusation. You can be against taxes on companies if you want but you have to grapple with yourself to figure out what you believe.
On September 04 2025 21:14 KwarK wrote:
Tillerson lacked the experience and confidence to lead the state department and was routinely bullied by his own staff. It took a man with the strength of character of Marco Rubio, who Trump famously described as incapable of running one of his smaller companies, to get the state department in line. That is why the state department was able to achieve as much as it identifies as having achieved. Rubio has achieved so much boat rocking, the boat is rocking all over the place, it’s taking on water, people are grabbing life jackets, we’re winning so hard.
Experience and confidence he had. Don't pay attention to whoever told you otherwise. Nor was he bullied.
He lacked the specific competence and vision to understand where he was. Companies have external pressures. If you fail, eventually you have to face the consequences of that. The public sector these days rewards the opposite of efficiency. If you fail, you need more money and people. The external pressure and incentives have to be created - this is called "leadership." Tillerson's biggest failure was old his ways served him so well that they betrayed him - he was used to being top dog, and everyone told him what he wanted to hear, which is that he was right and his boss was wrong. In the process he got tricked by the basic error of confusing what is "possible" with what "is." Secretary of State is the highest cabinet position in the line of succession, supposed to be a prestigious and significant role, and Tillerson had almost no impact and influence in the administration, he reduced himself to a sulking know-it-all. Probably a good leader for oil, but a shitty team member anywhere normal.
Trump could have described Marco Rubio as an unripe pomegranate. I don't care what he said. It has zero bearing on whether Rubio's better, most notably for this reason:
KwarK: Blumpf fired Rex Tillerson, this means he's a genius MBA manager (he's not) who did his best to lasso Trump but failed.
KwarK: Blumpf said something mean about Rubio years ago, this means Rubio is incompetent.
These don't fit. The inconsistency shows that you also don't really care what Trump said, meaning it's a mystery who you are trying to fool with this selective reference to Trump's opinion.
Otherwise let us know the achievements of Rex Tillerson the MBA (he's not, never was, and never will be an MBA) during his tenure at State. I never considered the possibility Trump fired him for being too competent but I'm certainly willing to entertain it.
|
that's quite a lot of words to say you choose to believe "tariff passthrough is between 0 and 100 percent - but definitely not 100 to the consumer!"
I would love to take a peek at the voodoo math behind people measuring that one too as you are totally on the case here. Ron Vara as an expert does not count though.
also the new South Park is fire. totally makes up for bad episode 3.
With no end in sight, National Guard troops deployed to DC grow weary @CNN
‘Yeah, this is crazy’
For a mission that already carries a price tag of about $1 million a day, costs are continuing to mount. Expenses include an estimated $7 million in catered food for the first 10 weeks and $5 million for 18 weeks of laundry services, according to a CNN review of contracts.
An additional $5 million for a tent city has also been approved, the contracts show, along with $600,000 in air conditioning rental and more than $500,000 for land mobile radios.
The public sector these days rewards the opposite of efficiency. If you fail, you need more money and people. The external pressure and incentives have to be created - this is called "leadership."-oBlade
Amen to that brother.
|
United States44177 Posts
He kept the boat from sinking despite a pill popping reality tv star at the wheel. That’s the achievement.
It’s so weird to me that you can’t see that. You look at the Tillerson era and criticize it for the inside of the boat being dry while comparing it to the unstable Rubio boat that has water sloshing in. We’re not even disagreeing on what is going on with the boat, you’re arguing that the water is meant to be on the inside.
|
United States44177 Posts
Also Trump didn't just say "something mean". He literally said that Rubio wasn't qualified to run things. You took that quote which is extremely relevant to whether Trump thinks Rubio is qualified to run the State Department, didn't know what to do with it, changed it to "something mean", then dismissed it as irrelevant to the question of whether Rubio is qualified.
|
On September 04 2025 22:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2025 19:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 04 2025 16:27 KwarK wrote:
Lol oBlade's an expert on management, he was the one who came up with the brilliant idea of canceling out tariffs by firing your social media manager. Maybe we should listen to him despite almost every sentence immediately contradicting the previous one. Okay I see we're taking old stuff we failed to understand and bringing it up out of nowhere. Tariff passthrough to consumer is not 100% - it just isn't, people measure it. It's not 0%, but it's not 100%. It's a tax on importers (companies). But we can even assume it could be, or is, 100%, for argument. Do you believe the corporate tax rate should be 0% because a tax above 0% gets "passed on" to be paid by "someone" - in part or in whole by, invariably, Americans? And since Americans shouldn't pay tax, that should be 0%? I don't. This is a question, not an accusation. You can be against taxes on companies if you want but you have to grapple with yourself to figure out what you believe. Show nested quote +On September 04 2025 21:14 KwarK wrote:
Tillerson lacked the experience and confidence to lead the state department and was routinely bullied by his own staff. It took a man with the strength of character of Marco Rubio, who Trump famously described as incapable of running one of his smaller companies, to get the state department in line. That is why the state department was able to achieve as much as it identifies as having achieved. Rubio has achieved so much boat rocking, the boat is rocking all over the place, it’s taking on water, people are grabbing life jackets, we’re winning so hard. Experience and confidence he had. Don't pay attention to whoever told you otherwise. Nor was he bullied. He lacked the specific competence and vision to understand where he was. Companies have external pressures. If you fail, eventually you have to face the consequences of that. The public sector these days rewards the opposite of efficiency. If you fail, you need more money and people. The external pressure and incentives have to be created - this is called "leadership." Tillerson's biggest failure was old his ways served him so well that they betrayed him - he was used to being top dog, and everyone told him what he wanted to hear, which is that he was right and his boss was wrong. In the process he got tricked by the basic error of confusing what is "possible" with what "is." Secretary of State is the highest cabinet position in the line of succession, supposed to be a prestigious and significant role, and Tillerson had almost no impact and influence in the administration, he reduced himself to a sulking know-it-all. Probably a good leader for oil, but a shitty team member anywhere normal. Trump could have described Marco Rubio as an unripe pomegranate. I don't care what he said. It has zero bearing on whether Rubio's better, most notably for this reason: KwarK: Blumpf fired Rex Tillerson, this means he's a genius MBA manager (he's not) who did his best to lasso Trump but failed. KwarK: Blumpf said something mean about Rubio years ago, this means Rubio is incompetent. These don't fit. The inconsistency shows that you also don't really care what Trump said, meaning it's a mystery who you are trying to fool with this selective reference to Trump's opinion. Otherwise let us know the achievements of Rex Tillerson the MBA (he's not, never was, and never will be an MBA) during his tenure at State. I never considered the possibility Trump fired him for being too competent but I'm certainly willing to entertain it.
Oblade you are again conflating a tax on profits of corpations with Tariffs. Corporations do not just pass taxes on to customers when they are taxed on their profits.
Tariffs are not just a tax on profits, they are a tax in inputs, outputs, etc regardless if you made a profit or not. That will be passed onto the consumer.
Tariffs are fine to protect specific industries or things like that. Blanket tariffs on all imports is just a tax on Americans.
|
United States44177 Posts
On September 04 2025 23:33 Sadist wrote:
Blanket tariffs on all imports is just a tax on Americans.
But not a fair tax, nor a tax in line with any existing Federal tax policy, this is a consumption tax. If you’re poor and your money all gets spent then the effective rate is much higher than if you’re rich and buy stocks and rental houses with your surplus income.
|
Ok, frontloaded vs backloaded aside. If the government decides to raise corpo tax by 5%... what do you think they'll do?
|
On September 03 2025 10:42 Shinokuki wrote:
Genuinely curious but is fascism good for billionares?
Absolutely. 75% of german billionaires inherited their non-publicly traded company or family wealth based upon such a company from parents and grandparents pre-dating the 3rd Reich.
It was especially the mega-wealthy that supported the "little guy from austria" and protected him from Fallout after his failed attempt of a coup in 1923.
They needed a ultra-charismatic leader that would get rid of socialist and communist advancements, at all times they firmly believed to "Stay in control".
Well... they mostly did well anyway, as war always left them an heir not to be crushed by the war-machine, and also in Post WWII germany, the De-Nazifikation pushed heavily for old-school capitalists and industrialists - also including nazi-benefectors and enablers.
|
On September 04 2025 23:41 Uldridge wrote:
Ok, frontloaded vs backloaded aside. If the government decides to raise corpo tax by 5%... what do you think they'll do?
.
Use the tax law to circumvent the additional 5%
If you think they would raise prices 5% you are mistaken.
|
On September 04 2025 23:41 Uldridge wrote:
Ok, frontloaded vs backloaded aside. If the government decides to raise corpo tax by 5%... what do you think they'll do?
Spend 5% less money on stock buybacks or dividend payments, and instead give that money to the IRS.
It's insane to think that a company could already make more money, but wasn't, but a 5% increase in tax on their profits is going to cause them to raise prices/fire employees: a tax on profits doesn't change the equation on what is your best course of action. It just changes the reward.
Long term a corporate tax can change the equation for investments: a bank/individual/hedge fund is less likely to buy stock if the profit is lower. But with how the stock market right now is entirely decoupled from reality, I don't think even that effect would materialize.
A tariff is very different. OBlade isn't wrong that the investors might take some of the hit, and it'd work a bit like a corporate tax. But that's only the case for companies already making a healthy profit. If the company is barely breaking even, then they need to cut costs (fire their social media publicist) or raise prices to cover their additional costs.
|
Massie Exposes White House Threats Against Him Over Epstein Petition: "The Republican representative is facing pressure from Trump’s White House over a discharge petition requiring the release of the Epstein files."
"“There’s an immense pressure campaign from the White House on Republican members right now,” he said. In his own district, he explained, “there’s been $2.5 million of ads run against me by three billionaires who are mega-donors to the Republican Party. And one of them is actually, I’m not going to say on Epstein’s list, but he’s in Epstein’s black book.”"
|
|
|
On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly.
When did I do this?
But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal.
The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open.
What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right?
|
United States44177 Posts
Look, just because he’s doing exactly the same things a Russian asset would do and Russian state efforts helped elect him does not mean you can just call him a Russian asset with no proof. What if he’s only carrying out Russian state policy as a coincidence? What then?
|
It would be less embarrassing if he were a Russian asset but he's not, these are all unforced errors.
I thought maybe he'd wake up in the eleventh hour and stop torpedoing his alliances after seeing Putin take the piss of his Alaska meeting then immediately go hold hands with Xi and Kim talking about a new world order (hint: with the US not on the top rung). But no, he's intellectually irredeemable.
On September 05 2025 04:57 KwarK wrote:Look, just because he’s doing exactly the same things a Russian asset would do and Russian state efforts helped elect him does not mean you can just call him a Russian asset with no proof. What if he’s only carrying out Russian state policy as a coincidence? What then?
Trump is not good at acting, he's emotionally honest (if in no other way) and you can see he is genuinely hopeful whenever he reaches out to Putin for negotiations and genuinely hurt whenever Putin ignores his pleas again. But somehow he never learns from it???
He keeps thinking if only he finds the correct combination of bluster, knee-slapping and git-er-done attitude Putin will be in awe of him, forget about his objectives and motivations, and reward Trump with a win. It would almost make me feel sad for him if he weren't a rapist.
|
On September 05 2025 05:16 Dan HH wrote:It would be less embarrassing if he were a Russian asset but he's not, these are all unforced errors. I thought maybe he'd wake up in the eleventh hour and stop torpedoing his alliances after seeing Putin take the piss of his Alaska meeting then immediately go hold hands with Xi and Kim talking about a new world order (hint: with the US not on the top rung). But no, he's intellectually irredeemable.
We're talking about a guy who got bailed out by Russian money in the 80's, when none of the American banks trusted him anymore, and then started spreading anti-NATO propaganda immediately afterwards. In several of his buildings the majority of the offices/apartments were bought by Russian shell companies. As soon as he was inaugurated, he dismantled the team responsible for the anti-Russian sanctions. His head of intelligence services (Tulsi Gabbard) put a wrench into any activities aimed at Russia. While this government is certainly incompetent, there are too many of those "unforced errors" to not consider this deliberate. Helping Russia is pretty much the only thing they're successful at.
|
Pretty wild times we live in when there is a legitimate argument on whether the sitting US president is an actual Russian asset, or if he is just so darn ignorant he is helping their interests in spite of Americas. The entire greatest generation must be rolling over in their graves.
|
The reason why I'm leaning towards either Trump or people in his government being Russian assets (Trump's history with the Russian dirty money aside) is because none of this stuff puts America first, as they ostensibly claim. I could understand if Trump was hurting America's allies to benefit the US, but what he's doing is hurting not just Europe but also the US itself and benefits Russia.
|
I'm still convinced the entire reason the Alaska meeting happened is so that Putin could get some alone time with Trump, which he got in the limo ride, to remind him that Russia has him by the balls after Trump went around criticizing Putin a little to much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
