Patented Phil

In this thread we’ll chronicle their semantical contortions, which basically happens in every damn thread. You know - arguing that a “tariff” is a “tax”, or that changing the law in San Francisco so that it’s only a misdemeanor and no longer a felony to shoplift $950 or less is NOT “decriminalizing” shoplifting. Feel free to just chronicle the instances. Or, feel free to comment on the mental illness that underlies their need to manipulate words and definitions for their political purposes.

I think she’d be more concerned that everything is locked up because of all the decriminalized shoplifting. But I digress.

Intellectual laziness… if tariffs and taxes were the same thing there wouldn’t be a need for different words. As previously stated, they appear in entirely different sections of the US Code. Even conceptually they are entirely different animals: Key Differences Between Tax and Tariff Purpose: Taxes primarily fund government expenditure, while tariffs regulate international trade. Scope: Taxes apply to domestic transactions and income, whereas tariffs affect imports and exports. Revenue Generation: Taxes generate revenue for the government, while tariffs may generate revenue or protect domestic industries. Impact: Taxes redistribute wealth and influence economic behavior, while tariffs impact the cost and availability of imported goods. Administration: Taxes are administered by government agencies, while tariffs involve customs authorities and international trade organizations.

Wrong. They are technically NOT a tax. They may be analogous to a tax in their downstream effect on consumers, but they are most definitely NOT a tax. Not in the accounting, and not in the statutes, regulations, or codes.

He knows economics Tim. He went to Wharton for crying out loud. And he spent his entire life running companies. He has played in tariffs a little too much for my liking, but he knows what they are and how they work. Technically they are not a tax. Kamala has equally lied by calling them that. The net effect on consumers? Probably $1,400 per family per year - not the $3,900 that Kameltoe projects. Look - there’s a time and a place for tariffs. Adam Smith even said so. But they shouldn’t be longterm policy. I am hoping that Trump will course correct on this front if elected. Right now I think he’s just speaking to his base on the issue.

You act like Kameltoe is far Tight on free trade and tariffs. She’s not. Good article in The NY Times: With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues. In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.” But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known. William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.” In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.” Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change. While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.” Her skepticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was also partially related to its impact on the environment. She expressed concerns in an interview that it might undermine California’s environmental laws. As a senator, Ms. Harris also sponsored the Green New Deal, an expansive set of policies aimed at addressing climate change. That has given rise to speculation among trade experts that, if elected, Ms. Harris might lean more on trade as a tool to fight climate change — for example, by striking more limited deals that encourage trade in cleaner products and raise barriers for trade in dirtier ones. “A Harris presidency would continue and build upon Biden’s trade policy,” said Todd Tucker, the director of Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy and research organization. “Where I would expect to see Harris go even further than Biden is on integrating trade and climate policy.” Politicians have only recently turned to trade policy as a tool to fight climate change, and not much has yet been accomplished in the area. But it is an approach that is gathering support. In negotiations with the European Union, the Biden administration pushed for trade measures that would encourage makers of steel and aluminum in Europe and the United States to cut carbon emissions. While those talks have faltered, they could be a model for more actions under a Harris administration, trade analysts said. Greta Peisch, a former trade official with the Biden administration who is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, said that the Biden administration had been on the cusp of pushing the United States to use trade tools to address climate change. “With the Harris administration, that would be a trajectory that she would be on as well,” she said. Ms. Peisch added that Ms. Harris could also potentially push forward nascent policies addressing how the United States should work with foreign countries to regulate digital trade. Ms. Harris is familiar with the tech industry from her time in office in California, she said, and could help to set the agenda for how tech issues like artificial intelligence and privacy regulation factor into trade negotiations. Both Republicans and Democrats have adopted more protectionist stances on trade in recent years, moving away from a time when “free trade” was often an unquestioned pursuit for many politicians. While the Trump administration imposed large tariffs on foreign products in an effort to gain leverage and renegotiate trade deals, the Biden administration has declined to pursue traditional free-trade agreements, instead focusing on domestic investments and other kinds of international partnerships. Many Democrats now view free trade deals as a reason that American companies have shipped jobs overseas — a view that seems likely to carry into another Democratic administration. Ms. Harris has emphasized reorienting U.S. trade policy to prioritize the impact on American workers, rather than big companies that would prefer to cut costs by outsourcing jobs. She has also taken a more critical stance against China in her appearances as vice president and her voting record as a senator. And she has denounced the Trump administration’s more aggressive and broad-brush approach to dealing with trade partners, describing the tariffs on China as a tax for American consumers. In a 2019 presidential debate, Ms. Harris described Mr. Trump’s trade policy toward China as erratic and full of bluster. “He reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’” she said. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude.” Mr. Biden was also critical of Mr. Trump’s tariffs during that campaign. Once in office, however, the Biden administration ultimately chose to maintain Mr. Trump’s China tariffs and recently added some new ones, saying they were necessary to prevent cheap foreign products from flooding the United States and protect new factories that have received federal funding. Mr. Trump has upped the ante in his current campaign for president, proposing tariffs on most foreign goods and floating a tariff of 60 percent or more on goods from China. The Biden administration has said that level of tariffs could damage the U.S. economy, widen the gap between the rich and poor and spark global trade wars that would hurt U.S. exporters. In her role as vice president, Ms. Harris took part in the administration’s push to lessen the dependence of supply chains on China, including by promoting new partnerships for apparel manufacturing in Central America. In speeches, she often took a hard line on China, rebuking the country during two trips to Asia for its maritime clashes with countries like Japan and the Philippines. As a senator, she condemned the persecution of Uyghur and minority women in western China and sponsored a bill by Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses in the region. She was also a sponsor of Mr. Rubio’s Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which was a response to China’s increasing control over the former British territory. “They steal our products, including our intellectual property,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 debate. “They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents."

Ok, so her first two economic proposals - both anathema to free market capitalism - are “bad ideas” according to you. Glad we could agree on that. Other than that she’s a Centrist.

She wants to tax unrealized capital gains! Dude - seriously - see the dishonesty posts above. You are delusional at times. Just admit what she is - a Socialist with very dangerous Leftist economic policies. It’s not hard. You can still like her and have joy.

Pathological is the word. It’s fascinating to watch actually.

Centrist? She just proposed price controls! And in an objective measurement she was rated THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR. I can understand you missing that. The Left scrubbed it from the internet after she got nominated.

This might be the funniest political video I’ve ever seen. Who is this guy? 4:44 Omg. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1827172947280249138?s=46&t=IzbM3-87p2zeOh7T9ScCrQ

This.

Perfectly stated - dumb and dangerous. There should be a rule that you can’t run for President unless you’ve taken a college level Economics or Finance course. These Leftist bozos like Kameltoe, Bernie and Pocahontas have no business running a Lemonaid stand, never mind the USA. There’s no bigger threat to the country than people like this. They are Castro, Chavez, Maduro…. It’s surprisingly easy to destroy an economy and then a country. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves, and the eighth largest natural gas reserves in the world. Twenty years ago they were one of the wealthiest countries in South America. Today 82% of its remaining citizens (7.7 million have fled) live below the poverty level. What started it? Price controls, “joy”-type exuberance of Socialist ideas, and a monolithic, fawning Leftist media. Don’t think it can happen here? It absolutely can happen here. It’s surprisingly easy.

There was a time when SquidTard had pretty decent intelligence. I didn’t ever agree with him (who does?) but he at least seemed to be well-sourced. Now? The dude’s a babbling idiot. Which is why he doesn’t engage in debate. He just posts random tweets and one-liners. Dude’s a grade-A pooosay.

Funny to hear SquidTard and his Band of Merry Leftist Femmies try to pass this off as a nothingburger. RFK was getting anywhere from 2-5% of the vote in every battleground state.

There’s something deeply immoral about leaving native citizens hanging in favor of illegal aliens.

Well, no. Dumb response from you as usual. I have a money market account in a California based bank. Fiscally irresponsible lending practices hurt more than just California residents. Dumbasss.

Gather up the politicians pushing for this and hang em in the town square for treason.

I had a buddy who was an insurance claims adjuster and a weekend warrior - JAG. He had to dress up and go to some 3 day conference every year. One year, right in the middle of the Iraq war we hen there were a lot of casualties, he had his big off-site nonsense. He had an ingrown toenail and was limping through the airport in his full uniform. He said people were stopping him left and right thanking him for his service. Someone paid for his coffee, and a couple other people saluted him.

Ohio state secretary says 100 non-US citizens voted in recent elections, begins process to prosecute

How do we know this is a parody?

Very good night, not great. The gaslighting on the border, and the nonsense about “the other side” trying to divide us, wasn’t smart. Don’t troll people when you’re running for President. Maybe her 20-something staffers thought it would be cute, but it likely pissed off a LOT of people. Unnecessary.

Overall I’d give it a B. Better than I was expecting.

Man-boobs Mooney! In the house! What up, bittch-titts?

Yeah but weren’t you the guy who was saying the night of the debate that Biden was doing well?