Jump to content

Tariff wars, they have began


Wally Fairway

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

The analogy I'd use is someone 1,000 miles away shot at me, missed badly, and is still 1,000 miles away and wants to shoot at me again.  No, I wouldn't take them seriously.

This would be a good analogy if the insurrectionists were a thousand miles away from the officers they attacked and the Capitol they breached. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Imagine believing that the guy who did all of the above presents "no danger" and will not attempt to hold onto power. Just mind boggling stuff.

I don't know if you were replying to me on that second part or not but just to clarify my own opinion...I think Trump may very likely attempt (he'll be 82 at that point and isn't in the best of health) to hold onto control in 2029, but practically speaking I don't think the threat poses any real possibility of actually occurring.    I just don't think he can pull that off given the way our system is designed, regardless of what he's attempted in the past or what he's doing today.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

This would be a good analogy if the insurrectionists were a thousand miles away from the officers they attacked and the Capitol they breached. 

Also, Trump was attempting to get states to get states to falsify and change their vote tallies so that he would win. As a sitting president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Also, Trump was attempting to get states to get states to falsify and change their vote tallies so that he would win. As a sitting president. 

100%.  But, how close did he come to doing that?  I'd argue not very close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

You keep saying this as if the people we're talking about aren't actively changing what is normal. 

Look, it's ok to agree to disagree.

Trump is doing a lot of shit these days that makes people nervous.  On the specific topic/risk of him actually GETTING a third term...I don't think him remotely capable of being able to change what would need to change to have any chance of it happening.   Which is a GREAT thing, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCroskey said:

100%.  But, how close did he come to doing that?  I'd argue not very close.

Well it wasn't for a lack of fucking effort, which is the entire problem. Thankfully, he ran into people who aren't complete pieces of shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

death is probably the only thing that will keep him from a third term.  they'll just run vance but make it clear to everyone who is running shit.

I don’t think Trump could handle that.  It will be him. 
 

I need to go back and read the amendment but if it says speocamnot be elected again, would that preclude the VP spot and then having Vance resign to elevate him?  That sounds more like it, and something that scotus could rule in favor of.  Then appoint Vance as VP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red Five said:

Well it wasn't for a lack of fucking effort, which is the entire problem. Thankfully, he ran into people who aren't complete pieces of shit. 

Which is exactly my point.  Our system, fucked as it is, allows him to make all the efforts he wants without penalty, which is a clear and obvious problem.  That said, I think he will ALWAYS run into people/obstacles that aren't complete pieces of shit and don't want, nor will let it happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

100%.  But, how close did he come to doing that?  I'd argue not very close.

So what, in your opinion, would come close without it actually happening? What are the intermediate outcomes between actual January 6, including now hundreds of civil servants losing their jobs for correctly prosecuting these fucking traitor criminals, and Trump stealing the election and converting the United States into authoritarian dictatorship?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rioters were in the Capitol while Senators were still in the chamber. If it wasn't for that incredibly brave police officer (his name, to my shame, escapes me right now), there would have been blood spilled. THAT IS PRETTY FUCKING CLOSE

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McCroskey said:

Which is exactly my point.  Our system, fucked as it is, allows him to make all the efforts he wants without penalty, which is a clear and obvious problem.  That said, I think he will ALWAYS run into people/obstacles that aren't complete pieces of shit and don't want, nor will let it happen.  

how many fucking times does this guy have to do shit that people said "oh don't worry he won't actually do that" before you fucking catch on that no one is stopping him? I'm sure you would have said Elon Musk won't be allowed to hack government computers and access everyone's confidential information and hire/fire people and close entire agencies like two weeks ago and yet HERE WE THE FUCK ARE.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I'm old enough to remember having to bailout farmers last time we instigated a half-baked trade war because I'm older than 9.

 

this bailout will be paid out in trump coin !!!

own the libs !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the markets recovered after the deal with struck with Mexico - what happens tomorrow if Canada is still holding the line? 

I don't think Trump has an easy out with them. He clearly panicked when the markets opened and Mexico gave him a deal to save face. Canada clearly doesn't have much of an interest in doing so.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

So what, in your opinion, would come close without it actually happening? What are the intermediate outcomes between actual January 6, including now hundreds of civil servants losing their jobs for correctly prosecuting these fucking traitor criminals, and Trump stealing the election and converting the United States into authoritarian dictatorship?

It's a good question.  On the surface I think it's a simple enough thought/fear that's easy to "envision" happening, but in reality what would actually have to happen across a significant number of states and across the 3 branches of federal government, is mind boggling.  I just don't think that's a risk for 2029.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I don’t think Trump could handle that.  It will be him. 
 

I need to go back and read the amendment but if it says speocamnot be elected again, would that preclude the VP spot and then having Vance resign to elevate him?  That sounds more like it, and something that scotus could rule in favor of.  Then appoint Vance as VP?

It's my understanding that somewhere in the Constitution (maybe the 22nd amendment) it spells out the requirement that the VP must be eligible to be President. Since he's ineligible via the 22nd he isn't eligible to run as VP. And yes I know he doesn't give a fuck and he's gonna try and run anyway. 

Edited by Exposition
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

It's a good question.  On the surface I think it's a simple enough thought/fear that's easy to "envision" happening, but in reality what would actually have to happen across a significant number of states and across the 3 branches of federal government, is mind boggling.  I just don't think that's a risk for 2029.

So you can't identify a single way it could have come closer without actually happening, but still maintain it wasn't close to happening. Normalcy bias is a motherfucker. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elvis said:

Holy shit Matamoros.  That brings back some hazy memories.  Me and my buddies took my Prelude down to Padre and MTV was there.  Girls Gone Wild wasn't quite a thing yet.  Matamoras was safe for the most part.  Me and my biggest buddy went walking deeper into town to find a strip club.  That was sketchy as hell.  We got thrown out.  

 

How long has it been since it's been "safe" to cross the border like that?

"I spent a month there one night."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Rioters were in the Capitol while Senators were still in the chamber. If it wasn't for that incredibly brave police officer (his name, to my shame, escapes me right now), there would have been blood spilled. THAT IS PRETTY FUCKING CLOSE

I don't fault anyone for having that opinion, it was a TERRIBLE day and stain on our history.

Trump is a shithead and maybe I have more faith in our ~250 year old system than I should...I tend to think our more significant problems are elsewhere and beyond just the executive branch.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I'm sure you would have said Elon Musk won't be allowed to hack government computers and access everyone's confidential information and hire/fire people and close entire agencies like two weeks ago and yet HERE WE THE FUCK ARE.

This needs to be repeated every time somebody says “there’s no way Trump could pull off X.”

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

So you can't identify a single way it could have come closer without actually happening, but still maintain it wasn't close to happening. Normalcy bias is a motherfucker. 

I don't think I understood your question, then.  Sorry.   Trying to work and keep up here at the same time and not doing a good job of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

So you can't identify a single way it could have come closer without actually happening, but still maintain it wasn't close to happening. Normalcy bias is a motherfucker. 

If I may ask...how many congressmen/senators would have had to have been killed on January 6th, or what outcomes from the "invasion" of the Capital would have caused Trump to have peacefully remained in office past January 20th? 

I contend there are none.  The outcome as happened was bad enough, and had the outcome been worse I believe it would have dramatically changed/accelerated the change in Power within the Executive Branch.  I don't see a path where January 6th could have been deemed "successful" in that the insurrectionists gained some modicum of "control" AND Trump somehow stayed peacefully in power past January 20th.

That's why I don't think Trump came close.  The attempt is bad enough but in no scenario in my mind does the system we have in place allow him come remotely close to staying in power beyond the limits granted to him in the Constitution.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

I don't think I understood your question, then.  Sorry.   Trying to work and keep up here at the same time and not doing a good job of it.

If someone said "Brent Venables can't win a national championship at Oklahoma" and I said "he came pretty close!" you could rightfully point out that I was being a moron.

If someone said "Marcus Freeman can't win a national championship at Notre Dame" and I said "he came pretty close!" and you said "Nahhh, he wasn't close, it was clear they could never beat Ohio State" then you are dramatically understating how easily one domino can topple another quickly. Ohio State was the better team, but with a break or two one way or the other, Notre Dame sometimes wins that game.

When "Notre Dame winning the championship" is actually "America dies and descends into fascism", we can't have them making the fucking finals. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McCroskey said:

If I may ask...how many congressmen/senators would have had to have been killed on January 6th, or what outcomes from the "invasion" of the Capital would have caused Trump to have peacefully remained in office past January 20th? 

I contend there are none.  The outcome as happened was bad enough, and had the outcome been worse I believe it would have dramatically changed/accelerated the change in Power within the Executive Branch.  I don't see a path where January 6th could have been deemed "successful" in that the insurrectionists gained some modicum of "control" AND Trump somehow stayed peacefully in power past January 20th.

That's why I don't think Trump came close.  The attempt is bad enough but in no scenario in my mind does the system we have in place allow him come remotely close to staying in power beyond the limits granted to him in the Constitution.

 

No one said anything about "peacefully remain". If Mike Pence had refused to certify the election, what would have happened, in your opinion? If states like Wisconsin that went to Biden but had Republican state houses voted to send Trump electors instead, who in your opinion is stopping that? 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He folding like a little bitch when confronted by a strong woman. Don't let anyone spin it otherwise. Funny how when this shit happens resident surly magats wait until Fox News tells them how to spin shit, but until then, fucking crickets. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

No one said anything about "peacefully remain". If Mike Pence had refused to certify the election, what would have happened, in your opinion? If states like Wisconsin that went to Biden but had Republican state houses voted to send Trump electors instead, who in your opinion is stopping that? 

IF Pence did that (even though he had no Constitutional authority to do so), we'd have had a constitutional crisis which would have yielded an immediate intervention by the Judicial branch.  From that, the probability is the Supreme Court at the time would have nearly immediately provided the direction & measures to properly allow the Legislative branch to certify Biden as the winner.  If you are talking about unlikely outcomes, I think you would have seen chaos, likely violent, the likes the country hasn't seen since 1865.  In no scenario would I foresee a scenario where Trump just "stays" in power past January 20th.      

Edited by McCroskey
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredibly wishful thinking, and lots of people disagreed about Pence's possible role, because the Constitution was not written to conceive of a world where a President cooked up a fraudulent scheme to remain in power.

OK, let's play it from the other side. Say a state actually does send fraudulent electors. Does Congress/VP have to certify those fraudulent electors? Of course not, right? So if Pence/Trump/Republicans in Congress/state houses say that the electors based on Biden's "stolen" election are fraudulent, now what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

IF Pence did that (even though he had no Constitutional authority to do so), we'd have had a constitutional crisis which would have yielded an immediate intervention by the Judicial branch From that, the probability is the Supreme Court at the time would have nearly immediately provided the direction & measures to properly allow the Legislative branch to certify Biden as the winner.  If you are talking about unlikely outcomes, I think you would have seen chaos, likely violent, the likes the country hasn't seen since 1865.  In no scenario would I foresee a scenario where Trump just "stays" in power past January 20th.      

Lol, no. That has political question written all over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Incredibly wishful thinking, and lots of people disagreed about Pence's possible role, because the Constitution was not written to conceive of a world where a President cooked up a fraudulent scheme to remain in power.

OK, let's play it from the other side. Say a state actually does send fraudulent electors. Does Congress/VP have to certify those fraudulent electors? Of course not, right? So if Pence/Trump/Republicans in Congress/state houses say that the electors based on Biden's "stolen" election are fraudulent, now what?

I mean we're so far down the rabbit hole of if/thens, that's why I think this stuff is unlikely.  My overall sentiment on Trump pulling this off carries about the same odds of hitting a 28 team parlay.  Yeah, January 6th might be the equivalent of the first leg winning but the odds of him winning the remaining 27 legs is near zero, which again is why I don't worry about it.  You could drive yourself crazy with all the scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Dog said:

so Trump backed down after Trudeau told him they were implementing something they already had planned?

what was the point of all of this?

They already had planned two things he said would be "new?"

"Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the border, launch a Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl and we will be backing it with $200 million."

 

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Lgbt Distraction GIF by BuzzFeed

100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCroskey said:

They already had planned two things he said would be "new?"

"Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the border, launch a Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl and we will be backing it with $200 million."

 

100%

saw that too.

just doesn't seem like much. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

I mean we're so far down the rabbit hole of if/thens, that's why I think this stuff is unlikely.  My overall sentiment on Trump pulling this off carries about the same odds of hitting a 28 team parlay.  Yeah, January 6th might be the equivalent of the first leg winning but the odds of him winning the remaining 27 legs is near zero, which again is why I don't worry about it.  You could drive yourself crazy with all the scenarios.

That's not down the rabbit hole at all dude, that was their goddamn plan. If Congress has the authority to not certify "fraudulent" electors, then if the POTUS and VPOTUS and Congress declare a slate of electors fraudulent, then they are out. If they must approve whatever the State lege sends, then if the state says "we find fraud and we send electors for the other candidate" then that's what they have to send. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Dog said:

so Trump backed down after Trudeau told him they were implementing something they already had planned?

what was the point of all of this?

Well I for one will sleep much better. 

In Fiscal Year 2024, USCBP seized 21,148 pounds of fentanyl at the southwest border, mostly smuggled from Mexico. In contrast, only 43 pounds were intercepted at the northern border. This means that less than 1% of all fentanyl seizures occurred at the U.S.-Canada border.

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Fascinating you reacted to a post that you have on ignore that wasn’t quoted when you reacted to it.  Quite the mystery 

On the right there are 3 dots you can hit to “show post”. Every once in a while I do. And usually am reminded why I put the dipshit on ignore. 
 

(Oh and I saw this post because someone else quoted you). I’ll leave another neg because of all the wasted clicks

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...