Trumpenomics
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 19:45 last edited by
She should be banned from the White House press room. Didn’t they say they wouldn’t tolerate anyone spreading lies to the American people?
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 22:44 last edited by
The whole administration needs to provide a unified front that tariffs are actually a good idea, otherwise the negotiating tactic for better trade deals is toothless. I mean, that's the only way to look at it that makes any sense.
-
"Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people." Either I totally am wrong (possible) or I think the white house truly has NO idea what a tariff is and who pays it. WTFFFFFFFF
Of course she snips at the AP at the end of it.
Around 56:45 -
Link to videowrote on 11 Mar 2025, 23:41 last edited by@89th said in Trumpenomics:
"Tariffs are a tax a tax hike on foreign countries. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people."
Press secretary has to be one of the worst jobs I would not want.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 02:10 last edited by
I'm not being sarcastic, but has anyone asked the President who pays the tariff? Does he realize it's the consumer (via the importing company)? Like, is there a video where he clearly explains the purpose of all these unforced political errors?
-
"Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people." Either I totally am wrong (possible) or I think the white house truly has NO idea what a tariff is and who pays it. WTFFFFFFFF
Of course she snips at the AP at the end of it.
Around 56:45 -
Link to videowrote on 12 Mar 2025, 07:29 last edited by@89th said in Trumpenomics:
"Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people." Either I totally am wrong (possible) or I think the white house truly has NO idea what a tariff is and who pays it. WTFFFFFFFF
Of course she snips at the AP at the end of it.
a good summary.
For those who do not follow economics, here's basically what happened:
Leavitt: 2+2=Purple.
AP Reporter: I have a calculator and 2+2=4.
Leavitt: How DARE you insult my math skills!
Conservative Media: White House DESTROYS disrespectful and un-American AP reporter. -
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
"Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people." Either I totally am wrong (possible) or I think the white house truly has NO idea what a tariff is and who pays it. WTFFFFFFFF
Of course she snips at the AP at the end of it.
a good summary.
For those who do not follow economics, here's basically what happened:
Leavitt: 2+2=Purple.
AP Reporter: I have a calculator and 2+2=4.
Leavitt: How DARE you insult my math skills!
Conservative Media: White House DESTROYS disrespectful and un-American AP reporter.wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 13:02 last edited by@jon-nyc LOL
But true.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 13:30 last edited by
Shapiro has been going off on Trump’s tariff policy and the general populist MAGA underpinnings.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 13:57 last edited by
I’ve been listening to him too lately. He’s such a case study in audience capture. He knows better than all this.
He was a big Trump booster during the election this time - his position was that Trump wouldn’t do a lot of the things he’s now doing.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 13:59 last edited by jon-nyc 3 Dec 2025, 14:00
Re audience capture, I remember a number of years ago hearing him with Sam Harris and thinking he was an intelligent guy who I didn’t always agree with but he made sense. Then I listened to him on his own podcast. For about five minutes. Oy.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 14:16 last edited by
I read LD's post as Shapiro being unhappy with the tariffs. What is Shapiro saying?
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 14:18 last edited by
I think basically that the Trump's tariff chaos and the "withdrawal from global commerce" (not really, but the general feeling) is not going to result in a good outcome for America or the world. It's a lose-lose strategy. I only listened to it a little, so @LuFins-Dad correct me please.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 14:18 last edited by
Not sure where Xenon's post is coming from, then.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 14:26 last edited by
He’s against tariffs.
I was talking about the longer arc of the last few years for him. Used to like his podcast during Trump term 1. Sometimes he’d agree and many times he’d disagree with the administration.
He slowly moved to almost lockstep predictable positions… since that’s where his audience had presumably moved to.
-
He’s against tariffs.
I was talking about the longer arc of the last few years for him. Used to like his podcast during Trump term 1. Sometimes he’d agree and many times he’d disagree with the administration.
He slowly moved to almost lockstep predictable positions… since that’s where his audience had presumably moved to.
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 14:33 last edited by@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
He’s against tariffs.
I was talking about the longer arc of the last few years for him. Used to like his podcast during Trump term 1. Sometimes he’d agree and many times he’d disagree with the administration.
He slowly moved to almost lockstep predictable positions… since that’s where his audience had presumably moved to.
How does your audience capture theory fit with this push back on the tariffs? Being for these chaos tariffs as Trump is implementing them would be an absurdist symptom of audience capture, but he's not there, so what are some absurdist symptoms of audience capture he was showing before now? Talking points that tribes hit on over and over tend not to be absurd, or even untrue, so much as non-disprovable empty rhetoric that makes the audience feel good.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 15:22 last edited by xenon 3 Dec 2025, 15:24
He called Jan 6 the worst day in American history since 9/11. He said he would never vote Trump because of his character, since his own morals are deeply rooted in his religion.
Those are just a couple of top of mind examples. He realized that he can’t be anti-Trump and also a popular right wing commentator.
He used to disagree with the vast majority of things Trump. Now he agrees with the vast majority (or at least goes out of it way to give the most charitable explanation).
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 15:29 last edited by
It surprises me Shapiro was ever as strident about Jan 6 or Trump as the two examples you point out.
I don't listen to much DW content because it's not substantive enough, just relentless culture war dunks that might be funny, but aren't so meaningful.
-
It surprises me Shapiro was ever as strident about Jan 6 or Trump as the two examples you point out.
I don't listen to much DW content because it's not substantive enough, just relentless culture war dunks that might be funny, but aren't so meaningful.
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 15:54 last edited by@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
It surprises me Shapiro was ever as strident about Jan 6 or Trump as the two examples you point out.
I don't listen to much DW content because it's not substantive enough, just relentless culture war dunks that might be funny, but aren't so meaningful.
I think you’re too influenced by Walsh and Candace Owen’s. 85% of Shapiro’s stuff for the masses is the typical red meat, but about 15% is far more intellectual and you see a reasoning/philosophical point to some of the governance points Ben is making. Klavan is hilarious in his openings, but occasionally delves kind of deep into his background as an author and an artist. Knowles will dig pretty deep into classical western theology and philosophy to make his points.
Yes, 80% is Rush redux, but the 20% makes it worthwhile.
-
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 15:55 last edited by
This is all fair enough from Shapiro:
Link to video -
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
It surprises me Shapiro was ever as strident about Jan 6 or Trump as the two examples you point out.
I don't listen to much DW content because it's not substantive enough, just relentless culture war dunks that might be funny, but aren't so meaningful.
I think you’re too influenced by Walsh and Candace Owen’s. 85% of Shapiro’s stuff for the masses is the typical red meat, but about 15% is far more intellectual and you see a reasoning/philosophical point to some of the governance points Ben is making. Klavan is hilarious in his openings, but occasionally delves kind of deep into his background as an author and an artist. Knowles will dig pretty deep into classical western theology and philosophy to make his points.
Yes, 80% is Rush redux, but the 20% makes it worthwhile.
wrote on 12 Mar 2025, 15:57 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
I think you’re too influenced by Walsh
Probably. The algo decided I like Walsh at some point and I get fed his stuff every day. Well, I do like him, but I don't need the 1000th serving of culture war dunks.
-
wrote on 13 Mar 2025, 00:15 last edited by
