SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Clueless
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1732646850

Message started by Serowbot on 11/26/24 at 10:47:30

Title: Clueless
Post by Serowbot on 11/26/24 at 10:47:30

Trump still has no idea how tariffs work, and no one in his circle of idiot lackeys will tell him
Retailers are already starting to jack up prices in anticipation of higher costs

Thanks Donny

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/26/24 at 11:19:27

don't worry it'll get worse

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/26/24 at 11:37:35

Jacking up prices in anticipation of tariffs is just an excuse to justify increased costs to uneducated consumers.

But hey, if we can blame Trump who cares if it's accurate.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by zevenenergie on 11/26/24 at 11:54:04

Maybe you can catch a turkey somewhere.
Isn't there a petting zoo nearby?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by TheBabyDerp on 11/26/24 at 12:01:26

Cool story, but it has already been successful. Trudeau and Trump had a good call last night, and he has already committed to assist the U.S. in border control. Tariffs are used as a negotiating tactic.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/24 at 14:52:50

My company built a new plant in Brazil because of the 30% tariff on our products. We have about 200 people working there.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/26/24 at 17:00:30

Gettin lectured by a lefty. Phht! The title of the thread same as his
Autobiography.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by TheBabyDerp on 11/27/24 at 04:46:30

1F2D2A3B3C2D3A05293A23480 wrote:

My company built a new plant in Brazil because of the 30% tariff on our products. We have about 200 people working there.

I believe the U.S. has a lot of export to Brazil. We have a lot of ships from Mobile going back and forth to Brazil. You can thank Mobile, Alabama for fire ants! Sorry. Fire-ants accidentally came to the U.S. from Argentina in the 30s... Woops.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/24 at 05:12:52

We did not want to lose the market in Brazil so we invested in a local plant. The tariff was pricing us out of the market so we either left, stayed and took dramatically less profit or we could invest and built our own plant in Brazil.

For Brazil, their economy improved. The US lost jobs and taxes. That’s one result of tariffs, it forces a change in business practices.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/24 at 05:15:58

2137203D25303D26520 wrote:

Trump still has no idea how tariffs work, and no one in his circle of idiot lackeys will tell him
Retailers are already starting to jack up prices in anticipation of higher costs

Thanks Donny

Had Harris won, wouldn’t the talk about tax increases and unrealized capital gains have done the same thing? They’re both expenses to a company or the people who run those companies and earn income from the profits.

Why would one expense, tariffs, increase prices but another, taxes, would not?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/27/24 at 06:05:27

Why would one expense, tariffs, increase prices but another, taxes, would not?[/quote]

you can only speculate what she would have done
the orange FELON'S ear worm makes him think tariffs will stem drugs and illegals from crossing the border
not a chance

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Serowbot on 11/27/24 at 07:20:03

Is there a way that you MAGAnauts can pay the tariffs and leave us the fk alone?
You just seem so happy about them

Honestly, despite your abstract justifications, Trump really doesn't know how tariffs work
He also thinks passing a cognition test is some sort of accomplishment
This is real stuff!
That should scare you you a little
This is the man that drew a hurricane redirection with a Sharpie and you bought that too
Sad really

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by TheBabyDerp on 11/27/24 at 07:53:33

Your derangement is hilarious. Don't worry, you will enjoy the benefits of Trump.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Serowbot on 11/27/24 at 11:16:50

Trump also thinks rising oceans due to climate change will create more beachfront
Logic is standing on it's head
:-?

Less is more?
and I get accused of TDS

Which is worse... being an idiot or worshiping one?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by WebsterMark on 11/28/24 at 07:44:44

5E485F425A4F42592D0 wrote:

Ask yourself. If Biden hadn’t been stabbed in the back, you would have voted for an old demented man because he has a D by his name and you bow to the big D and I’m not taking about Dallas.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/28/24 at 10:34:25

no guarantee Biden would have got the nomination

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/28/24 at 15:56:47

223E233B263324353A393833560 wrote:

no guarantee Biden would have got the nomination

Not the Point.
The point you so deftly DOGEd was
IF Joe had been on the ballot,Row would have voted for him.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Serowbot on 11/29/24 at 07:22:15

Nothing changes the fact that you voted for guy that thinks his cognition test would get him into Harvard

;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/29/24 at 07:27:18

I voted for the guy who is going to scrape the green goo out of the festering wound of waste on society. Your decrepit commie did nothing For America. If he did anything that wasn't costly or stupid or unconstitutional, please, tell me.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Serowbot on 11/29/24 at 08:50:41

Why didn't he do it 4 years ago?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/29/24 at 09:27:19

1E2B38203B3C382B3D590 wrote:

turn that coin over and YOU list what was costly or stupid or unconstitutional

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/29/24 at 09:48:37

That commie mutherfukker didn't do anything that didn't fukk America
Trump screwed UP with the Jabs.
Can you name anything FJB did that was bad?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/29/24 at 09:58:24

0035263E2522263523470 wrote:

That commie mutherfukker didn't do anything that didn't fukk America
Trump screwed UP with the Jabs.
Can you name anything FJB did that was bad?

SO you got nothing
thought so

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/29/24 at 10:44:27

You think Suing the states trying to protect their own borders was constitutional?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/29/24 at 13:03:25

182D3E263D3A3E2D3B5F0 wrote:

You think Suing the states trying to protect their own borders was constitutional?

I'm not aware of what you are talking about
care to provide a readable resource?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/29/24 at 15:36:26

You think Suing the states trying to protect their own borders was constitutional?

Yes. Just because people don't like a law doesn't make it "Unconstitutional", that's a tired and almost always inaccurate argument.
Nothing about the ruling, allowing the buoys to stay, debated the "Constitutionality" of the initial suit, so that for one should be considerable evidence.

What would have been "Unconstitutional" would be enforcing the action without suing. That would have been against the US Constitution.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/29/24 at 15:36:49

"I'm not aware of what you are talking about
care to provide a readable resource?"

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-wins-major-victory-against-biden-administrations-attempt-remove-rio#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20Texas%20deployed%20the,buoys%20and%20reopen%20the%20border.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Border%20Buoys%20En%20Banc%20Opinion.pdf

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/29/24 at 18:23:15

We will continue to disagree.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/29/24 at 21:19:46

We will continue to disagree.

Sure thing however US law agrees with me. Not liking something doesn't all the sudden make it "Unconstitutional". Why wasn't the case against TX, when it was ruled in TX favor, missing the portion about it being an "Unconstitutional" action? Seems like they would want to add that in.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/29/24 at 21:24:35

It's the Fed's Job to protect OUR borders.
If they won't, the states have every right to protect Their citizens from invasion.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/29/24 at 21:46:20

It's the Fed's Job to protect OUR borders.
If they won't, the states have every right to protect Their citizens from invasion.

So why did TX omit the "Unconstitutionality" in their own defense? They don't want to have an absolute win and have it dismissed? An action can be wrong, and also not violate the US Constitution.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/30/24 at 00:24:03

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/30/24 at 07:22:07

Why don't you include that you appreciate the fact that the Fed's have chosen to ignore their constitutional requirements to protect the border? And have gone against common sense by suing every state that had the temerity to protect their own borders?

Because I am addressing the question you actually asked, not the supporting points you brought up After I wrote my post. You clearly asked:

"You think Suing the states trying to protect their own borders was constitutional?"

That, to me, read like you are asking if a human thinks "Suing" TX, among others, for trying to protect their own borders, is "Constitutional". Yes. Nothing in the appeal mentions it even, so either literally every human involved is wrong and you are right, or it's not an "Unconstitutional" action.

An action can be wrong, like Suing a state, and also not be Unconstitutional. Suing another state specifically how it was done with TX is not against the US Constitution. Why did TX omit the "Unconstitutionality" in their own defense?

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/30/24 at 07:39:29

1B2E3D253E393D2E385C0 wrote:

selective memory again jog?
1] congress had a bipartisan bill that tRUMP had his maga nuts squash
so he could use the border as an election issue
2] he had four years to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it
both turned out to be BS

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/30/24 at 07:45:09

TC every lefty and too many fake Republicans fought Trump at every turn. You Know that, because you loved it. So, he didn't manage to get it done.

The Bipartisan bill that you so fail to understand was going to screw America some more.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by MnSpring on 11/30/24 at 07:48:18

4A6A68607D6A0F0 wrote:

"... An action can be wrong, and also not violate the US Constitution. ..."

Is it that you believe,
that suing a State,
for doing what the US Constitution says it will do,
BECAUSE, it is a political view,
promoted by the current POTUS,
(Or his Puppet Masters)
Is perfectly OK ?

"... Why did TX omit the "Unconstitutionality" ..."

Because it would be just like saying,
'Water is Wet'

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/30/24 at 08:30:51

Is it that you believe,
that suing a State,
for doing what the US Constitution says it will do,
BECAUSE, it is a political view,
promoted by the current POTUS,
(Or his Puppet Masters)
Is perfectly OK ?

No. I just don't think that specific action, "Suing" is against the US Constitution. It's not right, but every wrong thing in this country is not in the Constitution.

Because it would be just like saying,
'Water is Wet'

That won't apply in US Court. Things aren't implied there, you have to state them as record. TX, or anyone else never claimed the suit was "Unconstitutional" because it isn't. They won the initial appeal by using actual US law and not "water is wet" implications or claiming something that is categorically false.

Like I said, "unconstitutional" is a tired and usually incorrect argument. People just want to be able to say it's against the Constitution.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/30/24 at 08:47:07

The feds, according To the constitution, are to protect the people from invasion.
They chose not to. In fact, they sued the states for trying to protect themselves.
Play whatever games you want. I'm finished with this.

Homeowner dials 911.
My house is on fire! Send help!
Firemen show up.
Shut the water off
Cut his hose into foot long pieces.
Leave.

The feds,helping.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by Eegore on 11/30/24 at 09:49:37

The feds, according To the constitution, are to protect the people from invasion.
They chose not to. In fact, they sued the states for trying to protect themselves.
Play whatever games you want. I'm finished with this.

Using that logic literally everyone involved in the TX case is wrong and you are right. Suing is not against the US Constitution. If anything the lack of providing assistance, like alternatives to buoys that violate the Rivers and Harbors Act would be. You have the right idea, but the wrong application on the wrong subject.

The TX case is leveraged on the Rivers and Harbors Act, and suing using that leverage is not a violation of the Constitution. Ordering the removal without suing would be against the US Constitution essentially on the grounds you are speaking of in Article IV, Section 4.

But since you don't agree with the Feds actions, you want to oversimplify it and just go the inaccurate "Against the Constitution" argument instead if using actual US law and the actual US Constitution.

Homeowner dials 911.
My house is on fire! Send help!
Firemen show up.
Shut the water off
Cut his hose into foot long pieces.
Leave.

The feds,helping.

Or:

Homeowner dials 911.
My house is on fire! Send help!
Firemen show up, let the homeowner use their hose.
Leave the water on.
Do nothing to his hose.
Sue because the homeowner is using his hose to access water regulated under the Rivers and Harbors Act.

The feds,helping.

This is no different than you arguing about the search and seizure process and the fact that US Constitutional protections don't have to outline everything you are allowed to own.

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by thumperclone on 11/30/24 at 11:12:45

576271697275716274100 wrote:

stay tuned for more unfulfilled promises

Title: Re: Clueless
Post by JOG on 11/30/24 at 18:02:38

Even though Trump wasn't able to accomplish what we wanted, he accomplished a great deal. You benefited. You suffered under biden, as did we all.
What did biden accomplish For America?