Pragmatist2025

When a threat of increased tariffs is made toward a country that provides specific supplies and materials to a U.S. company that they cannot source elsewhere or only acquire at a greater price, what generally happens to the stock prices of that company?

quote:

---

Cope harder.

---

I am not coping with anything. Is there a country not named Iran that meets this criteria?

Again, there are a dozen valid reasons for what happens next in Iran. However, the administration said ‘Midnight Hammer’ was an absolute success. Why not just exclude one reason from the list of reasons?

quote:

---

Let's get it on.

---

Let’s.

quote:

---

He was buds with Rush.

---

I believed he officiated a Rush marriage ceremony. I don’t know which one as he was married quite a few times. Elton John once performed at one of his weddings.

I have no desire to reply to any of the very nuanced comments in this thread, so I will just respond to the OP. Out of the dozens of ‘good’ reasons that have been given as to why we should attack (not go to war, because using warlike tactics and saying it is a war are actually different things, or so I’m told) Iran, the continual drumbeat of nuclear weapons reason should be retired for a while.

To say that they are weeks or months away from a nuclear weapon for 20+ years and use that as a premise to keep bombing them has to eventually resonate with rational minds. If our intelligence says they are not close to having them and do not have them, then why do we have to use this as the excuse? Is it because Iran’s largest enemy says the opposite? Concerning that, the most recent time (last year) they said this, the administration said the threat was ended. Is Iran somehow this incredible super-power that can just rebound in a few months and once again become the greatest nuclear threat in the ME?

Why not just say we want a different regime because the current one is bad and call it a day, (or one among a laundry list of other reasons)?

quote:

---

Tucker has been increasingly disappointing.

---

I like Tucker’s interviews because he has a wide variety of guests covering a litany of political and non-political topics. I have come to accept that he is kind of a weird guy and says some weird things sometimes.

I don’t base liking his show on whether I agree with every opinion. Personally, I wish he would be more pragmatic with his disagreements and less erratic with some of his stances…but the Ted Cruz interview was like a snuff film so I may be more tolerant of his inconsistency and quirks than others.

quote:

---

Why would you think those two things would be mutually exclusive?

---

I don’t necessarily think that. It’s just there was a lot of people lamenting the decision, only to find out it really wasn’t that big of a deal since the SC only decided that this one particular statute wasn’t to be used for the tariffs that were imposed. It seems there are other avenues to accomplish what the President wants to do.

They very well may be compromised, but there have been other (more) controversial decisions in which that inference could be made. I am no legal scholar by any means, but from what I read it did not seem like a scathing rebuke of anything, but more of a different interpretation of the statute.

As for the ‘refunds’ or returns, I have no idea of how the decision does or does not affect that (if that was indeed a reason why the ruling was controversial).

quote:

---

they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

---

Yeah, I am not saying they ain’t bad guys who do bad things, but even the bad guys have weapons. Their only REAL enemy is Israel, and they actually used them in their war with them. I could be wrong but I can’t remember them using them en masse otherwise.

I just think it is a big ask for any country, good or bad, especially since it is codified (I think) among the international bodies.

quote:

---

If you want the sanctions to end, make a deal.

---

I believe negotiations might move along if the ballistic missile issue was not part of the red line. They have a limited range and their interception is not a large problem with the countries they could/would use them against, plus they are about the only true deterrent they have against any aggression. Their other military assets are unimpressive relatively speaking.

quote:

---

Heaven help us all. A just war to preserve the union and to end the evil of slavery. And the north didn't start the war.

---

It is not too lengthy of a read, but the article History is Not A Mathematical Equation is quite interesting, particularly the part about how Plain Folk of the Old South were ignored in historical writings.

So just to be clear, it wasn’t that big or bad of a ruling? Is the Supreme Court still wrong/compromised?

The narrative has been all over the place today.