|
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 July 16 2026 01:29 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2026 23:26 oBlade wrote:
You have a stance? What is it? You said companies passed through to consumers in the vast majority of cases. Did I strawman you or just reveal you haven't thought this through? What's your stance? Companies happily pay every tax out of their own pockets with a smile EXCEPT Drumpf tariffs which magically have almost 100% passthrough? That sounds less consistent than the other way.
I said that yours, and general right wing explanation on why taxing companies more is a bad idea is that they'll just pass that on to consumers so there is no point, if you paid attention to what I wrote you would have caught that, but that would require a level of reading comprehension you don't seem to be able to reach.
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
On July 16 2026 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +Nor did SCOTUS order them refunded. This was one of the key points of Kavanaugh's dissent: Why are we ruling against this while completely ignoring the issues it raises of what to do about tax already collected under this. This is old so you should have known that already.
I certainly agree it would have been better had SCOTUS explicitly ruled on the issue against refunds. You'd need more Justice Thomases probably. This really is a gem. First the notion that you should rule in favor of something simply because ruling against would be troublesome. No regard for interpreting the rule of law, which is their job, no SCOTUS should judge based on how annoying it would be to fix.
You can have injunctive relief against future such tariffs regardless of whether you refund or not. They're independent. You can ban the tariffs. You can then separately order total refunds, or no refunds, you can specify in great detail the process and mechanism of refunds. SCOTUS did none of those. They banned the tariffs and then ignored it. You can go on about "their job" but meanwhile they didn't rule on the issue at all. Not that they are incapable of doing it. You think courts can't rule no-take-backs based on something being annoying to fix? They can and do. SCOTUS can and has done. If "undoing" it results in other, worse problems. If it's not worth it. If it's physically impossible, or impossible to do adequately. The same exact composition of justices that are seated on SCOTUS right this minute ruled in the exact way you think can't happen two years ago on not returning inequitable bankruptcy fees.
On July 16 2026 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
And secondly the US government illegally garnered taxes, the notion that they should get to keep it once ruled illegal is 'interesting'.
If this was the IRS overcharging your personal taxes and going 'woops, oh well guess we will keep all this sucker' would have you shouting that others should charge the building with guns in your name. But because the government didn't personally steal from you its ok for them to keep it?
I was told corporations aren't people? I'm certainly not going to bat for them when they wouldn't bother for me if the IRS made a mistake like you said.
|
On July 16 2026 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
You have, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through but I'm pretty sure it was during the previous tariff discussions.
|
The real question is, given that tariffs didn’t generate any money for the government, just costs of implementing and legal battles. Didn’t bring any manufacturing back to the US. Upset foreign customers and suppliers, creating legal tariffs against the US. Causing customers to find new more reliable partners, making these new buying patterns “sticky”.
Is everyone willing to admit this is another flag ship Trump policy that is an abject failure causing nothing but pain for no gain? And then the more difficult question is, has this been his worst policy?
|
On July 16 2026 03:20 Billyboy wrote:Is everyone willing to admit this is another flag ship Trump policy that is an abject failure causing nothing but pain for no gain? And then the more difficult question is, has this been his worst policy? Worst might depend on what parameters your judging with but even if your just looking at the economy the Iran war is probably worse.
That is probably the #1 biggest failure, so far, of the Trump administration. Regardless of what metric you use because it is just so utterly awful in every single regard.
|
On July 16 2026 03:16 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
You have, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through but I'm pretty sure it was during the previous tariff discussions.
Are you for or against taxing companies?
|
On July 16 2026 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 03:20 Billyboy wrote:Is everyone willing to admit this is another flag ship Trump policy that is an abject failure causing nothing but pain for no gain? And then the more difficult question is, has this been his worst policy? Worst might depend on what parameters your judging with but even if your just looking at the economy the Iran war is probably worse. That is probably the #1 biggest failure, so far, of the Trump administration. Regardless of what metric you use because it is just so utterly awful in every single regard.
I wonder if our resident MAGAs will now explain why it really was the best thing since sliced bread, or deflect to something else. My guess is the latter.
|
On July 16 2026 03:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2026 03:20 Billyboy wrote:Is everyone willing to admit this is another flag ship Trump policy that is an abject failure causing nothing but pain for no gain? And then the more difficult question is, has this been his worst policy? Worst might depend on what parameters your judging with but even if your just looking at the economy the Iran war is probably worse. That is probably the #1 biggest failure, so far, of the Trump administration. Regardless of what metric you use because it is just so utterly awful in every single regard. I wonder if our resident MAGAs will now explain why it really was the best thing since sliced bread, or deflect to something else. My guess is the latter.
We are going to hear about tariffs and the Iran war (when if it concludes) as much as we hear about the wall.
|
On July 16 2026 03:42 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 03:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 16 2026 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
You have, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through but I'm pretty sure it was during the previous tariff discussions. Are you for or against taxing companies?
Tariffs aren't a tax on corporations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
|
On July 16 2026 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 03:42 oBlade wrote:On July 16 2026 03:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 16 2026 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
You have, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through but I'm pretty sure it was during the previous tariff discussions. Are you for or against taxing companies? Tariffs aren't a tax on corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
Tariffs are overwhelmingly paid by corporations. It's not even close. If they weren't paid by A they couldn't "pass through" to B to begin with.
Your statement that tariffs are not categorically a tax on corporations, in response to a question not directed at you, which you also failed to answer, while correct, is about as significant an observation as informing us that porcupines are not a tax on corporations. Which is also true, but that's why the question is specifically, "Are you for or against taxing companies?" and not "Are you for or against porcupines?" It asks exactly what it asks. It's not a complicated question.
What are the next gymnastics to avoid grappling with the inevitable "Oh shit how do I explain how taxing companies somehow doesn't pass through to consumers so it's not bad like Blumpf's tariffs which are 100% passthrough according to my canon?"
|
United States44191 Posts
On July 15 2026 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2026 13:51 dyhb wrote:On July 15 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 15 2026 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2026 01:28 Simberto wrote:On July 14 2026 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2026 23:00 Billyboy wrote:
Only if he dies before selling blanket pardons. Pretty sure the ICC doesn't give a shit about US pardons. Ofcourse the main issue is the US not recognising the ICC, and a Bush era law that the US declares war on the Netherlands if the ICC tries to enforce them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes. It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony. To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly  But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part. This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire. Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc. I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'. Trump's the one that asks how international norms and rules help the American interest and how much it's gonna cost. Past Republicans took it as given that free trade and international agreements would always help the US. The left fringe of Democrats ask how American laws can be subordinated to international bodies for the global interest. The moderate/center of the Democrats want increased foreign outlays and foreign agreements funded by the US, but are divided on state sovereignty. Trump sees every agreement, every treaty and every aspect of politics as purely transactional, and more importantly a zero sum game. The idea that norms and rules are mutually beneficial doesn’t cross his mind because in order to win you need to make someone lose. What it means is that Trump is totally oblivious to the notion of soft power, which has arguably been the US greatest asset since the end of the Cold War. Trump had absolutely obliterated a world order that was incredibly beneficial to the US because he is too stupid to understand it. DOGE is a perfect example. Not only did it save millions of lives, it was amazingly well spent money when it comes to the US presence and image in some of the poorest places in the world. But hey, your grand children tax money was spent saving black kids that don’t have anything to eat, and you can’t have that. At least, Trump’s unbelievably stupid policies keep the deplorables loyal to him so it does serve a purpose.
And a lot of USAID was a jobs/stimulus program in the US. There’s a difference between the gleeful dismantling of USAID by Musk and the defunding of medical research that uses transgenic mice by DOGE.
|
On July 16 2026 04:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:On July 16 2026 03:42 oBlade wrote:On July 16 2026 03:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 16 2026 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
You have, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through but I'm pretty sure it was during the previous tariff discussions. Are you for or against taxing companies? Tariffs aren't a tax on corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff Tariffs are overwhelmingly paid by corporations. It's not even close
You can't validly respond to "I'm against tariffs", which are by definition a tax that is not specifically on corporations, with "so you're against taxing corporations?" This is logic you should have learned in middle school math, if not basic human intuition.
|
Don’t taxes generally raise money for the government, ChatGPT seems think these are going to end up as a net loser.
I’m sure Trump has personally profited but America sure has not.
|
Tariffs were historically more about encouraging domestic manufacturing rather than raising revenue. Although that obviously isn't going to work if you have a demented 80 year old moron changing the rates every day on random whims, since far more important in industry than taxes and duties is certainty. Nobody's going to spend billions of dollars over the course of years to open a factory if they expect the tariffs to disappear tomorrow because the POTUS forgot what his twitter feud last week was about.
|
More proof that the Israel & AIPAC question is the primary one that divides Democrats. I've brought this up a few times in the past. Today's floor vote on an amendment ending $3.3 billion in assistance to Israel had 103 Democrats in favor of ending aid, and 98 Democrats against ending aid. 103-98 is about as evenly divided of an issue as you can get. Jeffries (top Democrat) voted no, but Katherine Clark (Number 2 Democrat) and Nancy Pelosi (former House speaker) voted yes. AOC and the rest of the squad yes. 10 Presents (All D) and everybody except Massie opposed for the GOP.
|
On July 16 2026 06:45 LightSpectra wrote:
Tariffs were historically more about encouraging domestic manufacturing rather than raising revenue. Although that obviously isn't going to work if you have a demented 80 year old moron changing the rates every day on random whims, since far more important in industry than taxes and duties is certainty. Nobody's going to spend billions of dollars over the course of years to open a factory if they expect the tariffs to disappear tomorrow because the POTUS forgot what his twitter feud last week was about.
Random whim for up, bribe for down.
|
On July 16 2026 06:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2026 04:43 oBlade wrote:On July 16 2026 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:On July 16 2026 03:42 oBlade wrote:On July 16 2026 03:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 16 2026 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't think I've ever said taxing companies is a bad idea because they pass on taxes to consumers in my life. Right-wingers? Maybe, you'd have to ask them.
You have, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through but I'm pretty sure it was during the previous tariff discussions. Are you for or against taxing companies? Tariffs aren't a tax on corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff Tariffs are overwhelmingly paid by corporations. It's not even close You can't validly respond to "I'm against tariffs", which are by definition a tax that is not specifically on corporations, with "so you're against taxing corporations?" This is logic you should have learned in middle school math, if not basic human intuition.
Luckily, I didn't do that.
|
|
|
Oh boy, if you are excited about this stunt, get a load of this:
Now Americans can have a fake gold dollar with a pedophiles face on it to go along with their passport and national park pass.
I personally kind of like that it reads a bit like the obituary for Liberty in the USA.
|
Spoken like the only good ignorant, bigoted, Christian nationalist, white supremacist podcaster is a dead ignorant, bigoted, Christian nationalist, white supremacist podcaster. Give it a rest for fuck’s sake, you’ve already made him a martyr.
|
We should all care about Kirk approximately as much as his widow (i.e. not at all).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/5db5ca5d-e269-46ee-856c-9ef2336598ae/trump-coin-ht-gmh-260715_1784139791466_hpMain.jpg)
