Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.
If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.
And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.
Funny how nobody is asking where Melania is.
"I really don't care, do you?"
Full Harris & Walz supporter here and in followup to the debate questions I feel the only one Harris wasn't well prepared for was the "why did Biden admin keep trump tariffs in place?" I'd have to go back and relisten but she skirted the issue and began talking the economy in a non answer.
Trump had only non answers and a concept of a plan after a decade of Obama care whining.
Paleocon wrote:Unless you’re surrounded by sycophants like Tulsi Gabbert and Matt Gaetz who pretty much are just there to suck you off.
I believe Laura Loomer has taken that job.
New meaning to the slang “bumping uglies.”
I was disappointed by the number of times Harris sidestepped questions by failing to give direct answers (or an answer to the question itself at all), but at least it was the normal kind of side-stepping you would expect where she stayed within the overall subject matter. You know, sidestep a specific economic question by talking about other related economic stuff.
Versus answering an economic question with "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS AND THE CATS AND THE PETS OMGZORZ" or "SHE TALKED TO PUTIN BEFORE THE UKRAINE WAR" or some other red herring.
I was disappointed by the number of times Harris sidestepped questions by failing to give direct answers (or an answer to the question itself at all), but at least it was the normal kind of side-stepping you would expect where she stayed within the overall subject matter. You know, sidestep a specific economic question by talking about other related economic stuff.
Versus answering an economic question with "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS AND THE CATS AND THE PETS OMGZORZ" or "SHE TALKED TO PUTIN BEFORE THE UKRAINE WAR" or some other red herring.
Fully agree! Was just the one point I was curious to hear other's opinions on.
Nevin73 wrote:Funny how nobody is asking where Melania is.
"I really don't care, do you?"
I, in fact, do not.
The flag "disrespect" stuff I don't care about at all. I get it that it's trying to expose MAGA hypocrisy when they complain about protesters burning flags, but its still pushing the idea that everyone should be required to follow the flag code. Flag code is only applicable to how the military and government use the flag; individuals have the right to do whatever the hell they want to the US flag. Unless you're also out there condemning protestors for burning the flag, saying Trump is disrespecting it by autographing it just exposes you a hypocrite too. And if you are out there saying the former, I don't really care about your thoughts on respecting the flag in the first place.
The flag "disrespect" stuff I don't care about at all. I get it that it's trying to expose MAGA hypocrisy when they complain about protesters burning flags, but its still pushing the idea that everyone should be required to follow the flag code. Flag code is only applicable to how the military and government use the flag; individuals have the right to do whatever the hell they want to the US flag. Unless you're also out there condemning protestors for burning the flag, saying Trump is disrespecting it by autographing it just exposes you a hypocrite too. And if you are out there saying the former, I don't really care about your thoughts on respecting the flag in the first place.
Oh please, most people already know this and are just pointing out THEIR hypocrisy. It’s like when MAGA idiots complain about cancel culture, but then turn around and want to cancel Bud Light, Taylor Swift, etc.
Covered that already:
I get it that it's trying to expose MAGA hypocrisy when they complain about protesters burning flags, but its still pushing the idea that everyone should be required to follow the flag code.
The stuff with cancel culture is the same, it's exposing their hypocricy but is still pushing the idea that some people deserve to be "cancelled." The difference is people aren't exposing their own hypocrisy because they do think people deserve to be cancelled, they just disagree with MAGA idiots about over what. And people do deserve to be cancelled, but signing the flag isn't being disrespectful. Crass? Sure. Tacky? Absolutely. Disrespectful? Nope.
It's just a weak attack when there are so many other things he's done that actually are disrespectful of people.
Edit - it's also like the overly patriotic displays at the DNC. It was very off-putting and far too reminiscent of the post-9/11 days when everything was so saturated with performative patriotism.
Also, if pointing out Trump's hypocrisy was going to make any difference it'd have happened in 2016. His hypocrisy is not a negative for his supporters, it's part of why they like him so much.
Full Harris & Walz supporter here and in followup to the debate questions I feel the only one Harris wasn't well prepared for was the "why did Biden admin keep trump tariffs in place?" I'd have to go back and relisten but she skirted the issue and began talking the economy in a non answer.
Trump had only non answers and a concept of a plan after a decade of Obama care whining.
I'm not a Chicago guy so I believe tariffs get a bad rap. Yeah a lot of prices are passed on to the consumer... but not all, because the foreign product still needs to compete with the domestic one.
I don’t know if it’s important, but all costs are always passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays for the labor, the raw materials, the profits, the taxes, everything. That’s how commerce works.
The point of tariffs is to make foreign goods more expensive to the consumer than domestic products, which makes domestic products more attractive.
I'm not a Chicago guy so I believe tariffs get a bad rap. Yeah a lot of prices are passed on to the consumer... but not all, because the foreign product still needs to compete with the domestic one.
The point of tariffs is to make foreign goods more expensive to the consumer than domestic products, which makes domestic products more attractive.
Correct, and this is how tariffs raise prices. That's bad.
To oversimplify things, if you have a foreign company selling a product for $10 and a domestic selling an identical product for $13, and you put a $5 tariff on the foreign product, then assuming the foreign producer can't afford to lower the prices any more, the foreign product will now sell for $15 while the domestic is still $13. This means people are more likely to buy the domestic product, which means more demand for domestic products, which means more jobs, and so forth. That's good!
It also means domestic consumers who were buying the $10 product now have to pay 30% more for the same thing, and a lot of those people were buying the cheaper product because they live in low-income households and couldn't afford the more expensive domestic one. Now they're forced to spend more of their money to get basically the same thing. That's bad.
Now consider that a lot of tariffs aren't necessarily directly on consumer products - they're on things like steel. Most people don't normally buy a bunch of steel (well, at least, I don't), so they won't be directly impacted by the tariff, right? Meanwhile, domestic steel workers are going to be in higher demand. That's good!
However, consumers do buy a bunch of things built with steel. Any company that was using imported steel because it was cheaper is faced with the fact that now, one way or another, it has to pay more for that steel. That means their prices are going to go up because the cost of making their product has increased, which, again, raises the prices for domestic consumers. This applies to basically any product we can put a tariff on.
... That's bad.
Can I go now?
I understand what you’re saying, Keldar, I just don’t think it’s as simple as that. Tarriffs can be used to offset foreign labor abuses. They can be used to protect important domestic products, like Michigan cherries - which just saw tariffs against Turkey revoked in 2020. The result? Farmers are ripping out their cherry trees.
And, yes, I’m sure those Turkish tariffs made a bunch of down line products more expensive, but that was the point: to protect domestic farmers from abandoning generations - old investments just because the Turks decided to subsidize their fruit.
But the point is when Trump oversimplifies things and says he's going to "fix" inflation with tariffs, people don't (seem to) understand that means consumer prices will go up.
But the point is when Trump oversimplifies things
That’s being exceedingly generous.
Defur the police!
Correct, and this is how tariffs raise prices. That's bad.
...the foreign product will now sell for $15 while the domestic is still $13...
Plus, oversimplifying in a spherical-horse-in-a-vacuum way, if that tarrif does what it's supposed to, everyone buys the local $13 doohickey instead of the now-$15 import. So as an actual income generator on the scale that Trump claims it will be, those tarrifs will ultimately either be small enough to be useless or big enough to be self-defeating.
Magnificent.
Poe's law is in full effect here.
Poe's law is in full effect here.
It's Stan Kelly, who is a fake cartoonist for the Onion.
Tscott wrote:Poe's law is in full effect here.
It's Stan Kelly, who is a fake cartoonist for the Onion.
And what's great is Ben Garrison has completely lapped him, because he actually means it.
Double post somehow. Forgiveness please.
Pages