ex-President Trump

😵

I think you are confused ND and SD get 3 ec each and Ca gets 55. You are thinking senators?

😆

Luciom is shocked that not everyone endgame is accumulation of wealth, power and feeling superior to other group of people.

More news at 11

But wait, if 63% DON'T favor that, then the median voter doesn't favor that. Ergo being in line with the median voter is not being grotesquely to the left of the median voter.

See above. This would be another case of the forum being in line with the median voter, not grotesquely to the left.

This one would probably be one example where they are not in line with the median voter. Now the question is whether they are grotesquely to the left. I would say it depends. If they think that the justice system is working well and that for the most part, punishment is commensurate to crime, then while they may be to the left of the American voter, they are not far out in left field. Believing that it is too tough or far too tough on criminals would probably qualify as being grotesquely to the left, and certainly if they want to abolish or defund the police that would be crazy to me.

I mean this one is a little bit esoteric to pick out, but I think that given that there are 43% of respondents who say they are comfortable with it, then being comfortable with it is probably not too far left. But yeah, saying you should ban criticism of using they/them pronouns seems too far left to me. Again, that's just going to cache out on how we define "grotesquely" to the left, and how many users support the ban on expressing discomfort to they/them pronouns.

Wait, I am looking at other sources and they seem to be talking about Chinese mattresses. Again, I'm not sure this is a great policy, but it is again with regard to China.

TBH China just has a competitive advantage in manufacturing due to high technology advances with low labor costs, so I'm not sure calling it "dumping mattresses" is a real argument. But people have a strategic interest to oppose China.

Democrats are definitely not the party of free trade sadly, but recent world events have also shown that authoritarian governments will tend to abuse international trade policies for their benefit and become major national security threats when we depend on their trade. Look at Russia manipulating European energy prices.

I think with America having free trade agreements with only 20 countries, I would love to see more countries establish free trade with the US. Sadly Europe is absolutely horrible on free trade so maybe you should be pushing these things on your end so we can develop the United States-Italy free trade agreement. :p

by using a starting point that everyone believe they are reasonable (like luciom) ,
those at the extreme sees everything not in line with them "grotesquely" unreasonable and so they called them communist, marxist, far left, etc.
even tho they are light years away from it.

Checkraise It has been mattresses from all over the world including Italian ones at like +250% because of "dumping", which in the Italian case is complete non sense for sure, it's just that American companies have absurd coats for reasons I don't understand so 1k for a queen size good quality mattress is considered "dumping" while here is already pretty high (gross distributor costs, not retail)

https://www.trade.gov/initiation-ad-and-...

by Luciom P

Checkraise It has been mattresses from all over the world including Italian ones at like +250% because of "dumping", which in the Italian case is complete non sense for sure, it's just that American companies have absurd coats for reasons I don't understand so 1k for a queen size good quality mattress is considered "dumping" while here is already pretty high (gross distributor costs, not retail)

Show More...

I mean on its face this is bad, but it seems like they are making accusations of unfair subsidies or possible changes in selling values to target the US market. If it’s the former, that does technically violate free trade principles. If it’s the latter, that seems silly and a bad tariff.

Mattresses aren't subsidized in any way or form in Spain and Italy for sure (and why would they jfc). But anyway, we started with "it's only tariffs with China", i say well no it isn't even for democrats, you went i checked and it is, i put the list, 12 countries (china not in the list lol), democrats punishing NATO allies and strategic allies like Taiwan.

Then ofc there are the tariffs used as retaliation against airbus because airbus gets government help, which boeing gets as well but it's one of those cases you do worse than us, so of course you put tariffs again, against a NATO ally, Trump and Biden both.

China received a tariff in 2019 that was like 1700%. That’s what I was referring to. And yeah you’re right, this seems bad unless there is something I’m missing like this being an automated process that needs repeal. That doesn’t mean Trump will be better on this issue though. He seems much more keen on pushing tariffs, and unfortunately American labor is too it seems.

China paid (a lot more) tariffs under Biden than under Trump

China didn't pay anything. I know you are smart enough to figure this out. I might be wrong.

You’re wrong

When Biden puts a 100% tariff on EV Vehicles China does pay as they can't be profitable on selling them in the USA . Though when Biden puts tariffs on Softwood that Canada exports to the USA the consumer ends up paying if they have no other source

If they don't sell any, how much do they pay?

This is intro to econ, folks.

Us companies and customers pay the tax nominally, who pays in an economic sense depends on a lot of details (that can change in time as well), whose margins get eaten is "complicated".

But yes what I mean is "the total tariffs on item imported from china were a lot higher during Biden years than during Trump years"

They pay (in an economic sense) the totality of the missed profits they would have made by selling in the counterfactual with no tariffs.

Financially they pay nothing

i love the Arlington thing because there was a whole plan to not just have the campaign event, but to make up a fake established memorial service and then attack biden/harris for not attending the made up political event. they had already sent their talking points to fox news and other media. fox news immediately ran a false story saying "biden/harris skip event".

just no one stopped for a second or cared to check if it was okay to force arlington national cemetery into their campaign ads

Fox had the whole "Biden/Harris skip Arlington Event!!!" thing lined up. Of course there was no Arlington event, just a Trump campaign event that was not cleared with Arlington Cemetery itself.

everything i've seen from reputable sources, i.e. the white house itself, says this is not true. there was no invitation. it was solely a trump invite and a trump campaign event.

KAMABLA DID BENGHAZI

pretty weird to invite the people you say murdered your child. weird enough to doubt it ever happened.

did they want them to give the thumbs up at the grave too?

Donald Trump Jr. is now a pitchman for a physical gold selling outfit (Birch Gold). As someone who is is quick to extrapolate on small pieces of information (a useful trait for a gambler if he doesn't take it too far) i will jump to some possible conclusions. One involves the obvious conclusion that the Trump family couldn't be as rich as they say since the financial reward would not be enough to make a big enough dent in the Trump bankroll to the point where his father would allow him to demean himself via commercials. Especially a physical gold company's commercials. I can think of at least three reasons.

1. All the companies in this business, as far as I know, are basically the same.

2. Buying physical gold rather than a stock like GLD is almost certainly a bad idea given the much larger vig. I think you need at least a ten percent or so appreciation to break even. And of course, a drop in price is a catastrophe.

3. Gold prices are correlated to inflation AND (similar to stocks), the outlook for further inflation. In other words gold will go DOWN in price even if inflation continues as long as it isn't as bad as investors expected when they paid a certain price for it today. But Donald Trump is touting that inflation will not be as bad under him as it would be under Harris. And that he will win the election. If both things are correct we could expect that the price of gold a year from now will be lower than it is today. In other words I think that these commercials might indicate that the Trumps are not always telling the truth.

White house says there was no invitation. Did they say there was no attempted call? Seems reasonable to think families called them (to invite or tell them to pound sand, who knows), but WH wouldn't dialog with them.

Saying there was no invitation might be accurate, but curious to know if WH denies all attempts at communication as well.