ewsieg

I certainly expect that's what he wanted, but generally Trump would say something stupid but his admin would then follow up with some specifics. In this case, I've seen Canada/Mexico response that this wouldn't be good, but nothing even from them on what they were asked to do. I specifically just searched and see that several days ago, Mexico offered up a proposal to put a tariff on Chinese goods and for Canada to follow suit. Bessent said it would be a 'nice gesture' but no other details. So Trump is essentially making Mexico and Canada guess on what they can do, rather then the US sitting down to explain their concerns?!?!? I know the daily crap Trump does is news worthy, but the full story on this needs to be pushed by the media so everyone knows just how stupid this action is, so when the economic pain hits, the right people are blamed.

I feel like I seek out and consume more news than most. I also think most of you on this board are above average consumers as well. So with that, can anyone tell me exactly what Canada and Mexico were supposed to do in order to avoid the Tariffs. I understand that he feels the USMCA is a stupid deal and only a stupid person would sign it, and I agree with the latter portion, but I have not heard any specifics on what he was hoping to accomplish by threatening tariffs.

He threw in "illegal" protests which covers him, but obviously any protest that makes the news he'll deem as Illegal. I'd like to know how he feels he can demand colleges to expel students.

You don't get it Romad. This essentially forces Russia to invade Ukraine again. It's a known fact Russia will attack Ukraine if their only deterrent is all of NATO. But a security agreement tied to some mineral rights, you know, not like that last security agreement that Russia chose not to honor and the US is now agreeing not to honor, it's like a magical wall built on their border that Russia simply couldn't get past even if they wanted.

We need a 'nervous laughter' or 'lol, followed by crying' emoji for this.

I never said she said that, I said the administration she was a part of is what said that. This very board relayed that sentiment that inflation wasn't an issue early on and was very slow to come to terms with it. And you are right that she said the other stuff you mentioned, but again, she only had 107 days to get that message to everyone, including folks that don't regularly pay attention to the news. And why was that again? Could it be because of the lie Biden's handlers engaged in until that fell apart in the debate which even low news volume voters were talking about the day after the debate?

For low volume news consumers, they only heard 107 days worth of her saying she would reduce inflation due to the fact that the president we were told was sharper than ever showed he was no longer sharp one of the few times his people allowed him to do more then a 1-2 minute script in front of a camera. Plus she was part of the same administration that said there was no inflation, so maybe they weren't too keen on believing her. As for Trump providing details on his plans which would increase inflation, us avid news consumers on this forum saw that, but the low volume folks, they just heard him blame Biden and say he would fix it. Again, my point is not everyone consumes the news like we do and unfortunately those that don't consume the news can make choices in line with people that are ape**** crazy (MAGA), but it doesn't mean they are the same nor should be treated the same. I'm just advocating for not writing those voters off and not trying to reach out to them.

I'm not looking to debate everything related to these things, i'm pointing out some of the high profile news items from the last several years which most people were aware of and saw a radical change in how they were covered from the start to now. Lab leak was conspiracy theory, thinking Biden might be too old, how dare you say that! Inflation, what inflation? Oh that inflation.... well it's not that bad, ok, it's bad, but we're the best at handling it.... For low volume news consumers they were dealing with inflation, they were shocked when lab leak was determined to be a possibility. These weren't your MAGA voters, but they did vote for Trump in part because of this stuff.

You are correct on this about MAGA's, but a very large number of people that voted for Trump didn't think he won in 2020 and don't believe illegals were all violent criminals. What that large group were, were folks that were lied to by the left regarding 50 intelligence officers that said it was Russian disinformation, that by simply asking if it could have been a lab leak they were mocked, that inflation wasn't an issue, and despite the lack of interviews and press briefings from Biden and videos of him walking around mindlessly umpteen times that he was not in decline, but rather sharper then ever (Joe Tapper is coming out with a book about his decline now after spending the last 4 years on CNN fighting against anyone that even worried about a decline, **** you Tapper). They saw democratic mayors in northern states freak out when the southern states decided to burden them with the problems faced by a large influx of illegals that they have had to endure the entire time. You didn't accept any of them, you mocked them. The reaction of large city mayors on immigration was the most obvious 'show your ass' moment by your party in recent memory and instead of just publicly agreeing that maybe unfettered unorganized mass migration by illegals into this country may not be the best thing, publicly the party chose to demonize those complaining about it as racists. Even as Biden took actual steps to deal with it. Still I wish that large group would have looked deeper into what a Trump 2.0 presidency would be like and voted for Harris. I don't see how you win over the electorate (consistently at least) without being more accepting. But I guess continue to mock, doesn't seem to be working right now, but who knows, maybe it will prevent a Trump 3rd term.

Absolutely, but it's also not 49% of the voting population or whatever Trump got. I would love to peel some folks off of that group rather than push them to dig into their 'dear leader' and add to that 25-30% that is true MAGA.

Ahh, to each your own I guess. I don't feel like I said you had to befriend MAGA so they could betray you, just saying if everyone had a little more empathy, we'd be better off. I still feel I'm conservative. I grew up listening to Rush. But I was always interested in understanding an issue rather then simply agreeing with whatever an (R) told me was the issue. This led me to listening to programs like This American Life, which arguably is often anecdotal, but even if I disagreed with the politics of a particular episode, I often found a side I had not thought off. I think it helped me steer clear of Trump when he took over the party.

It is a tall ask, one I certainly don't live up to all the time, but IMO, it's the right 'ask'. I don't think you win over the opposition or even those that don't get into the weeds with politics and pick a side by making fun of them at every chance. Don't get me wrong, Reddit's r/facepalm is pretty funny, I just don't think it's constructive which is what I think MTUTiger was getting at.

You're not wrong... but MTUtigers post is still the correct way to handle this. It's annoying without a doubt, but it's not beneficial to anyone to just go scorched earth on those we oppose. I was actually going to jump on here to talk about what my Facebook feed looks like now. Some old friends/family of mine are sharing meme's, that are often incorrect and at best, only partially true, as they troll the left and claim 'wins' on every little thing they believe Trump is doing great. At the same time, zero empathy on anything. Until they find a reason to have a little empathy, nothing is going to change their mind. Especially if you're refusing to give them any empathy as well.

I was in the same boat as Oblong and it got to the point where I just felt The Wire was too old for me to truly appreciate it. I figured I missed my chance. During Covid, I hunkered down and watched it and I learned it was worth being mentioned as one of the greatest.

The Killers should have been the first concert there.

This is an interesting take and I think i've seen it in real time myself. My MIL has a 2nd home on a lake in mid-Michigan. An association on the lake worked with the local authorities and got an assessment added as part of a plan to dredge the lake. It's a man made lake and apparently has always been done every 10-15 years, but hasn't been done in about 20. As such, lots of algae issues that everyone on the lake is dealing with. Years ago when they started this current dredging project, a lone person started a new 'association' and has done nothing but demand "answers", and find "documents" which they then read wrong and claim it is evidence, and the whole point is they want it to be considered a public lake (which it is, but it also has no public access which they don't seem to understand) and therefore feel the state should pay for it or grants could be applied for (which attempts were made). While most don't follow this new group, she's definitely recruited a lot of users and they almost were successful in stopping the dredging (which already was delayed due to unrelated EGLE issues.) The oddest thing is that the facebook group for them sounds MAGA'ish or at least Qanon'ish, yet the women running it also randomly puts anti-Trump stuff on it. Yet many of the people she has gotten to join her, are more Trumpy. It simply makes no sense, much like all of our politics now.

That's some injustice I could get behind. (j/k)

@Archie, am I like Pfife far left or just chasfh far left?

I think part of it is shock still. Hamtramck's mayor just said he still supports Trump the other day. I suspect they hope/think Trump saying what he's saying about Gaza is not going to be pursued.

Not the same at all and I doubt Romad is claiming it's identical. But as a conservative to a conservative, I would gather that at least pre-Trump, you of all people would have been more likely to side with a statement that says there is no room for celebrating violence of any sort, even if you're not actually committing violence.

Death panels are evil, the government should not get to decide who dies. But here me out..... Life panels, where the government decides who lives. Pretty solid concept, right?!?! </thoughts from a MAGA>

Even during Trumps first term when people would say we're an international embarrassment, I would shrug my shoulders and think of all the crap other countries do that we put up with. In just a months worth of this new term, I'm at the point where I legitimately would second guess international travel just because I'd be embarrassed to tell people where I'm from. My friends wife spent a summer in Europe right out of college and used a backpack she got from a 2nd hand store, it had a Canadian flag on it. There were a handful of places that she said she was treated significantly better once people saw it. I could only imagine what it might be like now. Also to note, years ago in Munich I stopped to watch a street performer and when he asked everyone where they were from, I was the only American and standing next to a Somalian. He openly joked the Somalian should kill me, we all laughed. Not sure I'd be as comfortable today.

As a bit of caution on this, I'll say what I tell my kids, be selective with your outrage as no one is 'truly' real on social media. Many reels are only about click bait. Some people even put viewpoints against their true beliefs because they want to mock/troll the other side. Plus, even if it is real, you have to then question the responses/comments from everyone as i'm sure some of those are the same. I remember my mom posted something a few years back and I called her as I was pissed about her sharing it, turns out all she saw was a video that started out like 'this is why our government can't be trusted', the video paused on her and she didn't even bother trying to watch the full thing. It got on her feed and that initial little response made her think it was important enough to share.

Unfortunately you are right that it's a privilege, the president doesn't have to talk to anyone. I'm sure you were on my side when I have complained about the likes of Biden or Whitmer never holding press conferences though. Another difference here though is that he's picking and choosing who he gives this 'privilege' to based on if they are friendly to him. Whether an actual violation of the 1st amendment or not, a true advocate of the 1st amendment would not like to see that happen, regardless of the letter next to the president allowing it.

I used to perform audits a long time ago. It would have been so much simpler if anytime I had an invoice in front of me the question was "Did paying this result in some of the money making it into my pocket?" and 'No' meant I told my company not to pay it anymore and 'Yes' meant I told my company it was worthwhile to keep.