Politics

[RLD]

And AOC had better responses than Newsome.

I was quite disappointed (but not surprised_ by both Newsome and AOC, going to Munich and making the speech's and comments that they did.

While I loath President Bonespur and many of his policies there is great value in the conventional wisdom that "politics stops at the water's edge." It is below the standard to go overseas and use international forums for domestic political purposes undermining a country's ability to execute its foreign policies and interests.

It is simply unpatriotic to do that. It's harmful, and a clear result of the erosion of democratic standards and norms in the United States.

The pity is I don't think either of them will pay a political price for these acts.

 

[Tanks]

Considering 13% the population commits 85% the violent crime in this country.
Id be ok with occasionnaly throwing the baby out with the bath water till that demographic chilled out.

Or should we just let them do whatever to avoid making a mistake

There is difference between not rushing to justice and "letting them do whatever".

 

[Tanks]

I was quite disappointed (but not surprised_ by both Newsome and AOC, going to Munich and making the speech's and comments that they did.

While I loath President Bonespur and many of his policies there is great value in the conventional wisdom that "politics stops at the water's edge." It is below the standard to go overseas and use international forums for domestic political purposes undermining a country's ability to execute its foreign policies and interests.

It is simply unpatriotic to do that. It's harmful, and a clear result of the erosion of democratic standards and norms in the United States.

The pity is I don't think either of them will pay a political price for these acts.

Yeah, going there and saying "Don't worry when we get into power, you can do whatever you want" is seriously undermining foreign policy. Too bad the Logan act has no teeth.

 

[RLD]

Considering 13% the population commits 85% the violent crime in this country.
Id be ok with occasionnaly throwing the baby out with the bath water till that demographic chilled out.

Or should we just let them do whatever to avoid making a mistake

Only if you are in the David Duke fan club.

The 13/85% number has been debunked just about everywhere. Would love to see your source for it. That number is pretty much white supremacist propaganda now.

If you are trying to hide the racist element of your claim, let's look at the real numbers. Blacks are about 13% of the population of the United States and they probably commit between 29-40% of violent crime in the United States.

But here is the weird part, they also tend to be poorer than their white neighbours and violent crime statistics tend to track better with poverty than race. Bizarre eh?

So really do you want to say you are cool with killing disproportionate numbers of innocent black people to make yourself feel better, or are you advocating killing disproportionate numbers of innocent poor people to make yourself feel better? Just so we can all understand.

 

[farmer_john]

Only if you are in the David Duke fan club.

The 13/85% number has been debunked just about everywhere. Would love to see your source for it. That number is pretty much white supremacist propaganda now.

If you are trying to hide the racist element of your claim, let's look at the real numbers. Blacks are about 13% of the population of the United States and they probably commit between 29-40% of violent crime in the United States.

But here is the weird part, they also tend to be poorer than their white neighbours and violent crime statistics tend to track better with poverty than race. Bizarre eh?

So really do you want to say you are cool with killing disproportionate numbers of innocent black people to make yourself feel better, or are you advocating killing disproportionate numbers of innocent poor people to make yourself feel better? Just so we can all understand.

O brother....... is that all you have david duke this and racism that to try to shut the convo down because it doesnt jive with the liberal utopia talking points?.

Dude get off your soap box. And screaming racism crap.
Even if your numbers are right and mine are wrong it proves my point that they commit crimes at an absurdly higher rate.

And anyone in western society with a pair of eyes can see whats happening in our communities. Its not white supremicist propaganda when DEI promots less qualified people over you and they get cut loose after commiting violent crimes over and over.
Or across the pond migrant gangs attacking whites and targeting women especially. Admissions tests get extra points for minorities. Hell they can have a no white spaces but try the reverse if your white.

When there special programs and even the not so special programs designed to advance the not really minority populations in the west. At the expense of the actual peoples of the country who are actually minorities thats a problem.
Usa doesnt have true poverty. And the welfare systems we have are incredibly abused by the "minority" populations there supposed to help.
So no I dont care at all about their supposed plight/ struggles because there all self imposed. And the manufactured outrage is ridiculous

 

[BJH65]

Only if you are in the David Duke fan club.

The 13/85% number has been debunked just about everywhere. Would love to see your source for it. That number is pretty much white supremacist propaganda now.

If you are trying to hide the racist element of your claim, let's look at the real numbers. Blacks are about 13% of the population of the United States and they probably commit between 29-40% of violent crime in the United States.

But here is the weird part, they also tend to be poorer than their white neighbours and violent crime statistics tend to track better with poverty than race. Bizarre eh?

Looking at 2019 FBI data, blacks commit 37.6% of the violent crime and 51.3% of the homicides in the U.S. Unfortunately there has been a shift in crime reporting data with up to 40% of agencies failing to report since 2021 so there is no current accurate data. Wonder why?

Also when looking at the black violent crime rate and homicides, to extrapolate further, black males commit the vast majority of those reported crimes by blacks in the above data but make up approximately 6% of the U.S. population.

One need not be a racist to recognize that there is a huge problem with crime in the black community and how it has been downplayed in the media. Let’s start by merely recognizing that there is a significant problem until then there can be no solution.

 

[farmer_john]

Looking at 2019 FBI data, blacks commit 37.6% of the violent crime and 51.3% of the homicides in the U.S. Unfortunately there has been a shift in crime reporting data with up to 40% of agencies failing to report since 2021 so there is no current accurate data. Wonder why?

Also when looking at the black violent crime rate and homicides, to extrapolate further, black males commit the vast majority of those reported crimes by blacks in the above data but make up approximately 6% of the U.S. population.

One need not be a racist to recognize that there is a huge problem with crime in the black community and how it has been downplayed in the media. Let’s start by merely recognizing that there is a significant problem until then there can be no solution.

The biggest issue is that you cant even talk about it same with critizizing a certan small countries pololices in the ME.
Theres no room for objectivity. Its all racism bs to try to shut it down.

And for clarification.. on innocents wrongly convicted.

White black or other found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Priest and lawyer day one
Firing squad day two.

 

[Brent in Az]

I was quite disappointed (but not surprised_ by both Newsome and AOC, going to Munich and making the speech's and comments that they did.

While I loath President Bonespur and many of his policies there is great value in the conventional wisdom that "politics stops at the water's edge." It is below the standard to go overseas and use international forums for domestic political purposes undermining a country's ability to execute its foreign policies and interests.

It is simply unpatriotic to do that. It's harmful, and a clear result of the erosion of democratic standards and norms in the United States.

The pity is I don't think either of them will pay a political price for these acts.

When it comes to loathing, I certainly lump you and the Ontario professor into the same loathsome category, that you so eloquently put on Trump.

 

[farmer_john]

When it comes to loathing, I certainly lump you and the Ontario professor into the same loathsome category, that you so eloquently put on Trump.

I think were all friends on here. No need to take discourse personal.

It is really funny how people with certian views scream loudly. Then never come back to support their beliefs when pointed out they are wrong.. just keep screaming

 

[Alistair]

Help me understand the tariffs thing. Maybe this was discussed on here a while back and I missed it, I also don’t know the particulars. I understand that US goods to Canada were being tariffed at pretty high levels like milk, beef, vegetables ext…… was the US already putting tariffs on good coming in from Canada and Trump dreamed up the idea to put even more tariffs on these goods? Cause it sounded to me if you would have fare trade there would be no tariffs. I could be wrong on this. But if I’m right then he’s a genius!!!

This is a topic that's been dug into a lot on this thread already, but the TL;DR version.

Some tariffs have always been in place between nations. Generally they're very targeted and very carefully managed to support key local industries that have strategic importance, but where the nation in question isn't realistically going to be competitive on the world stage without them. Generally because local labor or input costs are too high. US steel, or soy beans for example.

These are intended to maintain a minimum level of domestic production because... if you need to get in a war, it's helpful to be able to make your food and your war material domestically so you're not at the mercy of other nations.

Canada specifically had some, but then... so did the US, and they were at historically low levels under NAFTA. There were also 'maximum quotas' established for some 'sensitive' (usually agricultural) goods, which incurred very high tariffs on any exports above that limit. Wood or cheese as examples. This is the very high tariff percentages that you saw bandied around on right leaning sources when Trump was originally implementing this mess. They did exist, but generally the quotas just applied a maximum level of exports as it wasn't worth paying the elevated rates over quota.

Also worth noting that the US actively subsidizes these same industries (e.g Dairy farmers) domestically for the reasons of strategic importance detailed above. Subsequently, Canada applied the quotas to ensure that they too could have strategic industries domestically and those companies wouldn't be out competed by US taxpayer subsidized competitors.

A resource on that topic can be found here: https://www.commenda.io/blog/canadian-tariffs-on-us-goods-before-trump

You are correct, 'fair trade' and a 'free market' model does generally support no tariffs. Tariffs are just yet another tax adding friction to the wheels of commerce and making the nation setting them generally less competitive on the world stage after all. But then Trump doesn't care about either of those things.

I should clarify on this topic: If tariffs are applied to Canada by the US, Canada doesn't pay them. The US importing company pays them when the goods cross the border. Which pushes up input costs for the US company, or gets passed to the US consumer... which is inflationary.

References:
https://www.kielinstitut.de/publica...icans-pay-almost-entirely-for-trumps-tariffs/

Who Pays Trump’s Tariffs? | Council on Foreign Relations

President Trump routinely claims that foreigners pay his tariffs, which is false—U.S. importers pay them. Over time, however, foreign exporters can be expected to bear a small but rising burden of the tariffs through price cuts, while most of the cost will be borne by U.S. consumers in the form...

www.cfr.org

Anyway, Trump, has instead decided that the ONLY reason that any trade deficit with any nation could possibly exist is because the US is threatened by 'unfair trade practices'. This is evidently wrong, but it plays well with the base so long as they don't think too hard on the topic...

The actual reason why the US runs a trade deficit? US consumers are rich compared to most of the world, and they like to buy things. They like to buy em cheap, and all else being equal aren't willing to pay American salaries for the manufacture of their goods. We're victims of our own success there, we like high wages and we like cheap consumer goods. So... a trade deficit.

As a response to this, Trump has tried (and subsequently failed) to apply massive tariffs to goods from pretty much every nation on the planet in a (claimed) attempt to boost US based manufacturing job numbers and 'revitalize the middle class'. For context, the numbers on his liberation board he posted up weren't tariff rates for the nations in question. They were US trade deficits as a percentage of total trade (i.e % more stuff imported, than exported). Trump decided that it was smart to place tariffs at those levels... because again, its a good story to tell the base who won't look deeply into the topic.

Anyway, this has been ineffective: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

Since then, tariffs seem to mostly have been used as a 'negotiating tool' to try and gain favorable terms for the US. This has also failed in my opinion, in no small part because it makes the business environment in the US unbelievably complicated when the rules of engagement change daily. Something which has hurt investment, productivity, and the cost of goods for anything made in the US that is subsequently exported. But that's a much more complex issue, so you can draw your own conclusions.

From the US to China, 2025 a blockbuster year for stock markets

Wall Street's benchmark S&P 500 sees third year of double-digit gains, while non-US stocks register best run since 2009.

www.aljazeera.com

Honestly, even if there was some kind of coherent strategy there originally, the sheer incompetence exhibited in implementation makes the whole thing an embarrassing and damaging mess for the US. Which, honestly? Classic Trump.

 

[Brent in Az]

I think were all friends on here. No need to take discourse personal.

It is really funny how people with certian views scream loudly. Then never come back to support their beliefs when pointed out they are wrong.. just keep screaming

No....we are not all friends here. That dude is a fraud , and so is his Ontario counterpart.

 

[farmer_john]

No....we are not all friends here. That dude is a fraud , and so is his Ontario counterpart.

they did cheat in curling at the Olympics, and the Canadian bacon sold in USA is not the canadian bacon they eat in Canada...... Maybe your on to something.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Only if you are in the David Duke fan club.

The 13/85% number has been debunked just about everywhere. Would love to see your source for it. That number is pretty much white supremacist propaganda now.

If you are trying to hide the racist element of your claim, let's look at the real numbers. Blacks are about 13% of the population of the United States and they probably commit between 29-40% of violent crime in the United States.

But here is the weird part, they also tend to be poorer than their white neighbours and violent crime statistics tend to track better with poverty than race. Bizarre eh?

So really do you want to say you are cool with killing disproportionate numbers of innocent black people to make yourself feel better, or are you advocating killing disproportionate numbers of innocent poor people to make yourself feel better? Just so we can all understand.

Debunked huh? Not hardly. Ask anyone that has worked in the criminal justice system in the US. That includes people.of color.

Now, can you find plenty.of liberal people of any color, but especially middle aged whites, that says that it's a "racist claim?" Plenty.

 

[farmer_john]

Debunked huh? Not hardly. Ask anyone that has worked in the criminal justice system in the US. That includes people.of color.

Now, can you find plenty.of liberal people of any color, but especially middle aged whites, that says that it's a "racist claim?" Plenty.

Its always the boomers... thats why hes only able to toss out david duke.
Hates his history people and culture.

Has to appologize to the global majority for his existance and right to exist.

Doesnt mind seing europeans whiped out...

 

[Roosterlund]

This is a topic that's been dug into a lot on this thread already, but the TL;DR version.

Some tariffs have always been in place between nations. Generally they're very targeted and very carefully managed to support key local industries that have strategic importance, but where the nation in question isn't realistically going to be competitive on the world stage without them. Generally because local labor or input costs are too high. US steel, or soy beans for example.

These are intended to maintain a minimum level of domestic production because... if you need to get in a war, it's helpful to be able to make your food and your war material domestically so you're not at the mercy of other nations.

Canada specifically had some, but then... so did the US, and they were at historically low levels under NAFTA. There were also 'maximum quotas' established for some 'sensitive' (usually agricultural) goods, which incurred very high tariffs on any exports above that limit. Wood or cheese as examples. This is the very high tariff percentages that you saw bandied around on right leaning sources when Trump was originally implementing this mess. They did exist, but generally the quotas just applied a maximum level of exports as it wasn't worth paying the elevated rates over quota.

Also worth noting that the US actively subsidizes these same industries (e.g Dairy farmers) domestically for the reasons of strategic importance detailed above. Subsequently, Canada applied the quotas to ensure that they too could have strategic industries domestically and those companies wouldn't be out competed by US taxpayer subsidized competitors.

A resource on that topic can be found here: https://www.commenda.io/blog/canadian-tariffs-on-us-goods-before-trump

You are correct, 'fair trade' and a 'free market' model does generally support no tariffs. Tariffs are just yet another tax adding friction to the wheels of commerce and making the nation setting them generally less competitive on the world stage after all. But then Trump doesn't care about either of those things.

I should clarify on this topic: If tariffs are applied to Canada by the US, Canada doesn't pay them. The US importing company pays them when the goods cross the border. Which pushes up input costs for the US company, or gets passed to the US consumer... which is inflationary.

References:
https://www.kielinstitut.de/publica...icans-pay-almost-entirely-for-trumps-tariffs/

Who Pays Trump’s Tariffs? | Council on Foreign Relations

President Trump routinely claims that foreigners pay his tariffs, which is false—U.S. importers pay them. Over time, however, foreign exporters can be expected to bear a small but rising burden of the tariffs through price cuts, while most of the cost will be borne by U.S. consumers in the form...

www.cfr.org

Anyway, Trump, has instead decided that the ONLY reason that any trade deficit with any nation could possibly exist is because the US is threatened by 'unfair trade practices'. This is evidently wrong, but it plays well with the base so long as they don't think too hard on the topic...

The actual reason why the US runs a trade deficit? US consumers are rich compared to most of the world, and they like to buy things. They like to buy em cheap, and all else being equal aren't willing to pay American salaries for the manufacture of their goods. We're victims of our own success there, we like high wages and we like cheap consumer goods. So... a trade deficit.

As a response to this, Trump has tried (and subsequently failed) to apply massive tariffs to goods from pretty much every nation on the planet in a (claimed) attempt to boost US based manufacturing job numbers and 'revitalize the middle class'. For context, the numbers on his liberation board he posted up weren't tariff rates for the nations in question. They were US trade deficits as a percentage of total trade (i.e % more stuff imported, than exported). Trump decided that it was smart to place tariffs at those levels... because again, its a good story to tell the base who won't look deeply into the topic.

Anyway, this has been ineffective: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

Since then, tariffs seem to mostly have been used as a 'negotiating tool' to try and gain favorable terms for the US. This has also failed in my opinion, in no small part because it makes the business environment in the US unbelievably complicated when the rules of engagement change daily. Something which has hurt investment, productivity, and the cost of goods for anything made in the US that is subsequently exported. But that's a much more complex issue, so you can draw your own conclusions.

From the US to China, 2025 a blockbuster year for stock markets

Wall Street's benchmark S&P 500 sees third year of double-digit gains, while non-US stocks register best run since 2009.

www.aljazeera.com

View attachment 746091

Honestly, even if there was some kind of coherent strategy there originally, the sheer incompetence exhibited in implementation makes the whole thing an embarrassing and damaging mess for the US. Which, honestly? Classic Trump.

Thank you just trying to wrap my head around it. I get what you’re saying.

 

[Alistair]

Thank you just trying to wrap my head around it. I get what you’re saying.

No worries.

I guess in the interest of balance I should point out that @mdwest and I had a reasonably civil debate on this topic back in April of last year, and his opinions differ significantly.

I still think he's wrong, but he is able to present coherent arguments for the opposing view if you want that perspective.

 

[deewayne2003]

There is difference between not rushing to justice and "letting them do whatever".

I believe policing has become infinitely more socially liberal over even my lifetime; some good such as body cams - best thing for police since the Kevlar vest.

But living under a microscope has taken away a lot of the discretion that officers once had, so what might have been a harsh talking to or even an extra judicial beating decades ago is now going to end in criminal charges and subsequent record.

I remember my grandfather talking about liquor stores being robbed in Dallas in the late 60’s; it was such a problem, the police started letting off duty officers sit in the back of stores with shotguns waiting for the places to be robbed…. If a weapon was present no attempt to arrest was made, they just shot them down.

This apparently continued until the ACLU started complaining, but was very effective while in use.

Now we all know that would not fly anywhere let alone Dallas today, not to say DPD doesn’t know how to react accordingly….

After 5 DPD officers were ambushed coming back from providing security for a BLM protest, resulting in the largest police loss of life since 9/11. The armed suspect barricaded himself inside a parking structure.

DPD bomb squad sent in a robot(allegedly named Johnny-5) with 1 pound of C-4 and detonated it; ending the threat.

 

[fourfive8]

I believe policing has become infinitely more socially liberal over even my lifetime; some good such as body cams - best thing for police since the Kevlar vest.

But living under a microscope has taken away a lot of the discretion that officers once had, so what might have been a harsh talking to or even an extra judicial beating decades ago is now going to end in criminal charges and subsequent record.

I remember my grandfather talking about liquor stores being robbed in Dallas in the late 60’s; it was such a problem, the police started letting off duty officers sit in the back of stores with shotguns waiting for the places to be robbed…. If a weapon was present no attempt to arrest was made, they just shot them down.

This apparently continued until the ACLU started complaining, but was very effective while in use.

Now we all know that would not fly anywhere let alone Dallas today, not to say DPD doesn’t know how to react accordingly….

After 5 DPD officers were ambushed coming back from providing security for a BLM protest, resulting in the largest police loss of life since 9/11. The armed suspect barricaded himself inside a parking structure.

DPD bomb squad sent in a robot(allegedly named Johnny-5) with 1 pound of C-4 and detonated it; ending the threat.

Yes. Just look at some of the posts in this thread where LE can only use deadly force for defense AFTER they’ve been run over or shot.

 

[Saul]

I believe policing has become infinitely more socially liberal over even my lifetime; some good such as body cams - best thing for police since the Kevlar vest.

But living under a microscope has taken away a lot of the discretion that officers once had, so what might have been a harsh talking to or even an extra judicial beating decades ago is now going to end in criminal charges and subsequent record.

I remember my grandfather talking about liquor stores being robbed in Dallas in the late 60’s; it was such a problem, the police started letting off duty officers sit in the back of stores with shotguns waiting for the places to be robbed…. If a weapon was present no attempt to arrest was made, they just shot them down.

This apparently continued until the ACLU started complaining, but was very effective while in use.

Now we all know that would not fly anywhere let alone Dallas today, not to say DPD doesn’t know how to react accordingly….

After 5 DPD officers were ambushed coming back from providing security for a BLM protest, resulting in the largest police loss of life since 9/11. The armed suspect barricaded himself inside a parking structure.

DPD bomb squad sent in a robot(allegedly named Johnny-5) with 1 pound of C-4 and detonated it; ending the threat.

I think it is probably better to have a more restrained police force as long as we have an empowered citizenry. To take your liquor store example, I would much prefer not having police sit around waiting to shoot robbers if the cashier can do what is necessary. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.

 

[Red Leg]

I know several of us have done a bit of rationalization about November, but this is more than just worrisome.

Cost of living fuelling Democrat strength in new midterms polling

Economic concerns are set to give the Democrats an extra 2.5 million votes in November

www.focaldata.com