AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 11 Posted July 11 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice. So the economy is doing good......thanks!
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 Just now, ChiGoose said: Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice. The ruling of illegality had been stayed, has it not? The Supreme Court will be weighing in later this year, correct? I’m going to wait and see what they say. At least what 8/9 say. We already know how one justice will rule. Do you think that’s ok or should I get riled up because that’s what you are doing? Either way.
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: So the economy is doing good......thanks! The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. 4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: The ruling of illegality had been stayed, has it not? The Supreme Court will be weighing in later this year, correct? I’m going to wait and see what they say. At least what 8/9 say. We already know how one justice will rule. Do you think that’s ok or should I get riled up because that’s what you are doing? Either way. It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you. But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point.
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you. But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point. Makes you wonder why the one court stayed the ruling. Sounds like a slam dunk according to you. I’m sure if the Supreme Court says otherwise you’ll have an explanation for why you are right anyway. Looking forward to it. If you ever have any time, maybe you could tell us all why you were right with your thoughts about the border situation. Most of your prior posts on the topic make it seem like you couldn’t have been more wrong, but I’m sure there’s an explanation.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 11 Posted July 11 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you. But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point. So the economy is good yes or no? You can stop squirming whenever.
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 17 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Makes you wonder why the one court stayed the ruling. Sounds like a slam dunk according to you. I’m sure if the Supreme Court says otherwise you’ll have an explanation for why you are right anyway. Looking forward to it. If you ever have any time, maybe you could tell us all why you were right with your thoughts about the border situation. Most of your prior posts on the topic make it seem like you couldn’t have been more wrong, but I’m sure there’s an explanation. Courts routinely stay rulings when there's an appeal. I think it's fine to have your own opinion instead of waiting to be told what to think but YMMV. I'll admit it. I did not think that the people who said they only wanted to go after criminals would view going after non-criminals, revoking legal status for people who did things the right way to come here, locking up and deporting citizens, chasing workers off of farms, and going after kids with cancer as a solution. I thought that the people who were so adamant that they wanted people to come here legally actually meant it instead of using it as a shield to hide their desire to stop anyone who doesn't meet their definition of "American" from entering. If the goal was just lawlessness, terror, and going after brown people, then yeah, you don't need Congress. 17 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: So the economy is good yes or no? You can stop squirming whenever. Gotta love the idiocy of asking a question to avoid answering a question and then being a weirdo when your obvious distraction tactic failed. Still scared of admitting Dear Leader may have broken the law, huh?
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Courts routinely stay rulings when there's an appeal. I think it's fine to have your own opinion instead of waiting to be told what to think but YMMV. I'll admit it. I did not think that the people who said they only wanted to go after criminals would view going after non-criminals, revoking legal status for people who did things the right way to come here, locking up and deporting citizens, chasing workers off of farms, and going after kids with cancer as a solution. I thought that the people who were so adamant that they wanted people to come here legally actually meant it instead of using it as a shield to hide their desire to stop anyone who doesn't meet their definition of "American" from entering. If the goal was just lawlessness, terror, and going after brown people, then yeah, you don't need Congress. Gotta love the idiocy of asking a question to avoid answering a question and then being a weirdo when your obvious distraction tactic failed. Still scared of admitting Dear Leader may have broken the law, huh? You said the only way to control the influx at the border was with a new law. I feel like you were wrong about that. Were you?
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: You said the only way to control the influx at the border was with a new law. I feel like you were wrong about that. Were you? I was working under the incorrect assumption that people actually meant what they said when they said they wanted people to come here legally. Shutting down the border while allowing that to happen would require additional funding for immigration courts, which requires a passing a law. If you just want to shut the whole thing down, legal immigrants be damned, then no I guess you don't. Seems like a dumb idea, but I was absolutely wrong in believing that MAGA meant what they said. Won't do it again.
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 Just now, ChiGoose said: I was working under the incorrect assumption that people actually meant what they said when they said they wanted people to come here legally. Shutting down the border while allowing that to happen would require additional funding for immigration courts, which requires a passing a law. If you just want to shut the whole thing down, legal immigrants be damned, then no I guess you don't. Seems like a dumb idea, but I was absolutely wrong in believing that MAGA meant what they said. Won't do it again. That’s some pretty impressive flopping around. Bottom line is that you couldn’t have been more wrong. But you were only wrong because of MAGA. Otherwise, you would’ve been right. Right? good lord. Do you remember right after the election you put up a post whining about people dunking on your sort and that it was gross? That was truly embarrassing. If you really want to know why the dunking happened, just go back and reread your posts in this thread. Question answered. 1
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 9 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: That’s some pretty impressive flopping around. Bottom line is that you couldn’t have been more wrong. But you were only wrong because of MAGA. Otherwise, you would’ve been right. Right? good lord. Do you remember right after the election you put up a post whining about people dunking on your sort and that it was gross? That was truly embarrassing. If you really want to know why the dunking happened, just go back and reread your posts in this thread. Question answered. Do you believe ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing farmworkers away from the fields is a solution?
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 11 Posted July 11 25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Courts routinely stay rulings when there's an appeal. I think it's fine to have your own opinion instead of waiting to be told what to think but YMMV. I'll admit it. I did not think that the people who said they only wanted to go after criminals would view going after non-criminals, revoking legal status for people who did things the right way to come here, locking up and deporting citizens, chasing workers off of farms, and going after kids with cancer as a solution. I thought that the people who were so adamant that they wanted people to come here legally actually meant it instead of using it as a shield to hide their desire to stop anyone who doesn't meet their definition of "American" from entering. If the goal was just lawlessness, terror, and going after brown people, then yeah, you don't need Congress. Gotta love the idiocy of asking a question to avoid answering a question and then being a weirdo when your obvious distraction tactic failed. Still scared of admitting Dear Leader may have broken the law, huh? No I really don't care.
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Do you believe ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing farmworkers away from the fields is a solution? No. I’m glad they’ve actually got the border under control. What happened during the reign of your guy was an absolute disgrace.That’s something you said could not happen without congressional intervention. You could not have been more wrong. 1
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 2 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: No. I’m glad they’ve actually got the border under control. What happened during the reign of your guy was an absolute disgrace.That’s something you said could not happen without congressional intervention. You could not have been more wrong. They got the border under control by ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing workers off farms. And you are saying that's not a solution, but also I was wrong for saying that's not a solution? ...what do you think actually happened to shut down the border? 1 1
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. "Ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing farmworkers away from the fields is not a solution to the border, which is why I believe that anyone who says that ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing farmworkers away from the fields is not a solution to the border is dead wrong." Anyway, back to the topic at hand, aside from the tariffs under IEEPA almost certainly being illegal, the idea that tariffs are to both bring manufacturing back to the US *and* as a negotiating tactic for trade deals is dumb because those goals are mutually exclusive. If you're expecting companies to spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in CapEx to build out logistics and operations here, you can't keep changing the tariff regime - it needs to be set in stone. If you're using tariffs to negotiate trade deals, then the tariffs need to be flexible so you can reduce them as part of an agreement or raise them if negotiations aren't going well - they cannot be set in stone. But maybe I'm wrong here too. Maybe Lesotho will move their diamond mining operations to the US. 1 2
The Frankish Reich Posted July 11 Author Posted July 11 52 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Maybe Lesotho will move their diamond mining operations to the US Synthetic diamonds, baby. Substitution. It is the first thing any competent economist should think about. 2
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Synthetic diamonds, baby. Substitution. It is the first thing any competent economist should think about. Those greedy people in Lesotho are sending us all these diamonds and denim but not buying anything from us with their $2 per day income! Once we figure this out, next will be the trade deficit with my grocery store. I buy things from them every week but they have never bought anything from me! 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 11 Author Posted July 11 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Those greedy people in Lesotho are sending us all these diamonds and denim but not buying anything from us with their $2 per day income! Once we figure this out, next will be the trade deficit with my grocery store. I buy things from them every week but they have never bought anything from me! 80% tariff please. They are so selfish. 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 11 Author Posted July 11 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tariffs-south-korea-japan-donald-trump-trade-a9075145?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAg8CiniOscz3K9YcKJ_hOChj6p9jDXDxPYc9c720h2JmZMGqEG5nDp1lSslWVg%3D&gaa_ts=68718d6f&gaa_sig=bNAXRWupj0dXLTVdwG3ExUZpn7ZGMzlt3H0uA-1JXvC-hB81HYmfkW5WEc5aIFHtnctceKSp-QjtWkKCvhpbtw%3D%3D Those radical lefties at the Wall St. Journal are picking on Trump again.
Roundybout Posted July 11 Posted July 11 10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tariffs-south-korea-japan-donald-trump-trade-a9075145?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAg8CiniOscz3K9YcKJ_hOChj6p9jDXDxPYc9c720h2JmZMGqEG5nDp1lSslWVg%3D&gaa_ts=68718d6f&gaa_sig=bNAXRWupj0dXLTVdwG3ExUZpn7ZGMzlt3H0uA-1JXvC-hB81HYmfkW5WEc5aIFHtnctceKSp-QjtWkKCvhpbtw%3D%3D Those radical lefties at the Wall St. Journal are picking on Trump again. Huge boost for the methhead copper thief demographic 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 11 Author Posted July 11 Just now, Roundybout said: Huge boost for the methhead copper thief demographic Exactly. Hey builders, lock up your copper every night! 1
Recommended Posts