Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

Well, I suspect it all comes back to the fact that "massive tariffs here there and everywhere" is the dumbest economic approach this country has taken in nearly 100 years.  It is idiotic, has always been idiotic, has been proven to be idiotic, so of course....a cadre of idiots is JUST the group to give it another try.

We are a nation that owes its existence to global trade: there'd be no "New World" (that is, a North America colonized by and then independent from European powers) without the GLOBAL quest for spices, gold, silver, cotton, tobacco, etc.  the British Empire didn't ban the trade of tea, tobacco, cotton, precious metals from outside Great Britain in some idiotic quest to "make Britain great again."  Trade MADE the British Empire.  Trade MADE the US.  And here we go, crushing the fuck out of it because we are run by a bunch of xenophobic, nativist fucking morons.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, F250 said:

The theory of comparative advantage has been around for over two hundred years. Nearly one hundred years ago the U.S. found out what happens when you implement a policy counter to that theory with the Smoot-Hawley fuck up. 

Yet, here we are again.

GJC1WrlWQAARvrX.jpg

 

Exactly.  I mean, the fact that we've literally TRIED this brand of idiocy before, and every economist with two brain cells to rub together concluded "yeah, that was a massive fuckup," and now we're doing the "but it might work for us" routine is fucking maddening.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 10/6/2025 at 9:02 AM, HenryJames said:

 

9%? Seems like this board will more than make up for that this football season 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
13 hours ago, miguelito said:

"even with tariffs"?

Not "because of"?

Good point. Politico is a newspaper with a primary concern of sucking up to republicans -- just not as much so as axios or morning call -- so for something like a negative report about tariffs they probably feel a need to acknowledge that republicans are so stupid they legit thought tariffs would be a great thing. 

Posted
3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

Quote

China has not purchased any U.S. soybean cargoes from this autumn's harvest. The window for U.S. soybean purchases is rapidly closing as buyers secure shipments through November, largely from Brazil and Argentina, helped by Argentina's brief tax holiday.

IMG_5026.gif.d340b0a33d221bb611944ef726e3208a.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted
On 10/17/2025 at 1:22 PM, Brisketexan said:

Well, I suspect it all comes back to the fact that "massive tariffs here there and everywhere" is the dumbest economic approach this country has taken in nearly 100 years.  It is idiotic, has always been idiotic, has been proven to be idiotic, so of course....a cadre of idiots is JUST the group to give it another try.

We are a nation that owes its existence to global trade: there'd be no "New World" (that is, a North America colonized by and then independent from European powers) without the GLOBAL quest for spices, gold, silver, cotton, tobacco, etc.  the British Empire didn't ban the trade of tea, tobacco, cotton, precious metals from outside Great Britain in some idiotic quest to "make Britain great again."  Trade MADE the British Empire.  Trade MADE the US.  And here we go, crushing the fuck out of it because we are run by a bunch of xenophobic, nativist fucking morons.

Turnip isn’t affected by tariffs since he’s sitting on the treasury. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Who’s that woke soy boy?

Never forget the fact that in this timeline, if you dropped the actual Ronald Reagan in it, saying, doing, and believing EXACTLY what the real Ronnie did, but you gave him a different name, he would be universally reviled by MAGA as a woke commie libtard soy boy.  Zero hyperbole, they would hate him with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Never forget the fact that in this timeline, if you dropped the actual Ronald Reagan in it, saying, doing, and believing EXACTLY what the real Ronnie did, but you gave him a different name, he would be universally reviled by MAGA as a woke commie libtard soy boy.  Zero hyperbole, they would hate him with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.

Which is the biggest "overton window has shifted" evidence and all you really need because in the 00's to liberals Ronald Reagan was the most right-wing, conservative devil to have ever governed.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Which is the biggest "overton window has shifted" evidence and all you really need because in the 00's to liberals Ronald Reagan was the most right-wing, conservative devil to have ever governed.

Dude.  There is no overton window anymore.  There's a busted frame and glass in the rubble of a building 10,000 miles away from where we are today.

  • Haha 1
Posted

Here's a crazy idea, and I'm just spitballing here...  Instead of sending out tariff relief checks, how about we fund Healthcare?  Or even pay down some of that monster debt we have accruing?

  • Haha 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Here's a crazy idea, and I'm just spitballing here...  Instead of sending out tariff relief checks, how about we fund Healthcare?  Or even pay down some of that monster debt we have accruing?

How is any of that going to help you at the horse track?

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

"Simply put, Congress did not write IEEPA to allow a President to replace the income tax system with a patchwork of tariffs that they can impose, adjust, or suspend at will. Such major changes to the raising of revenue can only come from Congress, and Congress did not make that choice."

"The Constitution gives the power to impose taxes, which includes tariffs, to Congress. Because IEEPA doesn’t extend that power to the president, his use of it here is just a power grab, the kind of practice the Supreme Court shouldpush back against if it intends to remain relevant to the American experiment. The Federal Circuit’s decision pointed out that while other laws expressly give the president the power to impose tariffs, IEEPA does not."

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Oral argument is ongoing and the prognasticators have done their thing. Looks like trump tariffs are going down.

 

 

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
48 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Oral argument is ongoing and the prognasticators have done their thing. Looks like trump tariffs are going down.

 

 

The tariffs may go away, but the market damages won't. That business isn't coming back

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
50 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Oral argument is ongoing and the prognasticators have done their thing. Looks like trump tariffs are going down.

 

 

I'm super skeptical of reading tea leaves based on oral argument.  

But the fact that the justices would say "major question" or "non-delegation" in public and in connection with an anti-Trump appeal gives me some hope.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Clintonaldo said:

I don’t think it’s good that they are ruled unconstitutional. I want them staying and for the idiots to suffer. 

I would bet he just keeps doing it anyway. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

 

You have to get through the host intro screeching about CLE credit, but the oral argument itself is on this YouTube link for whoever wants to listen to the damn thing and make their own opinions about oral argument.

I’m home with the flu, so I’ll be listening to this thing and trying to stay awake.  Twice is entirely correct that you can’t always tell the decision from the oral argument (remember VAPA roosterIng around claiming victory after the fifth circuit oral argument, only to be served his crow).    judges/justices will often toss softballs to the side they don’t favor in order to see if they come up with anything else to change their mind, even though at first blush they favor the opposing side. 

OTOH, some statements or admissions on legal doctrine during oral argument are so seemingly conclusive that it won’t be walked back during the opinion writing process.   For example, in a statute of limitations case discussing whether you filed your lawsuit on time, an appellate judge might ask you a question that seems to support that you were not aware of the need to sue yet, only to find that judge later ruling against you.  But if that same judge states in oral argument that “it looks clear that the statute of limitation had passed three months before you filed”, you can probably take that judge’s opinion to the bank as ultimately being against your client.

tl:dr.   I’m currently testing the theory that cannabis will cure the flu, and will be listening to the argument. Feel free to add your tea leaves thoughts

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

 

You have to get through the host intro screeching about CLE credit, but the oral argument itself is on this YouTube link for whoever wants to listen to the damn thing and make their own opinions about oral argument.

I’m home with the flu, so I’ll be listening to this thing and trying to stay awake.  Twice is entirely correct that you can’t always tell the decision from the oral argument (remember VAPA roosterIng around claiming victory after the fifth circuit oral argument, only to be served his crow).    judges/justices will often toss softballs to the side they don’t favor in order to see if they come up with anything else to change their mind, even though at first blush they favor the opposing side. 

OTOH, some statements or admissions on legal doctrine during oral argument are so seemingly conclusive that it won’t be walked back during the opinion writing process.   For example, in a statute of limitations case discussing whether you filed your lawsuit on time, an appellate judge might ask you a question that seems to support that you were not aware of the need to sue yet, only to find that judge later ruling against you.  But if that same judge states in oral argument that “it looks clear that the statute of limitation had passed three months before you filed”, you can probably take that judge’s opinion to the bank as ultimately being against your client.

tl:dr.   I’m currently testing the theory that cannabis will cure the flu, and will be listening to the argument. Feel free to add your tea leaves thoughts

Thanks for posting. I would add brandy and tea with the cannabis. It is an old trick. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, InkaUtexas said:

Thanks for posting. I would add brandy and tea with the cannabis. It is an old trick. 

odd. That’s what all the women I date say about me.

  • Haha 1
Posted

four minutes in and the government is being roasted.   I’m not sure who  is arguing for the administration’s side, but he sounds like RFK Junior who did a couple lines of Coke before the argument.    He sounds really nervous, like he knows he has a dog shit argument, and he knows that they know.

He starts off by making reference to a case that is his bedrock justification, and the justices quote from that case where the decision says it is unique to those facts and a decision containing language, saying that the decision is limited in its scope and not applicable to most situations.    Needless to say, the facts in that cited case are not present here.

 

Posted

At 17.   Justice Barrett ripping him.  He is not doing himself any favors, as Barrett wants him to admit some facts that are self evident, but against his position, and rather than admit those facts and discuss why they aren’t important to the correct interpretation in the case, he ducks and evades and has the same question asked multiple times.  As a general proposition, you lose credibility when you refuse to acknowledge case cites or facts not positive to your position.  His refusal to answer the justice in a non-weasel way is not a good look.   Even if you have a weak case and will likely get your butt whipped, you have to be honest with the court.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

At 17.   Justice Barrett ripping him.  He is not doing himself any favors, as Barrett wants him to admit some facts that are self evident, but against his position, and rather than admit those facts and discuss why they aren’t important to the correct interpretation in the case, he ducks and evades and has the same question asked multiple times.  As a general proposition, you lose credibility when you refuse to acknowledge case cites or facts not positive to your position.  His refusal to answer the justice in a non-weasel way is not a good look.   Even if you have a weak case and will likely get your butt whipped, you have to be honest with the court.

 

SG D. John Sauer?

As far as I can tell, he's pretty much a dickhead advocate.

Paul Clement is a prickly prick, but he's not a dickhead advocate.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Barrett wants him to admit some facts that are self evident, but against his position, and rather than admit those facts and discuss why they aren’t important to the correct interpretation in the case, he ducks and evades and has the same question asked multiple times.  

Should she be surprised at this?  It's the defining characteristic of the current President and everyone he has chosen for significant positions in his administration.  Deny, ignore, or evade actual facts.  Why change stripes because you happen to be in the U.S. Supreme Court instead of a Fox News interview?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

at 25

Justice Thomas comes to the rescue and asks him to explain why the opposing side is wrong in saying Congress did not delegate the power to raise taxes via tariffs.   “Can you walk me through the history supporting your argument?”

at 44,

the government doubles down on the proposition that tariffs have nothing to do with creating taxes, but is solely dealing with the regulation of foreign trade.   And yet the orange man engages in multiple bloviation opportunities stating the exact opposite of his counsel’s legal position in Oral argument.

IMG_1799.gif.a8ae3833b5504324c65b0ab0db5c792b.gif

Posted
50 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I could see him bullying all the republicans in Congress into voting his tariffs into place the way they actually are supposed to do.

I saw a few quotes by Bessent basically saying the Supreme Court's decision is irrelevant and they have other mechanisms through exist laws that have been passed to implement the tariff's they want. I mean, I look forward to Trump calling the Supreme Court wrong and idiots and that not getting reported by the national media, I guess. 

Posted

at 101

if I took a shot every time that jack hole said “ going back to the time of the founders” I’d be drunk right now.

I don’t fault him, as the Scotus wing of original intent is his best shot.   if only the founders wouldn’t have clearly stated Article one versus Article 2 stuff.

The statute in question where in the Congress granted some authority to the executive says, “the president may use instructions licenses or otherwise” Barrett point out that they did not use the word “tariff”,  essentially the power that they claim the statute authorized.  

He responds that everyone knows it would be redundant to say tariffs in the statute, because everyone knows Congress meant tariffs when they said instructions or licenses. Obviously, “or otherwise” was meant to say the president can raise tariffs - a particular enumerated article to grant to Congress (like - on neighboring countries because a province made fun of him in a TV ad. )

IMG_4162.gif.511224670e755f00eb8e0d91f5455811.gif

 

 



×
×
  • Create New...