The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Your request is impossible. Just as we do not have angels in the form of kings, we do not have angels in the form of technocrats. There was one Lee Kuan Yew... but only one.
Have you ever once commented upon — or even just read — a notice of proposed rulemaking on Regulations.gov?
I have read a few and commented on one.
It is similar to tariff, as VAT on foreign goods is used to subsidize domestic production.
It's the subsidy to domestic production that's the issue here, not the VAT for raising revenue. The VAT falls on domestic and foreign producers equally. An income tax is no different from a VAT in this respect.
Okay, so what are these quantities and what are costs or benefits to that?
The cost to the retaliating entity of the foreign tariff, and hence the benefit of getting rid of it. The cost to the retaliating entity of the retaliatory tariff. The chance of success, and how long it would take.
What if these conditions are met when you are the one enacting the tariff as first mover - should you do it?
Under the assumptions in this discussion (that a tariff harms both sides), the conditions cannot be met enacting the tariff as a first mover.
No union work rules apply in one's personal residence.
A VAT applies equally to foreign and domestic goods. It is not similar to a tariff.
Whether applying a retaliatory tariff (harming both sides) in order to kick the first side into dropping their tariff is a quantitative question that can easily differ from one situation to the next. It is not amenable to a reductio like "any country that refuses to trade with us under condition of absolute free trade is harming us and we will retaliate".
and limiting the reach and saturation of the story; not giving the shooter notarity, not speculating on the motive, avoiding sensationalized reports of the carnage, focusing on the victims and their stories.
This has failed since Herostratus, and isn't likely to start working any time soon.
Not a chance, unless said city bureaucrats escalate first, with some sort of organized physical resistance. And they won't, because they know Trump WOULD escalate.
Arresting city bureaucrats who are obstructionist in some other way (e.g. "accidentally" letting illegals go after receiving a detainer order) using Federal civilian law enforcement is somewhat more likely, but is still going to require actual defiance.
The Insurrection Act does not mean anything about one-party rule, canceling elections, or anything like that. It allows the President to use the military on US soil, but it is not a declaration of martial law.
Yes, this would fall under "the tripwire is pointless".
What do you think happens if the tripwire is tripped? Either European forces have to fight, or the nukes have to fly, or the tripwire is pointless.
What we need there is repeal of anti-backsliding legislation, or a Supreme Court ruling that anti-backsliding legislation violates the constitution.
Did you write this yourself or did you ask an AI to write it in Trump's style?
Right now it looks like Russia can beat Ukraine by attrition. But a lot of things could happen before Russia actually won. For a ceasefire to make sense to Ukraine, it cannot result in speeding up Russia's timetable, and similarly for it to make sense to Russia, it cannot result it giving Ukraine a chance to improve its position.
Right now the best offer Russia is willing to consider is "We take part of Ukraine now and all of it later". This is obviously not acceptable to Ukraine, even if the alternative is a continued grinding war of attrition that they seem likely to lose.
If the US goal was a quick Ukranian surrender and Russian victory, Trump would have just pulled out the rug without all the rigamarole of meeting with Zelensky in the first place. Trump wants to make a deal to stop the war. So far all the Russians have been offering is "we take half now and half later". If Zelensky had managed to avoid Vance baiting him, probably Trump would have gotten irritated at Putin instead.
Trump is committed to the idea that Russian violations of future-Ukraine's neutrality should not be a casus belli for the US.
This is true, but no one is willing to make Russian violations of Ukraine's neutrality a casus bellum.
Showerhead flow is, unfortunately, statutory.
Comments like that one, I suspect.
(The Fed did keep rates low in Trump's first term, after all.)
Trump actually bullied Powell into that, IIRC.
I mean apparently now that there's been some hostages exchanged in Phase 1, it appears Bibi is unwilling to go to Phase 2 where there will be withdrawal of troops. Although now I see stories both that Phase 2 talks have started, and that no they haven't.
Probably not even an impending US pullout. Just buy time for Putin to prove to Trump he's just as unreasonable.
Ah, well, the costs of compromising with the left to get elected...
The idea that HHS has any reason to be involved here is bizarre.
Personally I'd rather them consider anti-semitism a plague than gun ownership, but objectively both are wrong.
Shanghai to LA is like $4000, the reverse is $700. If you guys have the port capacity, there's a huge market out west in the far east.
It's cheap because there's no market there.
meanwhile he’s already ended the Gaza thing
Bibi seems ready to restart it.
Yes, but in the long term, Zelenskyy could be dead, or at least Ukraine could be in a much worse position. A battle between Congress and Trump would take time, and that time would not be on Ukraine's side.
Can one ally with Russia, in any sense that requires future commitments rather than presently verifiable terms?
I'd say probably not. No alliance is truly reliable, but alliances with Russia seem far more dicey than most. But probably not as dicey as a "lasting understanding" with China! This is just a bad idea all around.
- Prev
- Next
Thanks to most people, especially those with authority, being utterly untrustworthy and the shared agreement to pretend they aren't failing.
More options
Context Copy link