• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Swing voters and others got the Trump messaging because it went viral.

So again, is the way to break the echo chamber for the Dems to spout anything that makes them go viral?
Well, without going full Trump, Harris could have made an effort to go on more podcasts, and do more interviews. Actual interviews, not just softball 10 minute clips on MSM shows.

If she had forsaken Joe Rogan, but did a few of the other popular podcasts, and didn't suck, she could have reached a lot of people. Maybe reining in the crazies like AOC would have helped too. It's hard to get your core message out if the crazies are dominating the news cycle.
 
Harris is going to work with Biden and get a bunch of her campaign promises hammered through in the next 2 months the, right?
 
Well, without going full Trump, Harris could have made an effort to go on more podcasts, and do more interviews. Actual interviews, not just softball 10 minute clips on MSM shows.

If she had forsaken Joe Rogan, but did a few of the other popular podcasts, and didn't suck, she could have reached a lot of people. Maybe reining in the crazies like AOC would have helped too. It's hard to get your core message out if the crazies are dominating the news cycle.

There's a reason she was best suited to be a democrat's Vice President...
 
Rather poorly. America also exports $150b in goods a year to China. Safe bet China would destroy that with retaliatory tariffs.
1731210008235.gif

Any country that only takes 7.5% of America’s exports isn’t going to ‘destroy’ America any time soon with 10, 20, even 30% tariffs. Impact? Sure. Destroy? Nope…

1731210079507.png
 

Attachments

  • 1731210017960.gif
    1731210017960.gif
    122.7 KB · Views: 0
View attachment 88988

Any country that only takes 7.5% of America’s exports isn’t going to ‘destroy’ America any time soon with 10, 20, even 30% tariffs. Impact? Sure. Destroy? Nope…

View attachment 88990

China is only about 30 years into their new experiment with capitalism. It's by no means a done deal, which is a good reason to not rely too heavily on them as a supplier.

The world could wake up tomorrow and they might easily be back to where they started, pre-Boxer rebellion, of course ;)


How China Became Capitalist​


"The combination of rapid economic liberalization and seemingly unchanged politics has led many to characterize China’s market economy as state-led, authoritarian capitalism, which many people have rightly recognized as fragile and unsustainable. When and how China will embrace democracy, and whether the Party will survive democratization, are the main questions asked about China’s political future. In our book, a different perspective is offered. It provides a different diagnosis of the main flaw of the Chinese market economy: China has developed a robust market for goods, but it still lacks a free market for ideas."

 
I didn’t say “destroy America”. I was taking about China wrecking America’s export trade to China.
Same, for got to add ‘exports’ in their. China isn’t going to cut its nose of to spite its face and turn off $160B of annual imports, particularly since it’s stiff
Higher up the technology chain than cheap Temu/Amazon stuff…
 
Same, for got to add ‘exports’ in their. China isn’t going to cut its nose of to spite its face and turn off $160B of annual imports, particularly since it’s stiff
Higher up the technology chain than cheap Temu/Amazon stuff…
You think China wouldn’t levy heavy punitive tariffs in response? Particularly ones targeted at goods made in politically important congressional districts?
 
Same, for got to add ‘exports’ in their. China isn’t going to cut its nose of to spite its face and turn off $160B of annual imports, particularly since it’s stiff
Higher up the technology chain than cheap Temu/Amazon stuff…

One of China's greatest threats is persistent domestic underconsumption, and the bizarre economic decision making of its national leadership. Without exports, they're probably doomed...


Why Is It So Hard for China to Boost Domestic Demand?​

Beijing’s unwillingness to boost the consumption share of GDP is not as bizarre as it seems.


Globally, according to the World Bank, consumption accounts for roughly 75 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with the remaining 25 percent driven by investment. In China, however, consumption accounts for 53–54 percent of GDP, while investment accounts for an astonishing 42–43 percent of GDP. (The rest is accounted for by China’s trade surplus.)

Despite this consensus, Beijing has been unable to shift the economy away from its overreliance on investment—and, more recently, on its trade surplus—to maintain high growth rates. In early June, American economist Paul Krugman publicly worried in a Bloomberg interview that China’s leaders were “bizarrely unwilling” to use more government spending to support consumer demand instead of production.

 
You think China wouldn’t levy heavy punitive tariffs in response? Particularly ones targeted at goods made in politically important congressional districts?
Nope.

They might inject America with a Canola-lubed probe, like they did to Canada after U.S. and Canada 100% tariffs on EVs… and a strongly-worded letter of disappointment registered with the WTO…

So no, I don’t think China will levy heavy punitive tariffs…just like they didn’t previously.
 
Poppycock. The average voter doesn't understand complicated economic issues especially at the international scale
Very condescending. And your the "Expert"? Or you know to use google?

Wait, are you saying we should disparage the Democrats for not choosing to use disinformation and out right lies as their campaign "tool"?
Seriously? Again implying people are too dumb and were fooled by "misinformation"? Or your just upset as a chronic Lefty that Trump won?

Yes, but my issue with you right now is that the you are saying that the "bad" of "how bad do you have to be" is apparently there decision to not lie.
He had a point and it was very well stated. And this is your response?

Trump won, I hope you find the peace in that truth to deal with that fact in the near future. Hell, I always thought Trump was an asshole but apparently the Yanks want an effective president even if he is an asshole.
 
I'm curious how local law enforcement would determine that an offender is in the country illegally. It might be more obvious if they are indigent, living in a trailer in a Californian onion field or something similar, but what circumstance compels an arrested person, particularly for a state crime, to prove their citizenship?
Well, when one does ID verification it’s usually a fairly easy aspect, due to the RealID requirements for DL’s for citizens and permanent residents. PR’s are also required to have their Green Card on them at all times. NCIS searches can also be illuminating.
 
The tools I am referring to are social media, and other forms of communications to get their message out there, and prove the Trump side's lies. They failed to do that. If they can't prove the Trump lies, with all the media and celebrity support they had, then they suck at campaigning.

Don't blame the voters because the side you liked sucked at doing their primary job.
Ok, mea culpa. From the way you responded to me it sounded like you were in support of the lying.

You're just saying that the Dems could have used the same tools (news, social media) to fight against Trump's lies. I disagree. The Dems had a crack team of online media experts. They had a GenZ team of TikTok and Instagram experts who were able to put out high quality social media posts within minutes if not hours of something germane happening. There was an article about it.

But here's where I disagree with you. It wasn't "not effective" because they didn't use it well enough, it was "not effective" because easy lies are either to believe than hard truths.
 
Very condescending. And your the "Expert"? Or you know to use google?

You're over sinplyfing it. You don't need to be an "expert", but you do need to do more than read angry tweets to know and understand the depth of the issues.

Seriously? Again implying people are too dumb and were fooled by "misinformation"? Or your just upset as a chronic Lefty that Trump won?
Now now now let's not stoop to name calling. I don't think most people are "dumb", I think they are lazy and uneducated. Yes, absolutely they were fooled by misinformation. Below is just a SHORT list of outright lies and disinformation, but I'll make my point first and then you can read at your leisure. My point is this: these lies were either fully embraced leading to flately incorrect conclusions by voters, or if not wholly believed nonetheless created doubt leading to voters questioning and being less likely to accept the correct information being provided by the Democrats.

Trump falsely claimed that, “Over the past four years, Kamala and crooked Joe Biden have presided over an economic reign of terror, committing one financial atrocity after another. As Vice President, Kamala cast the deciding votes that caused the worst inflation in American history. You’re all victims of it. We all are.” In fact, the unemployment rate is low, inflation is way down, economic growth is solid, and job growth has been remarkably strong. Indeed, the country has added nearly 18m jobs, a record, under the Biden-Harris administration. Not only that, median household income has climbed to $80,610. The US has added more than 700,000 factory jobs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is 36% higher than when Trump left office, and the S&P 500 is 53% higher. The US economy has grown twice as fast as Canada’s, three times as fast as France’s and Japan’s, and four times as fast as Britain’s.

Trump claimed in the June debate that “The country was growing like never before, and we were ready to start paying down debt.” However, on an equivalent basis, as debt accumulated per year in office, Trump saddled America with more debt than any president in U.S. history. Controlling for the effects from COVID-19, Biden-Harris still outperformed Trump.

Trump falsely claimed that immigrants take social security benefits and are decreasing the life of the program. In reality, immigrants cannot take social security benefits but pay taxes, thus increasing the life of the program

Trump falsely claimed that 107% of jobs are taken by illegal immigrants. In reality, native-born Americans have gained more jobs than illegal immigrants during Biden's administration.

In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party has made false claims of massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants in an attempt to delegitimize the election if Trump loses.

Trump has falsely claimed that he was responsible for lowering insulin costs to $35 for those on Medicare, and has falsely claimed that Biden is taking credit for his accomplishment. Trump has falsely claimed that he was responsible for the VA Choice law passed by Obama.

During his campaign speeches, Trump erroneously asserted that the Biden administration was in the process of converting U.S. Army tanks into electrically powered vehicles.

Trump has falsely claimed that Democratic states are passing laws to allow executing babies after birth.

Trump has falsely claimed that schools are secretly sending children to have sex-change surgeries.

In the aftermath of the North Carolian hurricane, Trump engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories about the federal response, which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts. Among the false claims were that Biden wouldn't take calls from Georgia's governor; that Harris had stolen Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to house undocumented migrants; that the Biden administration was providing only $750 to people whose homes had been destroyed by the hurricane; and that no attempts had been made to rescue people.

Trump repeated a debunked hoax spread by neo-Nazi groups, right-wing politicians and media figures that immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.

In the days leading up the election, Trump was falsely claiming all over social media that election cheating was actively happening. He was literally shouting it all over Twitter. Well, he won, so where did it go?


He had a point and it was very well stated. And this is your response?
It actually wasn't completely clear and we've sorted it out.
Trump won, I hope you find the peace in that truth to deal with that fact in the near future. Hell, I always thought Trump was an asshole but apparently the Yanks want an effective president even if he is an asshole.
Of course they want an effective president. My disappointment is two fold.

The first is that they didn't trade effectiveness for an "asshole", they traded effectiveness for a lying, grfiting, philandering, adultering, sexually abusive, mysogynistic, narcissist. Not everyone's perfect, but in the face of such moral depravity, you should be able to accept "less effective" (ie Harris).

Second, they didn't actually trade effectiveness for an asshole, because Trump won't actually be effective. He'll do things for sure, but they won't necessarily be good for the country, and they certainly won't be good for the vast majority of the lower and middle class people who voted for him.
 
Trump won, I hope you find the peace in that truth to deal with that fact in the near future. Hell, I always thought Trump was an asshole but apparently the Yanks want an effective president even if he is an asshole.
This makes me think of “Leading Change” vs “Leading Effective Change”.
 
Would it not be interesting (and to see Trudeau's explanation/face) if the Trump Administration declared they were not going to negotiate with Canada until after the pending election?
 
Nope.

They might inject America with a Canola-lubed probe, like they did to Canada after U.S. and Canada 100% tariffs on EVs… and a strongly-worded letter of disappointment registered with the WTO…

So no, I don’t think China will levy heavy punitive tariffs…just like they didn’t previously.

Forty Sixty years ago China was in the middle of the world's largest famine: between the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 some 30 million Chinese starved to death and about the same number of births were lost or postponed. The famine had overwhelmingly ideological causes, rating alongside the two world wars as a prime example of what Richard Rhodes labelled public manmade death, perhaps the most overlooked cause of 20th century mortality.1 Two generations later China, which has been rapidly modernising since the early 1980s, is economically successful and producing adequate amounts of food. Yet it has still not undertaken an open, critical examination of this unprecedented tragedy.

...decreases in grain (such as corn or soybeans) or meat imports by China mean that millions more tonnes will be available for other importing countries, and could even see China exporting more agricultural products in greater quantities. These two scenarios may have cascading effects on grain and meat prices, forcing adjustments in exporting countries, providing opportunities for other countries to import surplus agricultural products, and influencing global market dynamics.

It may also lead farmers in exporting countries, such as the U.S. — which exports around half of the value of its soybeans to China — to reduce production to avoid a major drop in prices, or continue to find alternative uses or destinations for these exports.

However, other research is less optimistic about China’s food self-sufficiency ambitions, especially in light of the fact that since 2004 China has been a net importer of food. The country’s food self-sufficiency rate decreased considerably between 2000 to 2020, from 93.6 percent to 65.8 percent, while its reliance on food imports during this time has increased. By 2030, however, one estimate suggests that the country’s food self-sufficiency rate could decrease again to 58.8 percent.

On top of this, a report from the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences suggests that by the end of 2025, China could still face a food gap of around 130 million tonnes, including a grain gap of about 25 million tonnes. This suggests that China is likely to remain a major food importer, at least in the near future.

Empty rice bowls do not equate to an optimistic outlook for the Party.

And with Russia mucking up the Ukrainian supply it is not helping. Come to think of it a nuke in the Ukrainian wheatfields wouldn't help much either. The wind blows from west to east.
 
Back
Top