United States Politics: ∆τ_i*ε*φ*m_i<0 where ε=4 and φ=0.25

[who is ted danson?]

25% tarrif for Mexico and Canada until they fix their borders

(additional) 10% tarrif for China on top of other tarrifs just for the Fentanyl.

Trump ain't playing around

Switch 2 $599

[who is ted danson?]

Anyone find it weird that nintendo only release a switch when trump is in office 

[Himu]

Anyone find it weird that nintendo only release a switch when trump is in office 

I made a thread about this on the other bore lmao

For some reason Republican in office means rad games with the exception of Clinton

[benji]

[Nintex]

Nothing escapes, Trump is about to end another political dynasty.
The bureaucrat to end all bureaucrats is finally going under the bus.

[benji]

So Trump is going to do exactly what all his fans have been upset Biden might do? "Trillions for Ukraine" says the America First caucus.

[Potato]

Trump's core don't actually understand what his policies are or what the consequences of them will be. It's the ultimate cult of personality.

[Nintex]

So Trump is going to do exactly what all his fans have been upset Biden might do? "Trillions for Ukraine" says the America First caucus.

They are trying to destabilize the Putin regime before Trump takes office. As of yet this is working, the rouble is tanking against the dollar, Euro and even the Ukrainian Hryvnia.
Inflation in Russia is soaring with butter sold in protective cases.

As long range missiles are launched into Russia, the "red line" from Moscow has moved to: "shipping nuclear weapons to Ukraine".

Trump isn't against winning the war, he is against an endless war and no 'reward' at the end. The reward is a cut of all the raw materials to be mined in Ukraine. That's probably why Putin tried to capture it in the first place. 

The Republican party is split on the issue but most of them don't want to give Russia an easy win and see the benefit of winning the war.
However Biden, the EU and the Democrats never intended to "win" because they fear a destabilized Russia or indeed a collapse of Russia will be a bigger threat than it currently is.

The only reason Putin is still fighting this war is to preserve his own position. Economists have already calculated that as it currently stands in 5 - 10 years only 50% of their population will be participating in the labour market providing for the other 50% because entire generations (and their likely offspring) have been slaughtered on the battlefield. And that assumes that their problems post-war won't get any worse (poverty, alcoholism etc.).

[Uncle]

god damn I wish I could get my butter in a protective case

[benji]

god damn I wish I could get my butter in a protective case

https://www.amazon.com/Butter-Dishes-Glass-Serveware/

[Nintex]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1861469845918765200

[/tweet]

[Uncle]

god damn I wish I could get my butter in a protective case

https://www.amazon.com/Butter-Dishes-Glass-Serveware/

[benji]

Who makes all that random gibberish after a URL part of the one you have to send? Jeff, what are you doing?

[TylenolJones]

Mexico showing once again that it’s the superior border nation. 

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

god damn I wish I could get my butter in a protective case

https://www.amazon.com/Butter-Dishes-Glass-Serveware/

Oliver is cute.

[Nintex]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1861550359161745529?t=00O0OOcBkZ5cHmCp_7OR0w&s=19[/tweet]

Can't believe they posted this

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

Kamala supports the upcoming liberal Jan 6th insurrection!

[Colonel Mustard]

1732584903[/url]']
25% tarrif for Mexico and Canada until they fix their borders

(additional) 10% tarrif for China on top of other tarrifs just for the Fentanyl.

Trump ain't playing around

Halve the US’ GDP in 6 months to…???

[benji]

lol, 2003 article:

In the mature New Democratic theory, the crucial swing voters are suburban soccer moms and their spouses, the office park dads. Forget working-class Reagan Democrats, who represent the old politics and are declining in numbers anyway. Seek votes in affluent, educated, and tolerant suburbs-where voters conveniently want the government to create “private-sector economic opportunity” that will enrich the New Democrats’ business backers-while reaping the benefits of demographic growth among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. As pollster Mark Penn puts it, Democrats “must develop a message and policy agenda that consolidates earlier gains among suburban women and minority voters while capturing a much larger percentage of suburban men.”

What were this message and agenda to be? The DLC did not lack for policies; beginning in the late eighties it had developed carefully thought-out plans that addressed real problems while avoiding offense to corporate interests. Focusing on the use of market mechanisms in the delivery of government services, it endorsed charter schools, managed-competition in health care, and a raft of smaller reforms. A communitarian strand of thought led to support for national service for young people. The ideas were worthy, but they were thin gruel. As attractive as some of the individual proposals might be, they were no more attractive to the New Democrats’ target voters than to anyone else, and they were hardly the inspiration of a movement.

...

But the politics of gun control contains hidden pitfalls. It can be argued plausibly that what offends control advocates is the gun owners as much as the guns. The movement is centered, after all, in affluent suburbs where armed criminals are rare. In the wealthy New York, Philadelphia, and Washington suburbs where voters are most exercised by the issue, insider trading is a more common felony than assault with a deadly weapon, and shutting down stockbrokers instead of gun dealers would yield a sharper reduction in the crime rate. What the fervor for gun control does is reinforce social distinctions between these neighborhoods and the more plebeian precincts where guns are common. It’s not hard to see why a deer hunter might think it has more to do with snobbery than public safety.

These overtones matter because the numbers still don’t add up for the new coalition. The recent Maryland gubernatorial election is a textbook example. Democratic candidate Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, running in a state about as demographically congenial as one could hope, followed the DLC recipe to a T. Her campaign focused heavily on gun control while avoiding any hint of populism. Unable in a state election to run as a foreign policy hawk, she did the next best thing by choosing a Republican admiral as her running mate.

...

The Maryland election reveals another trap awaiting the New Democrats. Their strategy largely takes minorities for granted, relying on Republican racism and xenophobia to maintain high levels of Democratic support. But Republicans have read the demographic tea leaves, and they make no secret of their intention to cut into Democratic margins, especially among Asians and Hispanics. New Democrats are hard put to respond. Their economic conservatism precludes a pocketbook appeal to low-income voters; to maintain minority support they must fall back on explicitly racial issues. Thus, when Maryland Republicans signaled their openness to diversity by nominating an African American for lieutenant governor, Townsend could only counterattack by pointing to her opponent’s past voting record on civil rights. She wound up making racial preferences the sound bite of the campaign’s only debate.

...

Unable to appeal to the common citizenship of all, they call on the seamier side of elite altruism, the sentiment of moral superiority over the benighted white working class.

[Potato]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1861550359161745529?t=00O0OOcBkZ5cHmCp_7OR0w&s=19[/tweet]

Can't believe they posted this

I finally worked out what she sounds like when she speaks...a fucking junkie.

[booomer]

I finally worked out what she sounds like when she speaks...a fucking junkie.

[booomer]

[booomer]

Trolling the troll account. Priceless!

[EaldNarche]

The thing I don't understand about the tariffs, is it seems to just be America shooting itself in the foot? We import nearly everything and don't have the infrastructure in place to make most of this stuff ourselves and won't for years, so Trump will just be forcing everyone to pay more for stuff we can't buy elsewhere. :v And even when we are able to make it in America, it'll be by people we actually have to pay wages. It won't be produced by chinese children for pennies. Is Trump gonna send us all monthly stimmies so we can afford to buy the new american made walmart goods?

[DavidCroquet]

I finally worked out what she sounds like when she speaks...a fucking junkie.

Me and my girlfriend both commented that she sounds a little drunk.

[Polident]

My understanding is, more or less, there will be some level of subsidization and support for companies to balance things out. But that's still coming from the tax payers. So I guess cutting costs elsewhere is meant to create this fantasy equilibrium of woo-woo logic. And the argument for how, even in areas we have the infrastructure, companies want to save money by building them overseas at suicide net factories. Are they going to find that nuance? Who can say. Tariffs and tallow are apparently wonderful things.

[DavidCroquet]

The thing I don't understand about the tariffs, is it seems to just be America shooting itself in the foot? We import nearly everything and don't have the infrastructure in place to make most of this stuff ourselves and won't for years, so Trump will just be forcing everyone to pay more for stuff we can't buy elsewhere. :v And even when we are able to make it in America, it'll be by people we actually have to pay wages. It won't be produced by chinese children for pennies. Is Trump gonna send us all monthly stimmies so we can afford to buy the new american made walmart goods?

I genuinely think the presumed impact is overblown.

IIRC Trump "tariffed" around last term as well. And we didn't really feel that--arguably prices are a lot weirder now than they were during his term. 

The global economy is complicated (this level of keen insight should realistically get me appointed as Secretary of OMB in the Trump admin) and I think we're a long way away from the time when a simple, logical principle like "cost go up 20%, price go up 20%" actually applied directly.

Not to defend Trump here, but I think tariffed and non-tariffed bodies will react to these things--if Trump even actually implements it--in a way to protect their business interests. For example, if China is paying a massive tariff on every piece of plastic trash they ship over, I expect many of those companies just eat some of all of that cost: if they pass it on to the consumer, suddenly you'll see Americans buying higher-priced, higher-quality shit and ignoring the million fake VINDFOO brands that are all over Amazon. 

That's just one theoretical above. Maybe that doesn't happen at all. But there are other interested actors across the world, and some of them certainly will pivot in some way. Which is why I'm skeptical we'll see some sort of Playstation Price Holocaust or whatever.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

The thing I don't understand about the tariffs, is it seems to just be America shooting itself in the foot? We import nearly everything and don't have the infrastructure in place to make most of this stuff ourselves and won't for years, so Trump will just be forcing everyone to pay more for stuff we can't buy elsewhere. :v And even when we are able to make it in America, it'll be by people we actually have to pay wages. It won't be produced by chinese children for pennies. Is Trump gonna send us all monthly stimmies so we can afford to buy the new american made walmart goods?

It's a way to move money from poor people to rich people.

[Polident]

The thing I don't understand about the tariffs, is it seems to just be America shooting itself in the foot? We import nearly everything and don't have the infrastructure in place to make most of this stuff ourselves and won't for years, so Trump will just be forcing everyone to pay more for stuff we can't buy elsewhere. :v And even when we are able to make it in America, it'll be by people we actually have to pay wages. It won't be produced by chinese children for pennies. Is Trump gonna send us all monthly stimmies so we can afford to buy the new american made walmart goods?

I genuinely think the presumed impact is overblown.

IIRC Trump "tariffed" around last term as well. And we didn't really feel that--arguably prices are a lot weirder now than they were during his term. 

The global economy is complicated (this level of keen insight should realistically get me appointed as Secretary of OMB in the Trump admin) and I think we're a long way away from the time when a simple, logical principle like "cost go up 20%, price go up 20%" actually applied directly.

Not to defend Trump here, but I think tariffed and non-tariffed bodies will react to these things--if Trump even actually implements it--in a way to protect their business interests. For example, if China is paying a massive tariff on every piece of plastic trash they ship over, I expect many of those companies just eat some of all of that cost: if they pass it on to the consumer, suddenly you'll see Americans buying higher-priced, higher-quality shit and ignoring the million fake VINDFOO brands that are all over Amazon. 

That's just one theoretical above. Maybe that doesn't happen at all. But there are other interested actors across the world, and some of them certainly will pivot in some way. Which is why I'm skeptical we'll see some sort of Playstation Price Holocaust or whatever.

How dare you. TLBCQMYG makes great products for real people.

[DavidCroquet]

I kid because I love.

I'm typing this post from the comfort of my GABRYLLY Ergonomic Office Chair, High Back Home Desk Chair with Headrest, Flip-Up Arms, 90-120° Tilt Lock and Wide Cushion, Big and Tall Mesh Chairs for Man Woman, Black Task Chair