HeloDude

But, but… So you cared enough to specifically mention Vietnam a couple days ago, but now it doesn’t matter to you since it doesn’t support your original argument. For the record, I don’t know how Trump’s tariff strategy is going to work. He has a little over a year to show the rest of us that it worked, and if not, I imagine the GOP will do pretty bad in 2026. And if Trump still can’t turn it around by 2028, then the Dems will most likely be fully in charge by a healthy margin, until the next crisis occurs. I’m older enough to remember in 1993 when the Dems thought they were unstoppable, but then got a huge reality check in the 1994 election, but then Clinton still won handily in 1996. Similar to what happened in 2008…Dems thought they were unstoppable, but then 2010 and 2014 (and of course 2016) happened. So BL: We’ll have to wait and see.

Not a “single” story…yet I just went to their website. But I’m sure you’ll have some excuse to somehow say you were correct:

Update on your Vietnam tariff discussion: https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/vietnam-wants-to-cut-tariffs-down-to-zero-after-us-reciprocal-tariffs-trump-says-19584921.htm

The GOP gained Senate seats?

I honestly appreciate the legitimate question. I’m very anti-tariff on principle…because I’m very anti-tax on principle. Now Trump saying he can use tariffs (or their threat) to better position us wrt trade agreements, then I’d like to see what that can do strategy wise. Because let’s not pretend that tariffs on our exports with other countries (not necessarily speaking about Canada) are very fair. But tariffs for the sake of tariffs, yeah, they suck…just like all the other taxes. But politically, does anybody rationally think that Trump’s greatest opposition in the US wrt to tariffs are because those same people are against taxes?

I was in the AF for 3 RIFs—one around 2007, one in 2010/11 timeframe, and the bigger one in 2014. Funny, I don’t recall progressives getting all butthurt about military members losing their jobs. I’m a fan of discussing the issues, not just a blanket whatever Trump is doing, though I do like most of it. If you’re curious to know where I stand on any issue, ask away. But yes, I agree much more with Trump than with Kamala. If you want to paint me with a broad brush though, I most likely agree with Massie or Rand Paul.

I expect SCOTUS to rule in Trump’s favor. Hence the “if and when” part of my post. And then you’ll be good it with it I suppose.

So if and when the cuts to federal employees come, you’ll be ok with it, right? It’s called the law I suppose. Don’t like it, run for Congress.

First, I’m cranky that we have activist judges stopping the law from being enforced in the first place. Biden, or whoever was really in charge the last few years, knew this all too well…that it would be difficult deport all these illegal aliens. We should really be asking why the last administration so easily allows them to come here?

He came here illegally, did he not? Why you guys want to protect people who break our laws and come here illegally is beyond me. It doesn’t shock me that we have activists judges who are intentionally trying to circumvent US law. But hey, Trump won on this issue, so I’m all about seeing the left continue to give Trump this gift. Again, am I supposed to be upset this guy returned to country of origin?

An illegal alien from El Salvador, who shouldn’t have been here in the first place, got deported back to El Salvador. Am I supposed to be upset?

I agree with Reagan—government is the problem.

I just want to say…Hacker, it’s damn good to see you on here again! Hope all has been well for you and your family!

Highlighting this post for others to read…

This

Simple question, do you believe Tulsi wrt her quote below: “I can attest to the fact that there were not classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna197954

Do you believe Tulsi Gabbard when she said that nothing classified was shared in the texts?

I think if it was gross negligence, then yes, someone should be fired…and if it’s Waltz, then so be it. But let’s not pretend the Democrats suddenly care about this security stuff. Two things can be true at the same time.

Didn’t progressives tell us for several years to buy Teslas to stop “climate change”?

So for the government to deport anyone known to be here illegally, they have to be given a trial where the government must prove to a judge (or jury) they’re here illegally? When Obama deported millions of illegals, were they all give their due in front of a judge?…if not, why was this allowed to occur? We all knew the left was all for making it super difficult to deport those here illegally, but they’ve now extended it to violent criminals. No wonder the left is against voter ID laws. Well, the good news is that it will be the political gift that keeps on giving.

The Secretary of State said they were here illegally…do you believe he is wrong? Do you believe he is lying?

Were the people deported in the US illegally?

Are you seriously saying we don’t have taxes/regulatory fees that poor people also pay? Here’s just one easy one for you: The gas tax. Unless you were for getting rid that before January 20th? And I’m a libertarian…I don’t care if bad policy is enacted by Trump or a Democrat, it’s still bad policy. You seem to only be exist against a policy if Trump is for it.

Dude, if you (not me) are going to bring up “regressive” tariffs/taxes/fees, then be willing to have the discussion…as in all of these existed before January 20th of this year. If not, you just have TDS (which we all knew anyway).