I guess this is also bad?  Asking for a friend…

“We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods — as we have successfully done with many other trading partners — because Europe is always ready for a good deal, so we keep it on the table.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5236107-european-union-tariff-negotiations/amp/

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

Art of the deal. Thank goodness we have such a shrewd negotiator at the helm. In other news.. the rest of the indo pacific including two of our strongest allies in the region Japan and Korea have vowed to strengthen economic ties with China.
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-china-japan-agree-promote-regional-trade-trump-tariffs-loom-2025-03-30/

Sick. But at least our shitty t-shirt prices won’t go up.

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.

43 minutes ago, Banzai said:

You guys think it’s odd that FoxNews doesn’t have a single story on the market and removed their stock ticker? Or is that how fair and balanced news looks?

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:

20 hours ago, Pooter said:

This is one of the most epic economic self-owns in history.  I've never seen the right and left so united against anything, but when you propose possibly the most retarded economic plan ever, I guess that's what happens.  I'm so glad we're tariffing Vietnam into oblivion to bring back all those quality t-shirt sweatshop manufacturing jobs. Just happy I'm a long way from retirement and can use it as an opportunity to buy the dip.  

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

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Never mind what happened mid-terms in 2018 I guess.

The GOP gained Senate seats?

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

That's great, and so was I. By the way, Military RIF =! Civilian RIF when it comes to procedures and weighted categories. The DoD has different RIFing procedures than what OPM sends out to the other agencies.

So, do you agree with Paul voting today with the Dems on the Senate resolution against the Canadian tariffs? 

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?

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, MAGAats like yourself REALLY expected Coney Barrett to go along with the conservatives for the Trump 2.0 issues already brought to the court. Unfortunately for you, Roberts and her have been handing out some losses to your cult by siding with the liberals on the court. I guess they must be "activist judges," right? Better go on X and shitpost calling for their impeachment, I guess?

I don't understand the "if and when" part of your post. Are you assuming you know how the DoD RIF process works or have seen it? I have, and I won't be part of that but continue to spout off about conjecture of things you don't know.

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.  

3 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Come? Where the fuck have you been in the past few months? Are they legal cuts or illegal cuts? The current administration sure has been taking some losses in the courts for illegal firing, then rehiring, federal employees (which costs taxpayers even more money).

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.  

10 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

It's called judicial review. Don't like it? Appeal. Don't like the law? Run for Congress. 

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.

3 minutes ago, busdriver said:

No, you're supposed to be cranky that the US gov is shitting on due process.

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?  

2 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

I’m going to assume you didn’t read the article?

“The filing stems from a lawsuit over the removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who in 2019 was granted protected status by an immigration judge, prohibiting the federal government from sending him to El Salvador.”

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?

51 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

"The Trump administration conceded in a court filing Monday that it mistakenly deported a Maryland father to El Salvador “because of an administrative error” and argued it could not return him because he’s now in Salvadoran custody."

Guess the DOJ lawyers have TDS? "oops, our bad. There was a court order... oops. We can't do anything about it...oops."

Or I guess we could just got with, "there are 3 co-equal parts of our government but some are more equal than others."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/politics/maryland-father-mistakenly-deported-el-salvador-prison/index.html
 

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?

8 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

https://x.com/norrisnotchuck/status/1900671482243490072?s=46&t=OvdsuZwo_zvpUkwubv-urg

I agree with Reagan—government is the problem.

13 hours ago, Hacker said:

T-38 waiver stuff 

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!

35 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

But it is an event, it made the news.

Highlighting this post for others to read…

46 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

Seems to me there are two different questions to ask.  

First, is the use of Signal approved for this level of classified conversation between these specific people (minus the reporter)?  If it is approved, then that part of the story is now moot.  If it is not approved, these guys have a massive problem and should be punished to the full extent   

Second, how did a journalist get on the thread?  This was clearly maliciously done or was gross careless negligence.  Seems to me that this is the real issue.  

This 

2 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I do not remember and do not recall.

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

22 minutes ago, Banzai said:

How about this, let’s take a hypothetical stance that there is totally not enough evidence to believe this is anything other than a fake news smear job.

If it comes out as true - which the truth will come out when the reporter is called to testify - will you oppose and denounce the actions taken if targets and timing and/or other classified information were shared?

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.

9 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

The Prez and his commerce sec want you to buy Tesla cars and stock.  Get going!

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

3 minutes ago, BuddhaSixFour said:

Our entire system of government is predicated on the idea that Marco Rubio’s personal credibility isn’t a legally binding construct. I suspect you know that.

It seems perfectly plausible most of these guys were illegal shit bags. Cool. Stick them in front of a judge, prove it, send them on their way to whatever hell hole prison you like. There’s no reason to not do it right.

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.

4 minutes ago, BuddhaSixFour said:

I don’t know and neither do you. That’s what due process is for. 

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

34 minutes ago, BuddhaSixFour said:

Who’s against deporting them? The debate here is between deporting them with or without due process.

Were the people deported in the US illegally? 

47 minutes ago, Banzai said:

It's actually impossible to argue in good faith with you. I don't know why you're saying I have TDS lol, give me any examples backing up your claim. Or is this just the point in the argument where someone would typically just call you a magat and then you'd feel really justified in your bad feewings?

Economics for dummies: "Regressive" is a word to describe economic tax policy that impacts the working class more substantially than the upper class. Our tax structure is progressive now. Really caught up in semantics (about all the wrong things). You probably still call your fries freedom fries, don't you?

You haven't engaged with a single point or discussion about real economic policy. You have essentially only brought up false dichotomies and examples that are not related. Finally, people like you that screech TDS as a defense are exactly the same as libtards who screech about pronouns or being racists - change my mind. Just a fundamental lack of ability to defend an intellectual position.

I'm good bro. Stop coming onto me.

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.