northshorebamaman

quote:

---

- One group promotes tariffs being an evil communistic tool. This group of people ignore our history. They have never be able to rectify that thought with the fact that the USA has always had tariffs nor that it was the way the Fed Gov was funded. It just simply an evil communist thing because that's the talking point they believe will win people to their side.

- The other side are those that have looked at the complete picture. They se the bad to tariffs and the good of tariffs and have reached a conclusion that they are needed to some degree. That degree is up for debate. This group seems deeply concerned about the future of the USA and it's ability to survive.

---

You’re presenting this like there are only two camps when there’s a sizable third group you’re overlooking: People who are not ideologically opposed to tariffs at all, but who objected to the way they were imposed.

The issue for many of us wasn’t whether tariffs can exist. The United States has always used them. The issue was the scope of executive authority used to implement them, particularly the reliance on expansive readings of emergency statutes instead of direct congressional action. That’s a legit separation-of-powers concern.

And it’s possible you overlooked that group because many in your second camp either refused to acknowledge that argument existed or had no real answer for it. It was easier to dismiss as Orange Man Bad than to engage the separation-of-powers issue directly.

That dismissal also left a lot of pro-tariff supporters in the dark about what was a central objection, so you ended up with comments here like “tariffs were fine for 200 years until Trump did it,” which completely missed the point. The dispute for us wasn’t about the historical existence of tariffs. It was about the mechanism used to deploy them.

quote:

---

I think Trump wants the world to pull their pants up and get stronger. Or don't and we won't involve that country in any of our economic or geopolitical future because that country can't help us.

The UK was embarrassed that we excluded them from plans against Iran in the summer of 2025. But why should we include them other than we have a history together? They are neither strong politically or militarily.

Trump wants strong partners for strong partnerships. But globalism has Europe still buying gas from Russia 4 years after the invasion of Ukraine. Europe is literally helping to fund the war that they are sending resources to continue on Ukraine's behalf.

---

If the idea is “we only want strong partners,” that sounds awesome and all, but I’m struggling to understand the specific mechanism.

How do tariffs make another country stronger? If Europe buys Russian gas, slapping tariffs on their exports to us doesn’t directly change their energy sector. It just makes trade more expensive on both sides.

If strength is the metric, strength in what sense? GDP? Military capability? Intelligence cooperation? Financial leverage? The UK and Europe aren’t powerless actors. They’re some of the biggest military spenders in the world. Alliances aren’t supposed to be charity projects. Ideally, they’re force multipliers.

If the concern is dependency in specific sectors like semiconductors or medications, that’s a focused national security argument. I can engage with that. But “get stronger or get excluded” seems more rhetorical than causal.

Are we trying to correct a specific strategic vulnerability, or are we trying to make trade balances look better on paper?

quote:

---

Trump should be limited to 2x8 year terms. For all the halftards that means yes Trump 2028 and Trump 2032.

---

It apparently means the same thing for fulltards.

quote:

---

sharp? couldn't be any worse than biden the mental vegetable

---

Why is Biden even part of this? The question wasn’t ‘Trump vs. Biden in 2028.’ It was whether you’d support a third term. And is ‘better than Biden’ your standard for a president? Is that really your bar?

quote:

---

imjustafatkid

---

Just wanted to give you another chance to back up your claim before I assume you abandoned thead:

quote:

---

As for macroevolution in general, it simply has no evidence. I used to be a firm believer in it, because that's what we were taught in school, but then I started actually reading what scientists were saying and looking at the fossils they claimed showed their conclusions. The stone cold reality is they have no discovery whatsoever that would lead someone to the conclusion that macroevolution is the origin of our species, or even any evidence of one animal having ever evolved into another. It's clearly nonsense.

---

quote:

---

That's actually a myth.

---

If you want to call the strict radio-versus-TV dichotomy a myth, fine. It’s definitely been simplified over time. Contemporary polling was limited and messy, and there wasn’t some pristine, nationally representative split showing “radio = Nixon, TV = Kennedy,” and there still isn’t.

But surveys and anecdotal reporting at the time did claim radio listeners leaned Nixon while television viewers leaned Kennedy, even if the results weren't universally consistent. Campaign staff from Nixon’s side and Nixon himself, acknowledged that the optics hurt him.

The broader point stands: in modern presidential politics, delivery is as important, if not more so, than substance, whether we like it or not.

quote:

---

Every single thing he does has to be on a Govt plane for safety concerns and believe it or not, they are allowed to have a personal life outside of politics

---

This is true. The FBI Director is classified as a required-use traveler, which means he generally has to use government aircraft for air travel, even for personal trips.

For personal travel, he is required to reimburse the government at the equivalent cost of a commercial airline ticket, which is a drop in the bucket of the total flight cost, so I don't really care if he paid either way.

quote:

---

What is said is pretty obvious. Nothing about macroevolution is contradictory to the Bible. I see people claim it is all the time. They just never are able to support that statement with any evidence whatsoever. It's a pretty elementary and obvious thought process, but I'll spell it out for you:

1. God creates the heavens and the earth
2. To us, that can look like a process that took millions of years and developed from multiple stages.
3. Trying to pretend this somehow disproves the creation story only proves the goals of the person making such claims, nothing more.

As for macroevolution in general, it simply has no evidence. I used to be a firm believer in it, because that's what we were taught in school, but then I started actually reading what scientists were saying and looking at the fossils they claimed showed their conclusions. The stone cold reality is they have no discovery whatsoever that would lead someone to the conclusion that macroevolution is the origin of our species, or even any evidence of one animal having ever evolved into another. It's clearly nonsense. The burden of proof here is on the people who believe it, not on the people who cleary see the "evidence" is completely devoid of any substance.

---

There are two separate issues being blended together here, and they should be kept distinct.

One is theological. Whether macroevolution contradicts the Bible is a question about interpretation and authority. If someone believes God created through a long process, that is a coherent theological position. Evolution does not require atheism and it does not attempt to address ultimate causation. That is philosophy or theology.

The other issue is empirical. The claim that macroevolution has “no evidence whatsoever” is not theological. It is a factual claim about biology. And it is simply incorrect. Evolution is supported by converging lines of evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, genetics, and observed population change. If by “creation” you mean ultimate authorship, that is a different discussion. But if you are asserting that macroevolution lacks evidence, that is a scientific claim and it requires specifics.

“No discovery whatsoever” is not an argument. It is a declaration. If there is truly zero evidence, it should be straightforward to explain the following:

1. The hominin fossil sequence. We have a graded series from Australopithecus to early Homo to archaic Homo sapiens showing progressive changes in cranial capacity, dentition, and bipedal structure, appearing in stratigraphic order. Which fossils are misdated or misidentified, and how?

2. Whale evolution. Fossils such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus show a transition from terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales, including predictable changes in ear structure, limb reduction, and nostril position. Where does that anatomical progression fail?

3. Endogenous retroviruses. Humans and other primates share identical viral insertions at the same chromosomal locations. Common ancestry predicts that pattern. Independent creation does not. What is the alternative explanation?

4. Human chromosome 2. Humans have 46 chromosomes while other great apes have 48. Human chromosome 2 contains internal telomere sequences and a vestigial second centromere consistent with a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. If that is not evidence of common ancestry, what is it?

None of this involves a dog giving birth to a cat. Evolution describes populations diverging over generations. The evidence is in shared genetic architecture and nested patterns that independently converge.

So if your position is that there is zero evidence, let’s get specific. Which of these lines of evidence fails, and why?

quote:

---

I guess you are right. Thinking I was going to get something consistent out of trump was not sound judgment ??. And thinking he wouldn’t go to extreme measures, even outside of his authority, to impose tariffs was a bit naive.

---

:cheers: I can respect someone owning up to poor judgment. That at least shows intellectual integrity.

But I have far more respect for the most die-hard MAGA poster on this board than for anyone who voted for him after eight straight years of receipts and is now pretending to be stunned. The man governed through tariffs, executive muscle, and norm-stretching the first time. He campaigned on doing it bigger the second time. He literally advertised aggressive, across-the-board tariffs and broad use of executive authority.

If you supported his agenda because you liked the posture or thought it would hurt someone else more than you, fine. Own it. But acting shocked now is revisionism.

quote:

---

Given his relationship with India, his actions in his first term, and the fact that most of my competitors buy their products from China, I voted for him. Not sure what is so unbelievable about that.

---

There it is. You thought you were voting for pain on other people and instead you caught a stray.

I’ve been anti-Trump since the escalator ride, so none of this surprises me. He governed his entire first term through tariffs and unilateral trade fights. Steel and aluminum tariffs on allies. The China trade war that hit farmers and required bailouts. Threats of tariffs on Mexico over immigration. Tariffs as leverage in nearly every negotiation. He openly argued that trade deficits were “losses” and that tariffs were a revenue tool. That wasn’t hidden. It was his whole brand.

Then he spent four years out of office promising even broader tariffs, floating across-the-board rates and signaling he’d use executive authority aggressively. He has never been shy about treating tariffs as a hammer for everything from trade disputes to geopolitical signaling.

So when you vote for that three times because you think it will hurt your competitors more than you, you didn't vote for a scalpel. You voted for a blunt instrument. You were just hoping you stood behind it instead of in front of it.

I don’t have much sympathy for someone who begged for the medicine and now wants to spit it out because it turns out he doesn't like the taste. The warning label was eight years long. You asked for this. Not me. Frankly, I don't care if you choke on it.