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 August 28 2026 01:16 LightSpectra wrote: It seems we're in agreement that nobody should care what Republican voters enraged by beef imports think.
Who? What voters?
Quote them.
You were asked this already.
It is not a gotcha question.
Quote who you are talking about. I'm not going in another troll circle playing whack-a-mole with a hallucinated caricature of a Republican voter. The question is not "Aha they don't exist." The question is you have to cite what you're actually talking about so everyone has the same information and is on the same page. What hits your subreddit might not hit my inbox.
You like the recalling of beef that missed its paperwork. You like the tariff/quota easing and beef imports to stabilize short term prices. You probably also think they should allow more imports long-term. Although the short-term goal is stabilize prices to not lose future demand (which American ranchers will depend on for an eventual "recovery") when the supply now is at a long-term low due to disease and other factors and can't be ramped up in mere days because cows take time to grow. But that's fine.
The only thing you don't seem to like is this hypothetical Republican voter getting pie in the face even though as a consumer he is going to get lower prices thanks to a policy you think he is wrong about (I have no idea what your brain is doing). Link and source them. Not a difficult request.
I don't know why you keep saying "I like" or "probably think" based off of things I've never written, but I'll gladly show you the outcry I'm referring to.
Trump creates beef with ranchers over new import plan: https://rollcall.com/2026/08/21/trump-creates-beef-with-ranchers-over-new-import-plan/ (note "The NCBA has skewed heavily Republican over the years in its support for federal candidates, according to OpenSecrets.org. The group’s PAC and individual contributors have given at least 89 percent of their campaign contributions to the GOP in elections dating back to 2012, with 95 percent going to Republicans in the 2024 cycle")
On August 28 2026 01:16 LightSpectra wrote: It seems we're in agreement that nobody should care what Republican voters enraged by beef imports think.
Who? What voters?
Quote them.
You were asked this already.
It is not a gotcha question.
Quote who you are talking about. I'm not going in another troll circle playing whack-a-mole with a hallucinated caricature of a Republican voter. The question is not "Aha they don't exist." The question is you have to cite what you're actually talking about so everyone has the same information and is on the same page. What hits your subreddit might not hit my inbox.
You like the recalling of beef that missed its paperwork. You like the tariff/quota easing and beef imports to stabilize short term prices. You probably also think they should allow more imports long-term. Although the short-term goal is stabilize prices to not lose future demand (which American ranchers will depend on for an eventual "recovery") when the supply now is at a long-term low due to disease and other factors and can't be ramped up in mere days because cows take time to grow. But that's fine.
The only thing you don't seem to like is this hypothetical Republican voter getting pie in the face even though as a consumer he is going to get lower prices thanks to a policy you think he is wrong about (I have no idea what your brain is doing). Link and source them. Not a difficult request.
He’s making a tongue in cheek comment about how people who a completely distrust science, doctors, can’t tell who won the 2020 election, are pro Vietnam war and so on. So not have the intellectual capacity to make good decisions for large groups, they don’t understand statistics, even the basics like the laws of large numbers, and are destined to make mistakes like this that will continue to cause deaths.
Without basic problem solving skills and logic these mush brains are going to continue to believe really stupid made up stories from the liar and chief instead of actually find the obvious real sources of the problems and look for real solutions, that are complex, because the problems are complex.
On August 28 2026 01:33 oBlade wrote: You like the recalling of beef that missed its paperwork. You like the tariff/quota easing and beef imports to stabilize short term prices. You probably also think they should allow more imports long-term. Although the short-term goal is stabilize prices to not lose future demand (which American ranchers will depend on for an eventual "recovery") when the supply now is at a long-term low due to disease and other factors and can't be ramped up in mere days because cows take time to grow. But that's fine.
I'm also interested in his opinions on all these: the recall, tariff easing, imports, goals, and ranchers in the future. What part of MAGA is mad at a different part of MAGA is comparatively uninteresting.
LightSpectra could have a post every day about fracturing and infighting within the MAGA coalition. That's been the status quo since the reelection honeymoon ended over a year ago.
On August 28 2026 00:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote: If the quebec unions... who are traditionally total mofo backstabbing dog-fuckers engage in more illegal job disruption/strike tactics...
this is your fellow countrymen you're talking about, and talking about them this way because they might upset Trump, as you yourself stated, they're unlikely to leave their own region without power.
Disgusting.
Today a news came out with taxi union leader complaining about police (they caught 67 infractions in 100 taxis inspected LOL) and making racist remarks (police vans at the airport makes us look 3rd world). Me and my friends discussed it and dunked on the guy with 10% of the contempt you showed here. A guy that was defending one drunk taxi driver in my streets that can run me over any day.
On August 28 2026 01:53 LightSpectra wrote: I don't know why you keep saying "I like" or "probably think" based off of things I've never written, but I'll gladly show you the outcry I'm referring to.
Trump creates beef with ranchers over new import plan: https://rollcall.com/2026/08/21/trump-creates-beef-with-ranchers-over-new-import-plan/ (note "The NCBA has skewed heavily Republican over the years in its support for federal candidates, according to OpenSecrets.org. The group’s PAC and individual contributors have given at least 89 percent of their campaign contributions to the GOP in elections dating back to 2012, with 95 percent going to Republicans in the 2024 cycle")
If you had a different position you would clarify it, if you have no position despite knowing everyone's wrong then who cares?
Some key points of this are BS like
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said his group was “disappointed” by the announcement.
“While America’s cattle producers share the goal of keeping groceries affordable for consumers, flooding the market with government-subsidized, below-market beef is not the way to rebuild the American cattle herd,” he said. Woodall noted the announcement caused cattle market futures to fall on Friday morning and will harm the “prospect of herd expansion and sacrifices long-term stability for short term messaging.”
There is no subsidy involved afaik. Certainly the NCBA's CEO should be expected to represent the NCBA's interests but that statement falls short of reality. One whole article is complaints from senators. I doubt you don't want us to have compassion for them. This is a microcosm of having producers and consumers represented in the same political system. They have competing interests. Yet we're all also both. And we share representation. What are the senators mad about? A policy designed to lower prices for consumers. How do you feel about that policy? *crickets*
"Trump promised lower prices but they aren't as low as I want haha!" -> "People who sell things at prices upset by Trump's lower prices haha!" Yawn
People do not want $8/lb ground beef even if technically they should be able to handle it. People have the "pizza standard" for food to be as deflationary as a pizza which has been $15 for 20 fuckin' years.
If you didn't like the tariff/quota easing, you should be agreeing with the enraged voters.
If you liked the tariff/quota easing, and were pro-consumer, you would be mocking the enraged producers as you are now.
The third option is you have no view but still just mock everyone. Because you can't be caught agreeing with tariffs or agreeing with Trump. I thought surely there must be something more but that was easy to crack.
On August 28 2026 01:33 oBlade wrote: You like the recalling of beef that missed its paperwork. You like the tariff/quota easing and beef imports to stabilize short term prices. You probably also think they should allow more imports long-term. Although the short-term goal is stabilize prices to not lose future demand (which American ranchers will depend on for an eventual "recovery") when the supply now is at a long-term low due to disease and other factors and can't be ramped up in mere days because cows take time to grow. But that's fine.
I'm also interested in his opinions on all these: the recall, tariff easing, imports, goals, and ranchers in the future. What part of MAGA is mad at a different part of MAGA is comparatively uninteresting.
LightSpectra could have a post every day about fracturing and infighting within the MAGA coalition. That's been the status quo since the reelection honeymoon ended over a year ago.
Since you asked. I don't support increasing or decreasing tariffs for corrupt purposes like Trump's insider trading, or short-term price bounces because of upcoming elections. I do support targeted tariffs against companies that are environmentally destructive (among a few other reasons), and beef is one of the most environmentally-destructive industries in the world. Since banning beef entirely is not politically feasible I'd rather at least it be done by American farmers instead of importing it, so there's really no (American) winners in undercutting our own industry by outsourcing environmental destruction to Argentina, aside from whichever Republicans will squeak by in midterms that they'd otherwise lose because of goldfish voters pissed about beef prices.
The recall was because of a missed inspection. Why that happened hasn't been explained (I checked about a dozen different news outlets). Probably safe to lump it with all the administrative chaos caused by the legions of incompetent appointees and dementia-addled midnight policy changes.
On August 28 2026 01:33 oBlade wrote: You like the recalling of beef that missed its paperwork. You like the tariff/quota easing and beef imports to stabilize short term prices. You probably also think they should allow more imports long-term. Although the short-term goal is stabilize prices to not lose future demand (which American ranchers will depend on for an eventual "recovery") when the supply now is at a long-term low due to disease and other factors and can't be ramped up in mere days because cows take time to grow. But that's fine.
I'm also interested in his opinions on all these: the recall, tariff easing, imports, goals, and ranchers in the future. What part of MAGA is mad at a different part of MAGA is comparatively uninteresting.
LightSpectra could have a post every day about fracturing and infighting within the MAGA coalition. That's been the status quo since the reelection honeymoon ended over a year ago.
Since you asked. I don't support increasing or decreasing tariffs for corrupt purposes like Trump's insider trading, or short-term price bounces because of upcoming elections. I do support targeted tariffs against companies that are environmentally destructive (among a few other reasons), and beef is one of the most environmentally-destructive industries in the world. Since banning beef entirely is not politically feasible I'd rather at least it be done by American farmers instead of importing it, so there's really no (American) winners in undercutting our own industry by outsourcing environmental destruction to Argentina, aside from whichever Republicans will squeak by in midterms that they'd otherwise lose because of goldfish voters pissed about beef prices.
The recall was because of a missed inspection. Why that happened hasn't been explained (I checked about a dozen different news outlets). Probably safe to lump it with all the administrative chaos caused by the legions of incompetent appointees and dementia-addled midnight policy changes.
So you want tariffs to protect American ranchers and the cattle industry, but you'd rather ban it all and globally if it were politically feasible. Any comment on imports, tariffs, and goals related to the current size of the herds post-drought, and the inability to rapidly scale up size?
Tariffs for short term price changes are rarely a good idea, especially for things that are not an essential resource like beef. Should've let the market correct itself instead of these haphazard interventions. There's a good chance Trump changes his mind on the tariff because of pressure, so the end accomplishment will be nothing but more instability.
It's amazing to me how calcified the brains of folks like Jimmy and oBlade are, even when faced with endless streams of evidence of how bad their decision and support for this moron has been, they just double down, no arguments presented, just vibes.
On August 28 2026 05:04 Jankisa wrote: Whew, it looks like we dodged a bullet by Jimmy and co not voting for Kamala, I'm sure she would have renamed lake Ontario to lake Woke or some shit:
It's amazing to me how calcified the brains of folks like Jimmy and oBlade are, even when faced with endless streams of evidence of how bad their decision and support for this moron has been, they just double down, no arguments presented, just vibes.
Party of fiscally responsibility spending 100m-200m as a zing, again.
Anyone who doesn’t realize this is the all time worst president has mush for brains. Making himself and family wildly rich all well bankrupting the country. And not even hiding my it.
I mean, the "Gulf of America" and the mountain renaming shit at the start of his term was just feeding chum to his racist base, he did it to win some easy points with them (and because he's a moron who things that is a strong man move).
This is some petulant child, dictator idiotic move because his feelings got hurt by a far superior negotiator who refused to buckle like most of the others, props to Carney on that.
It reminded me of stupid stunts like Orban taking pictures next to maps displaying whole swaths of Croatia as part of Hungary, just stupid and embarrassing.
For those curious, the lake wasn’t named after the province. It was what Indigenous people called it, so the explorers wrote down the name on maps. In the 17th century. It means lake of shining waters.
Make him more mad and see how many things he renames to "America" at some point you will travel from City of America to City of America along street America to avenue America to the next street America to the next avenue America and no-one one will know where the hell they are.
Or just rename himself President America with Vice-President America at his side.
On August 28 2026 08:11 Falling wrote: Make him more mad and see how many things he renames to "America" at some point you will travel from City of America to City of America along street America to avenue America to the next street America to the next avenue America and no-one one will know where the hell they are.
Or just rename himself President America with Vice-President America at his side.
Separatists here have ruined our provincial flag, at least for the time being, so it can happen. Lucky it’s very unpopular and trumps name is even super unpopular with most conservatives out side of those with “we the fringe” on their trucks.
I have some optimism that at some point almost everyone will realize what a selfish moron he is. I do worry about the next iteration.
On August 28 2026 08:11 Falling wrote: Make him more mad and see how many things he renames to "America" at some point you will travel from City of America to City of America along street America to avenue America to the next street America to the next avenue America and no-one one will know where the hell they are.
Or just rename himself President America with Vice-President America at his side.
Perhaps you could rename Lake Superior to Lake Canada.
EPT
