Page #3
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#100
New Comment Rating: -7 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
-Maryscott Greenwood, Former US diplomat
I think America is weak as hell if it can't make it's own damn fishing rods and golf clubs.
Capitalist economics is based on production finding the best location to make things efficiently, given the resources, labor, infrastructure and supply chains available. That requires specialization and economies of scale. So if you want to move production to the US, you need to be selective about it. Find products that suit US resources, infrastructure and production chains, protect those industries where there is a genuine reason to do so, and attract investors to build the production capacity.
Take fishing rods or golf clubs from Canada. Even if producing them in Canada isn't much cheaper, the factories, workers, machinery and supply chains already exist. Moving that production to the US means spending a lot of money to recreate something that already exists. Investors need to know that the investment will actually make money and that the conditions will remain stable long enough for them to recover it. No serious investor is going to invest billions in production based on a policy that might disappear or change completely after the next election, or as soon as Trump drops dead.
And blanket tariffs can actually make American manufacturing more expensive,
because American manufacturers also depend on imported machinery, components
and raw materials.
So if you want to rebuild American manufacturing, do it strategically and give investors long-term certainty. If you impose blanket tariffs in this chaotic way, you're primarily making imports more expensive for Americans, while also making investment more uncertain. That's not the same thing as creating competitive American industry.
And ultimately, if your goal is an economy based on American production and American consumption, making American consumers poorer works against that goal. Higher prices reduce what Americans can afford to buy, which reduces domestic demand for American businesses. You are therefore raising the cost of producing goods in America while simultaneously weakening the American consumer who is supposed to buy them.
And if those higher consumer taxes are used to offset tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, you are shifting purchasing power away from the majority of consumers, the very people your domestic economy depends on.
You want to teach me capitalist economics, when it is related to Mamdani, but you don't understand this: it doesn't matter how nice you are to the billionaires who make stuff
(in your vision), if you destroy the purchasing power of the people who BUY stuff.
"He also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”
So for all of us that ever hope for the truth to be told, this court case tells us we don't have a right to the truth. All the bullshit with covid, can be withheld if this precedent is used.
only registered users can see external links
• Made September 11 an official NYC “Day of Remembrance and Service” every year. This is a new citywide designation. It calls for a moment of silence honoring both people killed on 9/11 and people who later died from 9/11-related illnesses.
• Encouraged city agencies to hold memorial ceremonies and educational programs and work with NYC Service to promote volunteer opportunities on September 11. The idea is to connect remembrance with the spirit of service that New Yorkers showed immediately after the attacks.
• Expanded the focus beyond people killed on September 11 itself. His announcement explicitly recognizes first responders, survivors, city workers, families, recovery/construction workers, and people who became sick from toxic exposure in the years afterward.
• Updated NYC's emergency-continuity planning for the first time since 2007. He created a new interagency Continuity and Mission Assurance Team involving emergency management, technology, city services and budget officials, intended to make sure essential government services can continue during a catastrophe.
Your side always talk a good game, but it's mostly a political point to hate Muslims and go to war. Remembering people who died is cheap, but recognizing the health damage of first responders, survivors, city workers, families and recovery/construction workers costs money. If it wasn't for Jon Stewart shaming Congress, they would have completely ignored all the people who are suffering health issues from doing their important work.
That is sickening.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 hours
only registered users can see external links
-Canadian reporter
perhaps the problem isn't your friends.
Being able to make something yourself is not the same as it being economically sensible to make it yourself. It's like saying: “Why do you buy bread? You could grow wheat, beat it to flour and bake your own.”
You don't do that, because your time and resources are more valuable when you specialize and trade with other people who specialize in different things.
The US CAN produce its own wood, but it just isn't always the cheapest or most efficient option. Canada has enormous forests, a large established logging industry, and is geographically close to the US. So Canadian lumber can often be produced and transported to the US at a lower cost than expanding US production.
Canadian auto workers were generally unionized too. Canada had a big market that automakers wanted to serve. The US–Canada Auto Pact (1965) allowed companies to specialize production across the two countries rather than build every model and component in both.
Canada offered skilled workers, established suppliers, and access to the US market. Automakers could therefore build certain vehicles or components in Canada and ship them across the border efficiently.
Companies will always do what is most efficient, because they want to make money. What is most efficient is based on the economic realities of different countries.
My country produces about 11% of the wheat we use to make food and animal feed.
We could grow more, but we already use half of our country to grow agriculture products. We would need to either grow less other products or sacrifice land to wheat that we now use for other things. Wheat is a low value product, so we prioritize higher value products.
Most of the iPhone is manufactured in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India and China, because that it cheaper. They have created the industry to do it there, they have build their supply chain around it and they have lots of cheap labor. If you wanted to make the iPhone in the US for 100%, you would have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars and recreate the ecosystem that has developed in Asia over decades: raw materials → chemicals → specialized machinery → components → subcomponents → assembly → packaging → logistics
And if you did that, it would almost certainly cost substantially more than today's globally optimized version, particularly during the enormous transition period. No one would buy an iPhone that would cost $3000 with similar capabilities of a Samsung costing $600. People who love Apple are a bit weird, but they are not THAT crazy.
We have vast amounts of oil, aluminum, nickel, uranium, and a wealth of other critical minerals all needed for the future. We have more fresh water lakes than the rest of the world combined.. water!
3.9 billion barrels of oil everyday flows south to you at a discount price.. Imagine what the price of gas would be if that doesn't happen.. the list goes on..
This is not a trade dispute to make it better for Americans, this is a trade policy designed by the current administration to cripple Canada to the point of annexation.. simply put. It will never happen.
Oh and the draft dodgers are happy and being looked after in their old age.. There was one that stayed behind tho, and right now he's the one who's behind the wheel of your car
of each other?
'Liberalism' is fundamentally a political philosophy centered on things such as individual liberty, equal legal rights, constitutional government, freedom of expression, and limits on arbitrary state power. If society IS liberal, they would be conservative in wanting to preserve that.
'Conservatism' generally emphasizes tradition, continuity, social order, and skepticism toward rapid or sweeping change. The current political movement in the US is pushing for historical sweeping change. Therefore, it cannot be called 'conservative'. What it can be called is 'illiberal' though.
Conservatism attitudes are based on education of critical thinking. Rather than just skimming the tax payer they find ways of independence from government support.
Trump is destroying the constitutional republic and the rule of law. And there has never been a more corrupt president.
Jim Jordan
5 days ago
·
Common sense: pro-business policies, secure borders, and backing the blue.
Crazy: socialism, open borders, and abolishing the police.
More specifically:
- Asylum/refugees: People genuinely fleeing war and persecution should be protected and accommodated humanely.
- The SP wants faster asylum procedures and better distribution of asylum seekers among municipalities.
- Labour migration: The SP strongly opposes uncontrolled labour migration. It proposes work permits and says only workers who are genuinely needed should be admitted.
- EU free movement: The SP argues that the EU's unrestricted free movement of workers has contributed to exploitation, low wages and pressure on housing, and wants to curb/regulate it.
- Students/knowledge migrants: The party also wants to reduce knowledge and student migration.
- Overall target: The SP currently advocates a net migration figure of 40,000 per year, rather than unrestricted immigration.
That's the Dutch SP responding to the specific needs of my country, which is highly overpopulated. The US is NOT highly overpopulated, so the US DSA doesn't need to limit free movement of people.
The DSA describes abolition as the END goal, and presents its immediate proposals as steps toward a society in which the existing police system is no longer NECESSARY. The basic theory is that you reduce the functions currently handled by police by addressing the underlying social problems, by:
1. Redirect police money into public services
2. Treat mental illness and addiction as health problems
3. Create non-police responses to crises
4. Demilitarize police
5. Reduce the scope of policing
6. Build a different social and political system
You are straw-manning them by leaving that out. It means that you have no response to their actual positions, so you need to make believe that they are crazy. That's a dishonest tactic.
How about actually making an argument?
The places that are overpopulated are where the democrats bullshit minorities while giving threats if they vote for Trump they will lose their free money from the hard working conservative.
The rest of your stupid bullshit is unremarkable. Here's what you do.. Stay in Europe,, the european union's got you by the balls.. Don't come here.. You will lose.
Trump didn't 'WIN' anything; his stooges gave him something
that should have been decided by the PEOPLE.
That's why The Constitution starts with "We the People"
and not with "We the Supreme Court".
Conservatives are freeloaders; blue states are funding red states to stay alive.
Conservatives cry about taxes and then they cry harder when they need help.
All your MAGA voting farm-boys are kept afloat by subsidies.
Just calling it bullshit isn't an argument.
YOU are unremarkable and a waste of my time.
Point to ANYTHING that I was lying about and show why it was false.
If you say "Everything", like before, just provide 1 good example.
I add numbers, data and often sources. You don't do any of that.
If you want a source for the claim "58% of Americans favor allowing voters to cast their ballots by mail", here it is: only registered users can see external links
Do you acknowledge that the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to allow the Trump administration's mail-voting restrictions to proceed, while the legal challenges continue?
only registered users can see external links
Congress did NOT vote on the current mail-voting restrictions before they were imposed. The restrictions at issue came from President Trump’s executive order of March 31, 2026, which directed the Department of Homeland Security and USPS to create voter-eligibility lists and establish new requirements for mail ballots.
only registered users can see external links
Are you arguing that it is constitutional to change in a major way
how elections are performed by executive order?
You have proven nothing. Not to me anyway.,
You have a democratic system and Trump disrespects it, by ignoring the wish of the people, ignoring their representatives in Congress, by ruling by executive order, by letting his corrupt, bad faith Supreme Court justices defile your Constitution, or by just doing shit that no one allowed, until he gets ordered to reverse it, and then ignoring the orders. This is completely unconstitutional.
Trying to diminish this to a semantic discussion about right and wrong
is just a stupid trick.
Maybe then voting at all would be useless?
I can READ the Constitution. Constitutional integrity is nowhere to be found among the Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans.
I'm sure YOU agree, but you should care that the majority of Americans agrees with what's happening in your country, even if it's not what YOU want.
When politicians in my country do what they promised, and they represent the majority of my countrymen, I might not like that, but
I accept it as a democratic choice. I debate people to make them reconsider their choices. I'm not supporting politicians who CHEAT.
about what is happening in the world.
You profess a certain morality, but support the opposite.
If I challenge you on it, you answer with complete gibberish.
It's either a dishonest tactic or you are delusional.
That's not morality, that's just OBEDIENCE, which is WEAK.
Atheism is NOT a moral structure, it's just the rejection of theism.
I'm not JUST an atheist, I'm also a humanist, which IS a moral structure.
Humanism emphasizes human well-being, dignity, flourishing, autonomy, and reason, rather than grounding morality in divine commands or supernatural authority. In other words; it's NOT based on the made-up demands of a made-up deity; delusion.
Maybe it's you who should calm down, stoic.
Did they then pay that trillionaire to play with rockets?
Your country tried it your way for DECADES. What do you have to show for it?
You have the highest percentage of incarcerated people in the world, but also
the most murders in the modern world and the worst drugs problem.
that the next 2 presidents won't be able to fix it all.
How about he stops committing impeachable offenses?
Here are some of his impeachable offenses of just the last TWO MONTHS:
1 Using federal immigration forces in ways alleged to violate constitutional rights
• Rep. Al Green's August 24 impeachment resolution accuses Trump of abusing presidential power through ICE and CBP, including alleged unlawful arrests, excessive force, violations of due process, and suppression of speech.
• The resolution specifically points to the July killings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Maine, alleging that the administration subsequently protected officers and obstructed investigations.
2 Obstructing or undermining state/local investigations into federal-officer conduct
• Green's articles allege that Trump's administration withheld evidence, refused to identify officers, and interfered with state and local investigations into ICE/CBP shootings.
• If established as intentional obstruction by the president, that could fit the historical impeachment concept of abuse of power/obstruction of lawful oversight.
3 Defying judicial authority in immigration enforcement
• The impeachment articles allege that ICE, under Trump's authority, continued detention/removal practices despite court orders and that the administration acknowledged numerous violations of judicial orders.
• Separately, courts are currently blocking parts of Trump's immigration and election-related policies, although a court ruling against an administration policy does not automatically constitute an impeachable offense.
4 Attempting to alter federal election administration beyond presidential authority
• Trump's administration has attempted to impose new restrictions on mail voting through executive action. A federal judge has again blocked implementation, with opponents arguing that the order improperly intrudes on powers assigned to Congress and the states.
• This could be characterized as abuse or usurpation of presidential power, particularly if Congress determines that Trump knowingly exceeded his constitutional authority.
5 Attempting to restrict birthright citizenship despite constitutional constraints
• Trump signed another order on August 6 limiting birthright citizenship in specified circumstances. On August 28, a federal judge expressed serious doubts about its legality, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision concerning Trump's earlier birthright-citizenship order.
• Again, an unconstitutional executive order isn't automatically an impeachable offense; the stronger impeachment argument would be knowingly and persistently abusing executive power in defiance of constitutional limits.
6 Potential abuse of executive power through suppression of protected speech
• A Reuters investigation reported that federal judges had ruled in 75 cases that Trump's administration violated First Amendment rights, including through actions against protesters, universities, journalists and political critics.
• That establishes substantial judicial findings against administration conduct, but attributing each violation personally to Trump—and turning it into an impeachable offense—would require additional evidence of presidential involvement or direction.
Republicans tried to impeach Biden 17 times. Dems are only at 6 for his 2nd term.
Stop crying, when you voted in the most corrupt and authoritarian president EVER.
New Comment Go to top