I’ll take that responsibility, at least he’s transparent and out in the public showing that he’s doing things. We had no idea who was running the country for the past 4 years.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
Okay. And conservatives spent 4 years hyperbolizing about how completely incompetent President Biden was.
Now you're aspiring to be what? One rung above that? "At least he's transparent and out in the public showing that he's doing things"? Like almost every President? Those "things" he's doing are what matter. If you're starting an assessment of a President with "At least," you're already rationalizing.
True. And two straight primary seasons they subverted the will of the Democratic voters. One by installing Biden over Sanders even though Sanders was more popular with the lunatic fringe, otherwise known as the Democratic base. Thanks to Cliburn and the convenient fact a crucial primary is in his own state. They pretended that Biden had beaucoup momentum when in reality South Carolinians didn’t want to vote for a Socialist who is the epitome of unhinged.
The next election they bypassed the primary season altogether and put in a DEI puppet that was literally the least popular candidate in the 2020 primaries. All this from a party who are the defenders of democracy. They tell us so almost everyday.
We spent 4 years asking the questions that at least one book is now being written about. Which was Biden's incompetence. Deny all you want, but we see the value of your opinion. You spin better than a washing machine.
You asking me if I'm taking responsibility for Biden being elected? See comment above regarding washing machine.
I've met some cunning people, but you are up there at the top, you crafty little rascal.
Bottom line: If they’d had a viable candidate to run in 24 they’d have thrown Joe under the bus in a heartbeat.
Shapiro.. left wing not gonna go for a Jew as long as Israel’s alive and kicking.
Walz… nuttier than a fruitcake.
I thought Wittmer or Klibuchar would have been a better pick than Harris, but I guess their internal polling showed otherwise, or they were hell bent on the first woman president since their obsession with firsts can’t be underestimated. Buttigieg is the current leader in the clubhouse for 28 as a result of this groupthink.
When major economic decisions shift within hours of a market shakeup, it’s fair to ask what’s really driving that action. For me, this isn’t about loyalty or blame—it’s about whether there’s a steady plan or if we’re just reacting under pressure. That kind of unpredictability carries weight.
I said earlier that I believe there’s a way to use tariffs strategically—especially against countries that game the system or refuse to compete fairly. But that’s not what happened here. This rollout went well beyond what was pitched during the campaign. It wasn’t measured, it wasn’t phased—it was abrupt, and the markets responded accordingly.
And for context—in my day job, I write public policy, build implementation schedules, design communication strategies, and carry those policies through execution. So when I say this felt rushed and disconnected from a broader plan, it’s not coming from a place of partisanship. This is has the potential to hurt a lot of people.
If you're not taking responsible for President Biden why should I accept responsibility for President Trump? One begat the other begat the other. Politics is almost always like that. President Trump's extremism will result in a swing in some other direction eventually.
I definitely think it was reactionary. And like I said yesterday, it is only delaying the max pain that the country is going to feel. It's inevitable, so if it is going to be policy to carry tariffs on all nations at whatever negotiated rate it ends up being, we were better off negotiating with the current policy in place and let the chaos in the market settle organically. You're right that the actions are causing confusion and uncertainty. Two things investors don't like. You mentioned the 10yr yield earlier. That is way out of my wheelhouse. So I don't know what to say to that. But I do hope we get our shit together sooner than later. But it's going to take a while. The last significant trade deal took 2 years almost.
I believe it was the last administration's extremism that resulted in the current swing. And despite the coverage and the doom and gloom, it isn't changing any time soon. Did you have fun at the "hands off" protests?
I don’t know what that is.
You blame the Left for President Trump. Do you blame the Right for President Biden?
5 current Jewish governors, all Democrats.
You need to learn to distinguish between establishment Democrats and the Left, and you should worry about the plank in your own eye before the splinter in theirs.
Two totally different situations, and you should know it. So either you’re being crafty, or extremely dense. Hard to tell on a message board. You are able to pull off both.
The right would NEVER have been able to pull off what the left did with Biden for 1 day, much less 4 years. FACT.
Yeah—it feels like we’re just delaying the inevitable if this is the chosen path. On the bond side, the 10-year yield spiking matters because it makes borrowing more expensive for everyone: government, businesses, and regular people. That kind of move usually means investors are nervous—and this time, it wasn’t just domestic. Countries like Japan and China have reportedly been selling off U.S. bonds, which only adds fuel to the fire.
At the same time, Republicans are about to start pushing a tax cut package, which would likely add to the deficit and require even more borrowing. So you’ve got the government needing more money, foreign investors backing away, and rising yields making debt more expensive. That’s a tough combo for the economy to swallow.
Honestly, I think they’re going to end up scrapping this entirely. The market reaction hit harder than they expected, and now they’re looking for a way out. You can already see it in the messaging—it’s shifting fast, like they’re trying to spin the pause as part of the plan. I don’t know the exact timeline, but at this point, I’m not seeing many options for them going forward.
Last edited:
It's a relatively small but still significant indicator of how the world will respond to Trump shaking the market up. But Australia has made clear that they will not join China in a partnership to combat the U.S. on trade. Add them to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India and Taiwan (huge shocker) and China is going to have to convince Europe to join them at this rate. And Europe being a Muslim state, they will not like having to choose China over the U.S.
The biggest concern will be does China escalate the confrontation military, say... against Taiwan.
The biggest concern will be does China escalate the confrontation military, say... against Taiwan.
On the Taiwan point—it’s a legitimate concern, but I think there’s a big gap between economic tension and full-scale military escalation. China invading Taiwan isn’t something that happens lightly or suddenly. It would require one of the most complex military operations in modern history, with massive risks and no guaranteed success.
And unlike Russia before Ukraine, China has far more to lose economically. Their entire system depends on global trade and market stability. Starting a war that could trigger severe sanctions, supply chain disruption, and possibly a broader conflict isn’t something they’d do as a reaction to U.S. tariffs.
If Beijing ever does make that move, it won’t be out of frustration—it’ll be because they’ve carefully calculated that they can win fast, survive the backlash, and come out stronger. I don’t think they’re there yet—but who knows what tomorrow brings.
I don’t. I can look it up, but I haven’t yet. Is that the actual name of it? The “hands off” protests?
This is a phrase you need to expunge from conversations with me. You don’t have the first MLing clue what I know, and I would never, ever take your advice on what I “should” know. You think you’re entitled to my trust when you disrespect every MLing thing I’ve lived my entire life for. It’s an arrogant, bc thing to say and you say it all the MLing time. It’s a non-starter, a deal-breaker, a non-negotiable. You know ML-all about what I know and you don’t MLing care, either way.
Got suspended here for using the initials of actual curse words. I won’t do it again. I’ll live with weird.
As far as you’re concerned, if I can’t be honest here about something I don’t know, what hope of decent interaction is there?
Ah. Okay. Now I’ve looked it up. I was aware of some protests. I hadn’t heard that name for them. Frankly, I don’t think there’s any point in public protests against our President’s agenda. It’s performative and self-congratulatory and helps people build a thicker bubble.
And our President has won that arena, that style, the messaging around it. It’s futile to keep fighting him according to the rules of a game he practically invented.
Resistance is another thing. Protesting is pointless.
You've already been assured that you will not be banned for words by multiple mods. You're just choosing to play victim here. Fvck, shit, cock, ball licker, whore, shit stabbing chocolate gobbler.
But I get it.
I’m bored and have some time to kill, so if you’re also wondering what the hell is going on in D.C. this week, this little soapbox moment might be for you. Put on your green jacket, grab a pimento cheese sandwich, and let me explain why nobody—regardless of political leanings—should be okay with what’s happening right now.
Here’s something to consider as we drive into Masters weekend—a quick diversion from the usual partisan shit-slinging everyone seems to love: the unchecked growth of executive power, and how this tariff mess shows exactly why it matters.
Over the past few decades, presidential authority has quietly expanded. What used to be a shared balance of power between Congress and the White House has shifted heavily toward the executive branch. Presidents now shape major policy through executive orders, emergency declarations, and broad interpretations of vague laws—often without real input from Congress.
This week’s tariff situation is a perfect example. One person reshaped U.S. trade policy overnight. No congressional debate. No long-term strategy. Just a reaction to market pressure, followed by a sudden pause. It sent markets spinning, confused investors, and left average people wondering what’s next. That kind of snap decision-making from a single office isn’t how this system was meant to work.
And here’s the thing: Article I of the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the power to regulate commerce, raise revenue, and control the purse. That’s foundational stuff. But instead of asserting that authority, Congress has gradually handed more and more of it over—especially on issues like trade and emergency powers.
This isn’t about which party is in charge—both sides have done it. The real concern is that the tools now exist for any future president to bypass Congress almost entirely. Once that becomes normal, it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House. The precedent is set.
And while Congress mostly watches from the sidelines, the courts—the last real check—are barely holding the line. They’re politicized, distrusted, and increasingly seen as just another front in the partisan war. That leaves very little standing between concentrated power and the people it impacts.
If we care about preserving a functioning democracy, it’s time to pull some of this back into balance. Congress needs to do its job. The courts need to stay independent. And the public needs to stop treating unchecked power as acceptable just because “our guy” is the one holding it.
As Benjamin Franklin famously put it, when asked what kind of government the Constitution created: “A republic—if you can keep it.”
Here’s something to consider as we drive into Masters weekend—a quick diversion from the usual partisan shit-slinging everyone seems to love: the unchecked growth of executive power, and how this tariff mess shows exactly why it matters.
Over the past few decades, presidential authority has quietly expanded. What used to be a shared balance of power between Congress and the White House has shifted heavily toward the executive branch. Presidents now shape major policy through executive orders, emergency declarations, and broad interpretations of vague laws—often without real input from Congress.
This week’s tariff situation is a perfect example. One person reshaped U.S. trade policy overnight. No congressional debate. No long-term strategy. Just a reaction to market pressure, followed by a sudden pause. It sent markets spinning, confused investors, and left average people wondering what’s next. That kind of snap decision-making from a single office isn’t how this system was meant to work.
And here’s the thing: Article I of the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the power to regulate commerce, raise revenue, and control the purse. That’s foundational stuff. But instead of asserting that authority, Congress has gradually handed more and more of it over—especially on issues like trade and emergency powers.
This isn’t about which party is in charge—both sides have done it. The real concern is that the tools now exist for any future president to bypass Congress almost entirely. Once that becomes normal, it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House. The precedent is set.
And while Congress mostly watches from the sidelines, the courts—the last real check—are barely holding the line. They’re politicized, distrusted, and increasingly seen as just another front in the partisan war. That leaves very little standing between concentrated power and the people it impacts.
If we care about preserving a functioning democracy, it’s time to pull some of this back into balance. Congress needs to do its job. The courts need to stay independent. And the public needs to stop treating unchecked power as acceptable just because “our guy” is the one holding it.
As Benjamin Franklin famously put it, when asked what kind of government the Constitution created: “A republic—if you can keep it.”
Alm fair and valid points. And difficult to counter. When was the last time Congress did its job?
You said a lot, and I have no doubt you're a smart guy. I'm only responding to this one part here, and I know you can pick apart what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway.
In the area of tariff's, their impact on the markets, global impact... you talk circles around me. I'm fine with that. All I have is just a very basic, broad, and elementary view. Our system has been broken, and broken for a long time. Something had to change. And it needed to be drastic. The wrong people are profiting, and have been profiting for a long time.
Will a lot of Americans be hurt? Yes. We hope it will be short term. In many instances, things have to get worse before they can get better. Is Trump making snap, self made decisions? Yes. I'm ok with that right now. I don't trust Congress. They have shown they're more interested in keeping their jobs. For all Trump's flaws, I do believe he has America's best interest in mind.
Like I said, I do believe you're a smart guy. But what Trump sees is on a much broader scope than any of us see. The left will strongly disagree with my comment here, but it is nothing but true: He has a knack for playing Chess while others are playing Checkers.
Great question—and it should be such an easy one. How sad that it’s not.
One glaring example: the last time Congress passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time was 1997. Since then, it’s been a cycle of continuing resolutions, last-minute omnibus bills, and shutdown threats. No real long-term planning—just duct tape and deadlines.
And for the group, a few questions to consider:
• Who is supposed to step in when executive power starts to stretch beyond its limits?
• What role should Congress actually play in setting tariffs, declaring emergencies, or shaping national policy?
• When is it appropriate for a president to act alone, and when should that authority be pulled back?
• Where does the system break down most—Congress, the courts, or public accountability?
• Why have we let the balance shift so far without seriously pushing back?
I appreciate the tone, and I’m glad you said it—even if we don’t agree. The real value is being able to actually talk through stuff. I don’t know everything, and I genuinely appreciate hearing different perspectives.
I don’t doubt that the system has been broken, or that too many people have gotten rich gaming it while regular people get left behind. That part isn’t up for debate. But the idea that the solution has to be drastic—especially in a way that sidesteps process, transparency, or long-term strategy—that’s where we differ.
If the only way to fix corruption is through more concentrated power, are we actually solving the problem? Or just handing more tools to the next person who figures out how to exploit them?
I don’t mind a president being bold. I do mind when boldness turns into unilateral action that bypasses checks designed to protect the public. And trusting any one person—Trump or anyone else—to “see the full board” while the rest of us just watch from the cheap seats? That’s a dangerous game, even if their intentions are good.
Power without oversight isn’t chess. It’s roulette. And history’s full of examples where people only realized that after the wheel stopped spinning.
DC has just gotten way too big. We have to get big pharma, the corporations, big oil... out of DC. It's become a cesspool. All of this has ruined politicians. Too many are on the take, deceptive, dishonest... For those that are legit? They don't last.
A bill should not be hundreds of pages. This is where the waters get real muddy. There winds up being so much pork that the pages squeal when you turn them. We need term limits. That will never happen as long as those in office are the ones voting on them.
I trust Trump 1000x more than I trust Congress. I know I didn't answer your questions. The answers have only been in the movies.
