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.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote: So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering.
It does leave me rather confused why that would have you voting and defending Trump unless the issues are weighted where immigration holds the balance against everything else.
For instance, you think NATO should be stronger. Do you think Trump makes it stronger, more united, more likely to come to each others aid with Article 5? What do you think about all his talk about wanting to leave NATO and how no-one has every come to the defence of the US (Afghanistan post-9/11)?
Yeah NATO is stronger when US military is stronger which it is under Trump (recruitment up, better recruitment, actual focus on effectiveness), and when partner militaries are stronger, which Stoltenberg acknowledged Trump got them to commit to.
Questions about Trump's easily understood unpredictable rhetoric, in the past, before things that have already been decided now, are move on type things. Like I get it if Trump says something seemingly capricious today, we're in the moment and we get to live with the uncertainty and interpret that and predict the consequences. But then once we get the consequences (i.e. a noninvaded Canada) then still harping on he said XYZ that predated the actual outcome we get... it's hysteria.
Remember the goal at the outset was simply explain I'm not a conservative, now if we want to go beyond that and challenge these now random issues, okay.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote: I can understand not liking ACA if you want single payer instead... does Trump get you closer to that? Him and his 'concepts of a plan?' Is US healthcare in a better or worse position with anti-vax RFK Jr in charge?
No one has any single payer plan. No one has the political capital to make it happen. Nobody has the shrewdness to make a deal, and especially Democrats don't know how to make such a deal. If any of them had a single payer implementation to begin with, which they don't. To get to single payer you somehow have to detach all health insurance departments from publicly traded companies and have the government buy them out or something. Neither party will ever make it happen. Sure I like steaks but I'm ordering from a hot dog stand. Get it?
RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz have both targeted Medicare and other fraud. TrumpRX is a success. They brought back the most favored nations drug pricing rule that Biden threw out (remember Biden, the guy from the other team who was the alternative to vote for).
Anti-vaxx is it's not NECESSARY to vaccinate infants for hepatitis B when their mother has tested negative for hepatitis B.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote: You say you want higher taxes on higher incomes... is that what Trump is doing?
In theory I want taxes on higher incomes, or lower taxes on lower incomes (which Trump's tax cuts do) which means the same relatively. What taxes are in relation to is spending, which is really difficult to cut. When spending is cut and the debt starts to decrease I will have a deep discussion about tax brackets.
When Trump brought in a world-renowned entrepreneur, and long-term Democrat supporter, to help find cuts, the left turned on the Nazi afterburners in reaction to him. This is the immune system of the uniparty trying to keep itself fed and in power. There's no cuts on the horizon from the Democrat party which is an enormous problem for the future.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote: re: crypto You are against the public crypto grifting- so what of Trump's crypto and the multitude of methods he has created to personally enrich himself in this second administration? I thought the SNC Lavelin and WE Canada scandals were outrageous in Canada, but the corruption I'm seeing from Trump office... the Richter scale would need to be used in orders of magnitude.
I already told you I was against the memecoin.
Otherwise elaborate "multitude of methods" because this is an argument from "uh well just look, everything."
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote: re: Free Trade Or your position on Free Trade. Ok, I can understand some sort of tariff policy with China as dependency on China could be a legitimate concern. Does Trump's tax war on the entire world align with that view? If the US has a trade deficit with Canada, have we been cheating you Americans for years, treating you very badly, the worst country to deal with yadayada?
Is Trump being honest when he says tariffs are paid by the targeted countries? Does America need to eliminate every trade deficit with every country in order to stop getting ripped off?
You can get trade deficits from 2 ways I know: the intervention of one country's protectionist and monetary policy, and market mechanics. If the first happens, it's that country's fault. If the second gets really bad, it's nobody's fault, or the home country's fault, if it's a problem it still needs to be addressed. For Canada they've had some quotas and tariffs about dairy. In general it's not very exploitative or disadvantageous of an economic relationship. I already said the number doesn't have to be $0 everywhere.
Tariffs are paid by importers, which are overwhelmingly (99%+) companies. This is why I find it perplexing when people who support higher corporate tax rates, not that you are in that group, go off on Trump's tariffs. Tariffs hurt or are inconvenient for target countries (they "pay" in a metaphorical sense), which you acknowledge in a bit with Switzerland.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote: re: Executive Orders No, I know not all executive orders are to do with emergencies. But as taxation rests with Congress, do you think America is in a constant state of emergency that when he is tariffing the world, it requires executive orders from the president. 30% to the Swiss. 39% after he gets off the phone with a woman on the Swiss council (or "prime-minister" according to Trump). 15% when the Swiss billionaires come a knocking. Are these all emergency situations?
I would say the emergency lets him use the power. The circumstances let him change the rate. Like the fire lets you call 911. The situation lets them send more or fewer trucks.
Congress delegated that authority to the president. They retain the power to override it. They haven't done that. This means either 1) it's a good policy so they haven't overridden it, and/or 2) they are slow and incompetent and incapable of passing something to adjust a tariff after almost a year
Since you believe the Swiss billionaires cause a lowering of tariffs, it's presumably you think the Swiss billionaires benefit from lower tariffs and are harmed by higher tariffs, which suggests you understand the policy has merit. To which I again point to #2 - Congress is incapable of implementing fast adjustments and I find the tariff powers they delegated to the president to synergize well with his own Article II stated powers of negotiation and foreign policy. Okay 15% with Swiss billionaires intervening. What about the tariff levels Congress set on Switzerland? Better or worse for Swiss billionaires than 15%?
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote: Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Last year was a speech on the exact same topic with the same core content aimed at the core Republicans in the US. This year they got somebody that cares about how Europe reacts to a speech about Europe to write it. So it is a better speech, but is it different when you go to the core of it?
It is very similar, yes. It's not just aimed at a domestic audience though. What's so funny about all of this is that rather than being some American imperialism this is the opposite. Telling them to get it together and that the US wants a change in relations in response to a change in the global situation. A thing that has been in the works for decades now. I suspect that to our European allies "softpower" just means doing what they want. Those days were always going to end, there are other areas that need attention. And if Europe is so great as they say, they ought to able to handle it. It's been 5 years since Russia invaded Ukraine?
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote: Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Democrats derangement syndrome in action again, can't talk about his preferred 2028 candidate who is obviously an incredibly morally dubious and completely unprincipled person without bringing up a smart, principled and well spoken person of color.
I'd be perplexed as to how can someone watch/read that speech full of outright lies that go directly against the stated US NSS and come away impressed, but, given that you are someone who supports Trump that absolutely makes sense.
I guess it also makes sense, when you are supporting a pedophile who's hell bent on destabilizing the world and you are pretending to be a non cult member, what else will you do except come here to attack a women who you feel threatened by.
By the way, still no answer regarding why USA healthcare is what it is, I'm still very curious how you will make that one about Democrats, but I'm sure you will find a way.
Rubio is the model Trump admin person. Does the job for the elected president, while still being able to advocate for his positions and occasionally get them through. He has his own opinions and policies but does not try to undermine the elected president.
AOC wasn't even prepared for a question about Taiwan. Not even a boilerplate non-answer. What she said would make Kamala Harris blush in embarrassment. Now does every politician have less than stellar moments? Of course. But she was totally unprepared. Moreover, House members are pretty much never elected president.
Is that what you were asking me? American haalthcare is not expensive for one reason but many. Much of goes back to something I said last week i think. Americans are so rich that they don't like the idea of tradeoffs and will just spend more or expect the government to spend more. But among the many however, are not reasons involving immigrants. Not sure where you are going with this, you aren't going to find the secret set of words that's going to make me say something I have repeatedly denied.
AOC is the congresswoman from New York, she provided a perfectly reasonable answer after thinking about it, I mean, fuck her for having to think a bit before blurting out something when it comes to things that can start WW3 and nuclear Armageddon, am I right?
So she gave a perfectly OK answer, basically, I hope it never comes to that and we should be doing everything with our soft power to make sure that question never needs to be asked.
And this was just a random part of a long town hall, did you watch all of it and just happened to run into this clip? Or, were you served this by your media bubble because they knew it would hit a dopamine receptor if someone you hate said hm and um a few times? Have you ever seen your president speak? As a reference, here's what he had to say:
It's my secret, I won't say it, and also here's a blatant lie about Chinese saying they'd never attack Taiwan if Trump is president.
About the healthcare, I'm asking what is the cause of that, USA spends more on healthcare, almost 50 % more then the next country on the list, Germany:
Germany, unlike USA has much better outcomes and no one is going bankrupt due to medical bills.
Why is that, don't you want politicians who are trying to address this? Which party in the USA holds the most responsibility for this disastrous system?
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote: Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Last year was a speech on the exact same topic with the same core content aimed at the core Republicans in the US. This year they got somebody that cares about how Europe reacts to a speech about Europe to write it. So it is a better speech, but is it different when you go to the core of it?
It is very similar, yes. It's not just aimed at a domestic audience though. What's so funny about all of this is that rather than being some American imperialism this is the opposite. Telling them to get it together and that the US wants a change in relations in response to a change in the global situation. A thing that has been in the works for decades now. I suspect that to our European allies "softpower" just means doing what they want. Those days were always going to end, there are other areas that need attention. And if Europe is so great as they say, they ought to able to handle it. It's been 5 years since Russia invaded Ukraine?
On February 15 2026 20:17 Jankisa wrote:
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote: Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Democrats derangement syndrome in action again, can't talk about his preferred 2028 candidate who is obviously an incredibly morally dubious and completely unprincipled person without bringing up a smart, principled and well spoken person of color.
I'd be perplexed as to how can someone watch/read that speech full of outright lies that go directly against the stated US NSS and come away impressed, but, given that you are someone who supports Trump that absolutely makes sense.
I guess it also makes sense, when you are supporting a pedophile who's hell bent on destabilizing the world and you are pretending to be a non cult member, what else will you do except come here to attack a women who you feel threatened by.
By the way, still no answer regarding why USA healthcare is what it is, I'm still very curious how you will make that one about Democrats, but I'm sure you will find a way.
Rubio is the model Trump admin person. Does the job for the elected president, while still being able to advocate for his positions and occasionally get them through. He has his own opinions and policies but does not try to undermine the elected president.
AOC wasn't even prepared for a question about Taiwan. Not even a boilerplate non-answer. What she said would make Kamala Harris blush in embarrassment. Now does every politician have less than stellar moments? Of course. But she was totally unprepared. Moreover, House members are pretty much never elected president.
Is that what you were asking me? American haalthcare is not expensive for one reason but many. Much of goes back to something I said last week i think. Americans are so rich that they don't like the idea of tradeoffs and will just spend more or expect the government to spend more. But among the many however, are not reasons involving immigrants. Not sure where you are going with this, you aren't going to find the secret set of words that's going to make me say something I have repeatedly denied.
AOC is the congresswoman from New York, she provided a perfectly reasonable answer after thinking about it, I mean, fuck her for having to think a bit before blurting out something when it comes to things that can start WW3 and nuclear Armageddon, am I right?
So she gave a perfectly OK answer, basically, I hope it never comes to that and we should be doing everything with our soft power to make sure that question never needs to be asked.
And this was just a random part of a long town hall, did you watch all of it and just happened to run into this clip? Or, were you served this by your media bubble because they knew it would hit a dopamine receptor if someone you hate said hm and um a few times? Have you ever seen your president speak? As a reference, here's what he had to say:
It's my secret, I won't say it, and also here's a blatant lie about Chinese saying they'd never attack Taiwan if Trump is president.
About the healthcare, I'm asking what is the cause of that, USA spends more on healthcare, almost 50 % more then the next country on the list, Germany:
Germany, unlike USA has much better outcomes and no one is going bankrupt due to medical bills.
Why is that, don't you want politicians who are trying to address this? Which party in the USA holds the most responsibility for this disastrous system?
"After having to think for a bit" lol.
American healthcare has lots of issues but I have no interest in discussing healthcare with you atm and I am not sure why you keep bringing it up except as a way back into an assertion I flatly denied.
AOC said nothing wrong or problematic regarding that question, she answered it in a very standard and normal way, only in your twisted mind steeped in right-wing misogyny and sexism is this a problematic answer. Of course, you had to also throw in another insult at another woman, just in case the point of who you are wasn't clear.
And of course, when that is laid out and compared to the president you stand behind, the answer is "lol".
I'm bringing healthcare up because it's the one issue that easily reveals how little what you are pretending to stand for makes sense, you can't have an internally consistent stance on it that fits in with your stated worldview, so, of course you would rather dodge the question repeatedly, because it reveals that your whole ideology is nonsense.
On February 17 2026 02:48 Jankisa wrote: AOC said nothing wrong or problematic regarding that question, she answered it in a very standard and normal way, only in your twisted mind steeped in right-wing misogyny and sexism is this a problematic answer. Of course, you had to also throw in another insult at another woman, just in case the point of who you are wasn't clear.
On February 16 2026 20:00 Doublemint wrote: it's funny that AOC slightly fumbling questions her first time in Munich somehow is the contrapoint to lil Marco doing damage control for his Bosses/The Don going scorched earth the year prior - and ever since.
Rubio (54) has been in the Senate since 2011, he already tried and failed to become the nominee of the R party - hence lil Marco.
AOC (36) joined Congress in 2019.
apples and oranges. both have ambitions though, no doubt about that.
It's pretty apples and apples. They were both speaking at the Munich Security Conference. Most try and fail before they succeed. Biden and Clinton and Harris all failed before succeeding, as it were. You put AOC and Rubio's ages and experience down as though we should have... higher expectations for competence from older men who have been in the Senate before and been in politics for nearly 3 decades, so that's interesting.
Here is AOC on the Rules Based Order at the Munich Security Conference:
And so I think what we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the west we look the other way for inconvenient populations um to act out these paradoxes.
Quite eloquent. Even used the word "paradoxes." That has to be an SAT boost.
Together we rebuilt a shattered continent in the wake of two devastating world wars. When we found ourselves divided once again by the Iron Curtain, the free West linked arms with the courageous dissidents struggling against tyranny in the East to defeat Soviet communism. We have fought against each other, then reconciled, then fought, then reconciled again. And we have bled and died side by side on battlefields from Kapyong to Kandahar.
And I am here today to leave it clear that America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity, and that once again we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies and our oldest friends.
We want to do it together with you, with a Europe that is proud of its heritage and of its history; with a Europe that has the spirit of creation of liberty that sent ships out into uncharted seas and birthed our civilization; with a Europe that has the means to defend itself and the will to survive. We should be proud of what we achieved together in the last century, but now we must confront and embrace the opportunities of a new one – because yesterday is over, the future is inevitable, and our destiny together awaits. Thank you.
Well gee he has a couple SAT words too but I found it much easier to understand what he meant. And I preferred it to the vague anti-westernism supplied by AOC.
On February 17 2026 02:48 Jankisa wrote: I'm bringing healthcare up because it's the one issue that easily reveals how little what you are pretending to stand for makes sense, you can't have an internally consistent stance on it that fits in with your stated worldview, so, of course you would rather dodge the question repeatedly, because it reveals that your whole ideology is nonsense.
This is debatelording. This is the definition. Do you want to talk about healthcare or try to prove someone else is wrong/an idiot/a hypocrite.
You have never once paid any heed to Introvert's or anyone's "stated worldview."
You cannot blame Introvert for not answering a question that you have offered zero substance or ideas about in the now 4? times you've asked him about it. When from the first time you asked it you have made up what he believes and accused him of defending it.
I cannot go to the polls and vote for "Introvert's whole ideology is nonsense." I cannot go to the bar and library and successfully spread an innovative message of "Introvert's whole ideology is nonsense." You have no idea what Introvert's ideology is despite being told repeatedly, by Introvert. How about this. What do YOU constructively have to add about healthcare, which is so important that you have brought it up multiple times now?
And I am here today to leave it clear that America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity, and that once again we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies and our oldest friends.
By threatening you, our cherished allies and oldest friends with invasions and by starting some more wars in order to steal other peoples oil.
And I am here today to leave it clear that America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity, and that once again we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies and our oldest friends.
By threatening you, our cherished allies and oldest friends with invasions and by starting some more wars in order to steal other peoples oil.
Shit makes you want to throw up.
Yet paradoxically rather than throwing up, at the end the audience stood up, and applauded. Giving him a standing ovation. Do you think Europe needs to rise up and get new representatives who will take the threat posed by the US more seriously?
And by stealing oil you're referring to Venezuela, right? I guess that war, the war in Venezuela, started on January 3rd. Is it still going on? When do you project it will end? For me it ended on January... 3rd, when the last US soldiers were brought out of Venezuela. Like the one day Iran war ended when the B2s landed. Though we may be going back soon.
@apolitical Oblade I would also add that "lil Marco" has the resources of the US State Department at his disposal so getting talking points and half way decent speeches going should be a no brainer.
so yeah, one should have higher expectations of Secretary Rubio in comparison to Congress Woman AOC.
even in the age of Trump and his best people where standards went off a cliff.
On February 17 2026 02:48 Jankisa wrote: AOC said nothing wrong or problematic regarding that question, she answered it in a very standard and normal way, only in your twisted mind steeped in right-wing misogyny and sexism is this a problematic answer. Of course, you had to also throw in another insult at another woman, just in case the point of who you are wasn't clear.
And of course, when that is laid out and compared to the president you stand behind, the answer is "lol".
I'm bringing healthcare up because it's the one issue that easily reveals how little what you are pretending to stand for makes sense, you can't have an internally consistent stance on it that fits in with your stated worldview, so, of course you would rather dodge the question repeatedly, because it reveals that your whole ideology is nonsense.
You've already been caught making unjustified assumptions recently so again I have no idea how a topic I've never discussed with you reveals some inconsistent beliefs. You should re-read your recent posts back to yourself in the mirror.
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote: Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Last year was a speech on the exact same topic with the same core content aimed at the core Republicans in the US. This year they got somebody that cares about how Europe reacts to a speech about Europe to write it. So it is a better speech, but is it different when you go to the core of it?
It is very similar, yes. It's not just aimed at a domestic audience though. What's so funny about all of this is that rather than being some American imperialism this is the opposite. Telling them to get it together and that the US wants a change in relations in response to a change in the global situation. A thing that has been in the works for decades now. I suspect that to our European allies "softpower" just means doing what they want. Those days were always going to end, there are other areas that need attention. And if Europe is so great as they say, they ought to able to handle it. It's been 5 years since Russia invaded Ukraine?
On February 15 2026 20:17 Jankisa wrote:
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote: Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Democrats derangement syndrome in action again, can't talk about his preferred 2028 candidate who is obviously an incredibly morally dubious and completely unprincipled person without bringing up a smart, principled and well spoken person of color.
I'd be perplexed as to how can someone watch/read that speech full of outright lies that go directly against the stated US NSS and come away impressed, but, given that you are someone who supports Trump that absolutely makes sense.
I guess it also makes sense, when you are supporting a pedophile who's hell bent on destabilizing the world and you are pretending to be a non cult member, what else will you do except come here to attack a women who you feel threatened by.
By the way, still no answer regarding why USA healthcare is what it is, I'm still very curious how you will make that one about Democrats, but I'm sure you will find a way.
Rubio is the model Trump admin person. Does the job for the elected president, while still being able to advocate for his positions and occasionally get them through. He has his own opinions and policies but does not try to undermine the elected president.
AOC wasn't even prepared for a question about Taiwan. Not even a boilerplate non-answer. What she said would make Kamala Harris blush in embarrassment. Now does every politician have less than stellar moments? Of course. But she was totally unprepared. Moreover, House members are pretty much never elected president.
Is that what you were asking me? American haalthcare is not expensive for one reason but many. Much of goes back to something I said last week i think. Americans are so rich that they don't like the idea of tradeoffs and will just spend more or expect the government to spend more. But among the many however, are not reasons involving immigrants. Not sure where you are going with this, you aren't going to find the secret set of words that's going to make me say something I have repeatedly denied.
AOC is the congresswoman from New York, she provided a perfectly reasonable answer after thinking about it, I mean, fuck her for having to think a bit before blurting out something when it comes to things that can start WW3 and nuclear Armageddon, am I right?
So she gave a perfectly OK answer, basically, I hope it never comes to that and we should be doing everything with our soft power to make sure that question never needs to be asked.
And this was just a random part of a long town hall, did you watch all of it and just happened to run into this clip? Or, were you served this by your media bubble because they knew it would hit a dopamine receptor if someone you hate said hm and um a few times? Have you ever seen your president speak? As a reference, here's what he had to say:
It's my secret, I won't say it, and also here's a blatant lie about Chinese saying they'd never attack Taiwan if Trump is president.
About the healthcare, I'm asking what is the cause of that, USA spends more on healthcare, almost 50 % more then the next country on the list, Germany:
Germany, unlike USA has much better outcomes and no one is going bankrupt due to medical bills.
Why is that, don't you want politicians who are trying to address this? Which party in the USA holds the most responsibility for this disastrous system?
"After having to think for a bit" lol.
This confused Introvert because they're so accustomed to voting for candidates that don't think at all.
Welcome to the world of oBlade, the enlightened centrist, who is not biased in any way as he presents (without source of course) AOC making a remark during a panel discussion and he compares it to the closing statement of a prepared speech that a team of people wrote for Rubio.
You are so, so very smart and good at debating, wow, no incel energy from you or your enlightened centrist colleague here, no sir!
I stated that Introvert's whole ideology is grievance, same as yours, but a different flavor, both of you have a debilitating and fucked up obsession with immigrants, specifically brown people, and both of you reek of incel behavior which is really, really obvious from your attacks on AOC here.
Introvert came to the thread initially to attack my comment from a week or so ago stating what I think your and his politics are, quoted me saying that I think he blames immigrants on shitty healthcare in USA and saying that's not his stance and I'm misconstruing him.
I then, asked him, repeatedly to explain what his actual stance was which he refuses, because he knows it's not consistent with him being on the right, because denying people healthcare is a core part of Republican and Republican adjacent political thought in the USA.
I, like all other people enjoying a much, much better healthcare system then the USA have the same question as I always do about this, why are you guys supporting people who not only staunchly stand to defend the current system, but also wholeheartedly oppose any attempts to fix it while having no plan to improve it themselves.
If you or your other incel friend can articulate the answer to that that for me without "but democrats" I'd be very happy.
They voted for a guy that unironically said there'd be less COVID cases if they stopped testing for them and are very sure they're smarter than a cum laude Boston University graduate. It's just the Dunning-Kruger effect combined with a little bit of bigotry, don't think too hard about it.
On February 17 2026 04:21 Jankisa wrote: Welcome to the world of oBlade, the enlightened centrist, who is not biased in any way as he presents (without source of course) AOC making a remark during a panel discussion and he compares it to the closing statement of a prepared speech that a team of people wrote for Rubio.
You are so, so very smart and good at debating, wow, no incel energy from you or your enlightened centrist colleague here, no sir!
I stated that Introvert's whole ideology is grievance, same as yours, but a different flavor, both of you have a debilitating and fucked up obsession with immigrants, specifically brown people, and both of you reek of incel behavior which is really, really obvious from your attacks on AOC here.
Introvert came to the thread initially to attack my comment from a week or so ago stating what I think your and his politics are, quoted me saying that I think he blames immigrants on shitty healthcare in USA and saying that's not his stance and I'm misconstruing him.
I then, asked him, repeatedly to explain what his actual stance was which he refuses, because he knows it's not consistent with him being on the right, because denying people healthcare is a core part of Republican and Republican adjacent political thought in the USA.
I, like all other people enjoying a much, much better healthcare system then the USA have the same question as I always do about this, why are you guys supporting people who not only staunchly stand to defend the current system, but also wholeheartedly oppose any attempts to fix it while having no plan to improve it themselves.
If you or your other incel friend can articulate the answer to that that for me without "but democrats" I'd be very happy.
I certainly don't want to hold it against AOC that despite her incredible promise, the misogynistic system has failed to invigorate talented speechwriters and other staff to work in her orbit (assuming Rubio doesn't still write his own speeches). So we can compare Rubio and AOC both speaking off-the-cuff. Easily. Pull up the quotes. Otherwise your racism shit falls flat. Unless you think AOC is browner than Marco Rubio or have some other weird racial theory you've picked up, I have no idea what is wrong with you that you think anyone is thinking anything about race except you.
The better question than why I'm supporting people who oppose any attempts to fix it while having no plan to improve it themselves, is why I'm responding to someone who has no plan to open a newspaper.
In his first term Trump instituted most favored nations pricing for Medicare drugs. Biden removed it when he came in. He literally did the thing you just claimed Republicans are guilty of. Trump reinstituted it in his 2nd term not just for Medicare, but this month they also launched TrumpRx for direct-to-consumer discounted pricing. Essentially the same role as Mark Cuban's private idea to get direct to consumer generics to reduce costs. Which is his website Cost Plus Drugs. But the difference is TrumpRx is a public way to link consumers with higher cost, proprietary drugs that need the leverage of the federal government to negotiate with (or mandate) the drug companies. That cuts prices in half at least. That was Trump. That was Republicans. They didn't oppose that. They created it. They are also the only side that pushes Association Health Plans for letting consumers freely pool risk to leverage in negotiation for better premiums and deductibles. Otherwise your risk is pooled with the other employees in the insurance through your employer, or your risk is pooled with the whole state you bought ACA insurance from via the Marketplace. They tried to do this by regulation in Trump's first term, but it didn't make it past federal court. Democrats again are the ones who oppose this because it hurts the insurance companies, same way they opposed drug negotiation because it hurts pharma companies.
You keep bringing up healthcare. Tell us constructively and proactively the plan both parties are supposed to have. In about 2 seconds of research you will realize there is no magic solution.
I find it very funny that you skipped over the misogyny part.
After you tried to make a false equivalence now you are trying to put onus on me to compare off the cuff statements from both, very rich of you buddy.
The racism part comes in (just like misogyny) because you and your incel colleague both have absolutely nothing to say about constant incoherent ramblings from Trump or insane hysterics of the AG, but you descended to attack AOC over completely normal and acceptable remarks at a panel discussion, prompted by nothing, in the rest of the world and within normal "centrist" American politics this is a non news, it's not even something that sparked interest outside of the right wing propaganda machine, but you guys felt the need to attack her, again, because you are at the very least sexist. The racist part is just seeing that the only thing that triggers you more then women are the "illegals".
I also find it very, very funny how you are, once again, unable to talk about anything without "but Biden" and "but Democrats". It's litterally reading like a mental illenss.
The magic solutions don't need to exist, there are about 150 examples of countries around the world with non magic solutions that work just fine, much, much better then they do in the USA.
Also, no wonder you are impressed by Trump's handling of drug prices, he did, after all, bring them down 900-1500 % .
You are, indeed, very smart, bigly, just like him.
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote: Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.)
What are you a centre on:
Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians.
I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO,
NATO should be stronger.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: war in Ukraine, Israel,
From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right.
My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted.
In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits?
"Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency?
Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress.
Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not.
I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Or what are your views on the ACA?
The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't.
The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection? And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'.
Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating.
Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection."
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations?
I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong.
The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June?
Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote: I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration.
#3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet.
Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies.
So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering.
On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote: In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories: a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.** b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.)
Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues.
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote: Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.)
What are you a centre on:
Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians.
I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO,
NATO should be stronger.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: war in Ukraine, Israel,
From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right.
My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted.
In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits?
"Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency?
Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress.
Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not.
I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Or what are your views on the ACA?
The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't.
The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection? And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'.
Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating.
Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection."
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations?
I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong.
The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June?
Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote: I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration.
#3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet.
Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote: Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies.
So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering.
On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote: In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories: a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.** b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.)
Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues.
Being to the left of republicans on 3 issues and that somehow making you a centrist is the perfect encapsulation of the republican party and politics in the US. If hes 95% in agreement with them hes still a republican, especially if he keeps voting for them. The republicans have so thoroughly convinced people that they have to fall in line and support the entirety of their platform, and their elected officials capitulate, that the above post can happen on TL.
Thats us politics. You have to fit into one of the 2 pre-designed boxes which are increasingly narrow.
The democrats should care about progressive immigration and environmental policy+calling the president a pedo. And the republicans should care about the opposite of those 2 things+anti woke. That at least is the dominating media narrative (its more nuanced in reality but many voters go with the media narrative). Or even more simple the republican voter should be happy with beeing anti leftwing and pro maga without this even beeing related to clear policy differences. If your opinion is anything else,more nuanced in any way or if you have different prioritys. Then us politics has no place for you and you should simply stfu.
Its not going to last. What is happening now is even worse then what led to Clinton losing in 2016. Ignoring an increasing large part of the voterbase and have their voice not represented. The only difference now is that it goes for both partys. The republicans are no longer seen as the savior messias alternative out of desperation which resulted in the first Trump win.
In europe its easy in such a situation. We simply start a new messias saviour party promising the world who gets 25% of the vote. Only to be obliterated 4 years later because they are not going to deliver either. This keeps the system going for a bit longer without anything having to really change. The us doesnt even have such an option,its kinda interesting to see how the voters will respond to this situation.
On February 16 2026 23:28 oBlade wrote: Since you believe the Swiss billionaires cause a lowering of tariffs, it's presumably you think the Swiss billionaires benefit from lower tariffs and are harmed by higher tariffs, which suggests you understand the policy has merit. To which I again point to #2 - Congress is incapable of implementing fast adjustments and I find the tariff powers they delegated to the president to synergize well with his own Article II stated powers of negotiation and foreign policy. Okay 15% with Swiss billionaires intervening. What about the tariff levels Congress set on Switzerland? Better or worse for Swiss billionaires than 15%?
Tariffs hurt the companies from the country that exports goods, and the companies and the citizens of the countries that import goods. Basically everyone but Trump. So it's no surprise that everyone benefits from lower tariffs (including swiss billionaires).
What's your take on the fact that the tariffs were 30%, then 39% when a lady "annoyed" him, then 15% when swiss billionaires bribed him with a 1kg gold bar and a rolex ?
EPT
