domain:philippelemoine.com
anon_
just now
This implies that the answer would be for everyone else to prohibit any product (imported or otherwise) to display a restriction geographic name.
After all, it's just a question of how it's marketed. Prohibiting French wine-makers from labeling it Champagne isn't a trade barrier?
After a while, those names will just be gone -- who in the US would know what Parmesan is if you can't actually name anything in the store it.
edmund-nelson
Filthy Anime Memester
5m ago
You know I was going for currently airing shows but that and Redo of healer are much better at showing my point.
Interspecies reviewers had 1 episode of the dub it was extremely sad they didn't go with fully dubbing the anime. It got removed from funimation a company that hosts softcore porn like high school dxd (NSFW) otherwise we'd actually get the most cultured dub from a mainstream anime site.
There are some truly amazingly strange things in that show.
Temporarily becoming trans
BDSM Roleplays
Grandma's I'd like to fuck
Using a girl as a dinner plate
Making sex Golems
A girl making love to a bottle of Mayo
Semi Public sex
and that's just some of the episodes!
JarJarJedi
6m ago
I've been in Vancouver about 10 years ago, and I remember it as a beautiful city with some pretty scary Methland downtown. Looks like nothing much changed since then.
But if they vote for decades for people who are doing this to them, isn't there a point where one should conclude they want it this way, and thus deserve it this way?
anon_
6m ago
Standing on your feet for 7 hours a day is not a great job. Everyone I know that did it came home and immediately got drunk or high or both, every day.
I took a crack at answering here. Willingness to veto obviously depends quite a bit on the specific policy being vetoed, not just Trump's approval rating, but I'm guessing Trump's approval rating would have to fall to somewhere between 36% on the very upper end and 28% on the low end for the house republicans to start turning against him in those sorts of numbers.
anon_
10m ago
An occupying army, outnumbered by its enemies, must resort to signal acts of violence and terror to impose its will on the subject population.
The next step then is that population organizing to frustrate the occupier. That seems bad.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
10m ago
I probably put the 50/50 around 35% rather than 37%, but it does seem like we're actually pretty close in our assessment of how things are likely to go in terms of approval rating.
That said, the actual number to watch is "how many reps can go against Trump without being voted out". If Trump's approval rating drops to 35% or 37%, that indicates that his enthusiastic approval rating is probably a fair bit lower, which means that at least some republican reps will be in districts where less than half of the republican voters are enthusiastic Trump supporters. I pulled down 10 representatives at random from the House website and then did a vibe check of how Trump-aligned they were and whether they could/would oppose him if he got unpopular.
- Rep. John Carter (R-TX-31): 90/100 Trump alignment, voted to challenge 2020 election results, deep-red district. VERY NO
- Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA-1): 65/100 Trump alignment, won by razor-thin margins in a swingy district. YES
- Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL-21): 90/100 Trump alignment, Trump campaign co-chair, voted with Trump positions 90.6% of time. NO
- Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT-2): 80/100 Trump alignment, Trump endorsee, deep-red district. NO
- Rep. Brian Jack (R-GA-3): 95/100 Trump alignment, former White House Political Director for Trump NO
- Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS-1): 85/100 Trump alignment, election challenge supporter, fundraised for Trump's "election defense fund," VERY NO
- Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-SC-3): 75/100 Trump alignment, won despite opponent having Trump's endorsement. VERY YES
- Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL-7): 80/100 Trump alignment, Trump Defense Board appointee but also military connections, swingy district. POSSIBLY
- Rep. Zachary Nunn (R-IA-3): 70/100 Trump alignment, competitive district. YES
- Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA-1): 85/100 Trump alignment, wanted to overturn 2020 election. VERY NO
So if Trump became deeply unpopular (and a 35% approval rating is pretty deeply unpopular, even end-of-term Biden only dropped to 38%), I think at least 3 and maybe 4 of these 10 reps would oppose Trump if he was pushing to do something deeply stupid and unpopular. With 218 democrats and 223 republicans in the house, you'd need about a third of republicans to flip... and it looks like about a third of republicans could flip if there was a compelling enough reason (and "compelling enough" is quite a bit short of "literally Hitler").
Even after the market didn't 'plummet' and just went sideways monday & tuesday, some basic news aggregators like yahoo news (don't ask, I'm masochistic and want to see what is being pushed to normie boomers) kept that Reuters article about futures from sunday on the front page for days, just because the headline was so juicy for them as anti-trump fuel, and it seemed like it was applicable at any point in time. People have given some reasonable pushback and alternative explanations, but you're also not wrong here.
SteveAgain
19m ago
anon_
27m ago
Their kids will probably make closer to the average, not quite for hereditary reasons but pretty solid.
anon_
30m ago
Apparently call volumes spiked about 10m before the report.
Maybe this is Trump's plan to balance the deficit -- create massive economics swings and profit by whispering hints about it.
Interesting choice to make as a country then… do we want cheap goods from China but lose access to the American market? Or do we want to be able to sell to Americans?
I'm not sure I follow. A Vietnamese firm can import mostly-finished doo-dads from China, do the final step and then send them off to the US.
TowardsPanna
33m ago
Why does it give psychological pleasure?
anon_
34m ago
Fascinating. And I agree about the key at the end. In fact, I would say a key function of party leaders (esp the Speaker) is to insulate their members from having to go on the record with hard votes. Vulnerable members have nothing to gain from voting either way -- against it and they'll anger the MAGA base, for it, and they'll alienate everyone else.
There's as much to learn by what isn't being voted on. For example, no one is voting on a Federal abortion ban these days.
deluxev2
34m ago
Generally the death per passenger mile is about 28x, if you correct for gender demographics the rate drops to 18x. If we assume you'd be driving alone either way correcting for passenger miles brings it to 12x. The average driver in the US loses 0.33 years of life from fatal car accidents, so a reasonable ballpark estimate would be 4 years of life lost swapping that for a motorcycle.
Some other motorcycle fatality stats that are probably partially corrected for with the gender control: 66% had measurable blood alcohol concentration (vs 37% for cars) 36% the driver is not licensed to drive a motorcycle (vs 9% for cars) 47% involve no other vehicle (vs 22% for cars)
Ioper
39m ago
It is not the military that makes the USG "insolvent", it's generous unfunded (mostly elderly) entitlements. Neither America nor much of western Europe ran up these massive deficits during the cold war when military spending was much higher than today. The issue clearly isn't military spending.
And even if one wanted to make cuts to the military it could easily be done without endangering freedom of navigation, by for example making cuts to the army rather than the navy.
anon_
39m ago
The short-term benefits of printing money go to American voters, while the costs are pushed onto foreigners who don’t vote
How exactly are the costs of increasing the US money supply borne by foreigners?
Maybe you're implying they are diluted (e.g. via inflation) but most US dollars are held by the US, and so this would mostly hit Americans. Moreover, those US dollars are held by choice -- they can trade them at any moment for Euros or Pounds or CAD or AUD or Yen or even BTC/ETH/DOGE and the price of that transfer represents that. If structural reasons imply that the US is gonna print more money, that's ought to be priced into the USD/EUR exchange rate.
And why does this require price effects, demand elasticity, and asterisks in the formula?
I don't think it does. The substack you linked posited that trump's team are smooth-brains because they canceled out those potential elasticity terms, and are literally just setting tariffs based on the pure trade deficit.
Why must it be currency devaluation, rather than comparative advantage?
Well the currency saving aspect is what makes it not really a truly free floating exchange rate (whether their intentions are to manipulate or not). It can be a bit messier in the real world, but the pure logical premise of a floating exchange rate is that if one side is exporting more than the other, then their currency is going to appreciate (more buy-pressure on their currency in the foreign exchange market and more sell-pressure on the net-importing country's currency). And eventually that prices their exports out of competitiveness, and/or makes the import-country's exports such a value that they start to out-compete, until the imbalance disappears.
Just googling for a basic source, here's an old paper from 1982 that explains the logic & evidence pretty well:
The great advantage of floating exchange rates is that the exchange rate adjusts to equilibrate a country's balance of payments. Domestic economic policy can be used to promote full employment or to maintain stable prices.
[...]
An appreciation of the U.S. dollar puts U.S. exporters at a disadvantage in world markets and forces domestic producers to compete with cheaper imports. In 1971, for the first time since 1873, the United States had a merchandise-trade deficit. Since 1971, the merchandise-trade balance has been in surplus in only 2 years. Despite the large recent deficits, the U.S. current-account balance has tended to fluctuate around zero, because of the strong performance of the services account.
[...]
Under fixed exchange rates, reserve assets and government bonds are used to finance balance-of-payments deficits. In the case of a deficit, such financing can go on only as long as the reserve assets last or as long as foreign countries are willing to accept the IOU's of the deficit country. In the case of a surplus, such financing can go on as long as the surplus nation is willing to accumulate reserve assets and claims on foreign countries.
I would think it to be impossible to run sustained trade surpluses against another country, without simultaneously saving in their foreign currency. But I'd be interested if I'm wrong in that.
dr_analog
razorboy
1hr ago
Yes, before, if China approached your country and said you must take your pick: the US or China, you would probably pick the US.
After all of this unhinged clown shit, if the US says you must choose between the US and China, it's a tough call!
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1hr ago
It's not clear to me why the US abdicating global hegemony leads to the collapse of globalization. It seems much more likely to me that China steps into the void.
Trump’s strategy might be to prep the U.S. for that collapse.
Don't make me tap the sign. The pump-and-dump theory is more plausible than a scheme to prepare the US for global economic collapse (especially because if you were prepping for that, you'd want to be tightening trade relations with your big neighbors to the north and south, not pissing them off).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
I think the bendy ones are supposed o be higher quality.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
1hr ago
I don't know about the tilma of Juan Diego, but I've looked into Eucharistic miracles a long time ago. All claims of such miracles are either 1) fringe enough that nobody cares, 2) unfalsifiable in that there's no evidence to check against, or 3) rely on witnesses.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1hr ago
Why is a bendy banana subpar?
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
1hr ago
Looking at Trump's first term approval ratings, the 37% mark is close to where I'd put the 50-50 at. But 1) I make a habit of not betting on prediction markets unless I have a decent alpha, and 2) Trump is one or two standard deviations more buffoonish this term than he was in his first term, which needs to be factored in. I could probably barely be persuaded to make an even-money bet at 35%, and I'd feel genuinely good if I could make the bet at 33%.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
1hr ago
The intellectual leader of MAGA has basically already confirmed your line of thinking.
I do not find this convincing. As mentioned below, Alfredo Orellana isn't an illegal immigrant; he's a permanent resident, and it seems like you already knew this. While permanent residents can be deported under certain circumstances, they possess a legal status that illegal immigrants do not. Conflating these two categories is muddying the waters considerably when discussing immigration policies and deportation.
I also don't find it to be good and necessary to deport him in this case. For Orellana, the offense cited is attempting to scam a store out of $200 eight years ago. This was a relatively minor crime, as it was not violent and I don't think it rose to the level of felony (but I could be wrong, not a lawyer). Also, if the only crime the government cited is from 8 years ago, then I think it's very likely that there are no serious more-recent crimes to levy on him, and, given his employment and (claimed) benefit to the community, he's probably rehabilitated. So, should an 8 year-old, minor, non-violent offense be sufficient grounds to deport a legal resident who has since rehabilitated and established a stable life? I say no.
Of course this is all just based on NYT's reporting, and I'm not able to find any other source of information to corroborate it. If it is discovered later that Orellana is actually a drug dealer with a very long wrap sheet, I'll change my mind.
More options
Context Copy link