Don’t check your 401K today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 18, 2025
50
45
18
Can someone fluent in 4D genius strategy explain the short and long term goals here? What does winning look like and what am I being liberated from aside the decade that I wanted to retire in? Thanks.
I'll explain it.

Lose now. Win later.

facts:
-the market has been unreasonably inflated. needs a correction.
-other countries have taken advantage of our generosity

long term goals:
europe - pay your fair share of NATO. This shouldn't be argumented. They should pay the same percent of GDP we do. It benefits them more than us but it is mutually beneficial.
all countries. stop tariffing us and we wont tariff you unless it benefits our national security.

those are all logical and reasonable things.
 
Dec 9, 2018
462
157
43
We did not give Canada $200 BILLION in subsidies. The $200 BILLION(or $100 BILLION as claimed another time) was referring to a trade deficit.

Your definition for what a subsidy is does not reference a trade deficit as a subsidy.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit with you, is it? ECONOMIC CONCESSION, you moron. Pretty large all encompassing term.

I really wish I could buy you for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth.
 
Mar 18, 2025
50
45
18
I THINK, the short term goal is to use the tariffs money to pay down the national debt. I THINK, the long term goal is to shift government income from citizen paid taxes to funds from the tariffs. Solving the national debt problem is going to be very painful for some generation or generations, I just wish he wouldn’t have picked the generation that I decided to retire and the stock market is my sole means of survival. I’m just curious if anything meaningful can be accomplished in 4 years, or maybe 8-12 years if Vance is elected because the first Democrat to take office is going to dismantle everything Trump has done just out of spite whether it was positive or not.
I hope this isntl the long term goal. I hope thats just what trump is saying so he can use tariffs as a negotiation point.

tariffs aren't going to pay down much of the debt and if they do it will be just like income taxes but paid through higher prices vs income taxes.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
2,620
6,239
113
That’s the best defense you have? “We will all be better off 50 years from now. Be patient.”
Some of us care about the future of our kids and grandkids. I can see why the party of men can be women doesn’t share this view.

The bottom line is that other presidents have done tariffs. Biden did. But none have done them to this degree not because it wasn’t in the best interest of our national security, but because they were more worried about the political costs. They were like the GM who drafts to keep his job instead of what would help the team toward sustained long term success. Say what you want about tariffs, it cannot be questioned that Trump is doing this because he think it will make America stronger. Many may disagree with the method, but the motivation is good.
 
Last edited:

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
this goes for tariffs too. Do we want to be in a better position in 50 years? It’s going to require some short term pain for those long term gains. Whether it’s your 401K or your sugar intake. You have to make sacrifices.
But basically everything that has been said about tariffs makes it seem vindictive and short sighted and lacking in a plan.
If these are some well thought out decades long solution, then why did he threaten Canada and claim they would be tariffed until drugs crossing the border slowed down? Why did he threated Mexico with the same?

If this really was some decades long plan, then he could have announced that during his campaign, kept on message, and once he took office he could have continually said the tariffs are meant to get the US to where it needs to be economically in the coming decades.
I think his approach would be flawed, but at least it a reason that makes some sense would have been provided and messaging would be clear.
Instead, he has continually changed reasons and his Administration has continually changed reasons. The message has been all over the place and 'long term stability' really hasnt been a claim that has had any legs.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
2,620
6,239
113
rfk jr has been known as a kook for literally 30 years, it's not new. Occasionally, he'll say something like "maybe we should take a look to see if red dye in food has a link to cancer?" and that sounds like a rational idea. Then he follows it up with "because red dye is actually how vampires prep your blood before they bite you"
Which is crazier? Vampire takes or our last HHS director believing he could change his gender? To me those are equally ridiculous.
 

jethreauxdawg

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2010
9,528
10,253
113
Wow that's nuts, when did that happen?
From the top of googles: “While on the upper level of the station, the encounter quickly escalated as Rozier's son was "pulled away from her" and she was forced to the floor and an officer placed a knee on the back of her neck, according to the notice of claim provided to ABC News and expected to be filed on Thursday morning.”
As in the other instances where you ask for examples and they are provided, I’m sure you will reply with, “yeah, but, besides that one?” I will leave you to yourself with the water barrel, I can’t make you drink. Lefties lots of people were unhinged and not concerned about due process during Covid, but become concerned when the item being targeted is something they want protected.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
2,620
6,239
113
But basically everything that has been said about tariffs makes it seem vindictive and short sighted and lacking in a plan.
If these are some well thought out decades long solution, then why did he threaten Canada and claim they would be tariffed until drugs crossing the border slowed down? Why did he threated Mexico with the same?

If this really was some decades long plan, then he could have announced that during his campaign, kept on message, and once he took office he could have continually said the tariffs are meant to get the US to where it needs to be economically in the coming decades.
I think his approach would be flawed, but at least it a reason that makes some sense would have been provided and messaging would be clear.
Instead, he has continually changed reasons and his Administration has continually changed reasons. The message has been all over the place and 'long term stability' really hasnt been a claim that has had any legs.
He’s been talking about it for decades. On Oprah in the 80’s. This isn’t a surprise. He ran on this.

Also, I’ve never done big time negotiation, but I could see how not showing all your cards all the time could be advantageous.
 

leeinator

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2014
1,173
846
113
My Gold 401k has been looking really good lately!! Just wish I had bought more.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit with you, is it? ECONOMIC CONCESSION, you moron. Pretty large all encompassing term.

I really wish I could buy you for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth.
A trade deficit is not an economic concession.
Further, trade deficits are not inherently bad.


Example- County A exports $15 worth of goods to Country B. Country B exports $10 worth of goods to Country A.

You, and Trump, apparently think Country B is providing a $5 subsidy to Country A. That is incorrect because that is not what a subsidy is.
You, and Trump, apparently think Country B is getting screwed by Country A because trade isnt balanced or in Country B's favor.

Meanwhile, Country A imported all finished consumable goods while Country B imported 50% finished goods and 50% raw materials. Those raw materials then go into production and are exported as finished goods to Country C for 6x more than the import cost.

Country B is not getting screwed by Country A. Country B is Scrooge McDuck style swimming in coin because of this, and yet you and Trump think Country B is subsidizing Country A.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,895
3,642
113
If we are going to reduce the deficits without massive cuts, the revenue is going to come from the middle class. The top 10% of earners already pay around 72% of income taxes. That's a little skewed because it doesn't take into account that workers pay an approximately 15% flat tax on their first $185k or whatever the cap is now. But of course assuming we honor the current SS formula, they also get screwed much less by social security.

But I also don't know that it is a regressive tax on the whole. If they are stable and predictable (which obviously they are not right now but they could become that over time), I think you would expect everybody to be poorer over time but lower skilled workers would get an offsetting relative increase in income because of less competition from third world workers. Not sure about the right way to think about it, but if you look at just revenue raised, it probably looks something like a flat tax, with richer people paying more because they consume more, but if you look at the cost of the tariff overall, including lost trade opportunities and being poorer overall, I think the affluent will bear that cost more so than the lower and middle income workers.






I think this is an example of voters getting what they deserve. Neither the GOP or the dems care about deficits because voters don't care about deficits. Voters want to be lied to and told that it can be fixed without touching social security, medicare, defense, or any spending they have a particular interest in and without people like them being taxed.

While voters as a whole don't care, I do think there are enough wealthy people that don't want to see everything turned upside down in what is essentially a sovereign debt crisis that they are starting to put real pressure on cutting at least the waste and ridiculous spending. And that will help. It's pretty disgusting watch people defend wasteful spending by saying it's only a billion dollars so there's no point in cutting it. But if you exclude automatic spending on things like social security, medicare, and interest on debt, we basically have to cut half of what's left to get the deficit down to 3% of GDP, which is still probably large enough to cause problems long term, but if you just reduced the regulatory burden, which is estimated to be a bigger drag than taxes on the economy, you could probably get enough growth to start slowly reducing debt in real dollars if not nominal dollars.

Everybody that plans on getting social security or medicare or doesn't want our defense budget slashed should be cheering for DOGE and giving them a lot of political support. If we can't make a huge dent in federal spending buy eliminating waste and fraud and saving money by modernizing government operations, it's basically going to be middle class tax increases or SS and medicare cuts to solve the problem, or it's going to be an inflationary crisis.
I don't know how much room the middle has to pay extra taxes though. While the math definitely says that the highest earners pay the bulk of taxes (and IMO should given the current state of income/wealth distribution) we have to look at what juice is left for squeezing. Middle class is simply tapped out.
 

Anon1717806835

Well-known member
Jun 7, 2024
442
1,128
93
I can see why the party of men can be women doesn’t share this view.
Huh?
Say what you want about tariffs, it cannot be questioned that Trump is doing this because he think it will make America stronger. Many may disagree with the method, but the motivation is good.
Well, I guess that's all that matters. The tariffs - or the "method" as you call it - might not work like he thinks it will, but at least his heart is in the right place......
 

dorndawg

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2012
7,860
6,974
113
From the top of googles: “While on the upper level of the station, the encounter quickly escalated as Rozier's son was "pulled away from her" and she was forced to the floor and an officer placed a knee on the back of her neck, according to the notice of claim provided to ABC News and expected to be filed on Thursday morning.”
As in the other instances where you ask for examples and they are provided, I’m sure you will reply with, “yeah, but, besides that one?” I will leave you to yourself with the water barrel, I can’t make you drink. Lefties lots of people were unhinged and not concerned about due process during Covid, but become concerned when the item being targeted is something they want protected.
That sure sounds like a bad incident! From your article, I see we know the arresters were NYPD, she was detained nearby, she has an attorney, she was released according to the law, she has an opportunity to redress her grievances in court, and furthermore such arrests were immediately banned.

Do you notice any differences with that and what we are seeing today?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstateglfr

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
2,620
6,239
113
Huh?

Well, I guess that's all that matters. The tariffs - or the "method" as you call it - might not work like he thinks it will, but at least his heart is in the right place......
What a nice change of pace to have a leader who
a) has the mental capacity to make tough decisions or at the very least conduct press conferences and answer questions
b) doesn't enact policies to directly hurt his own citizens (like opening the border to all sorts of bad actors)
c) is taking a hard look at waste in our government

Former liberal here by the way. Couldn't support those three ideas more.
 

jethreauxdawg

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2010
9,528
10,253
113
That sure sounds like a bad incident! From your article, I see we know the arresters were NYPD, she was detained nearby, she has an attorney, she was released according to the law, she has an opportunity to redress her grievances in court, and furthermore such arrests were immediately banned.

Do you notice any differences with that and what we are seeing today?
I guess I should stick to very vague comments with no researchable claims. I’ll take better notes from your work next time.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
Which is crazier? Vampire takes or our last HHS director believing he could change his gender? To me those are equally ridiculous.
Gender is a social construct. I know that can be a triggering concept for some, but it really shouldnt be controversial if you have any ability to critically think.
Since it is a social construct, it can be changed. You may not like that it can be changed, but that doesnt mean it cant be changed.

Sex and gender are not the same.

Gender fluidity and not conforming to traditional gender roles is not new- its been common for decades. It has also been well accepted by common society for decades. David Bowie, Prince, Freddie Mercury, countless rock bands from the 80s, etc etc. Heck, Kid Rock was happily partying with people who cross dress back in the early 2000s, before it became cool in some circles to to the exact opposite of what he happily did.

Society has had 'effeminate' men and 'butch' or 'tomboy' women for decades(centuries?). Viewing yourself as a different gender than what was put upon you at birth just isnt a big deal. It just doesnt matter. It hurts nobody.
Once more, I am talking strictly about gender identity and not changing one's sex or anything else.



Maybe its best if this moves back to the confusing tariffs Trump announced for uninhabited islands and territories that are part of countries.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,895
3,642
113
I'll explain it.

Lose now. Win later.

facts:
-the market has been unreasonably inflated. needs a correction.
-other countries have taken advantage of our generosity

long term goals:
europe - pay your fair share of NATO. This shouldn't be argumented. They should pay the same percent of GDP we do. It benefits them more than us but it is mutually beneficial.
all countries. stop tariffing us and we wont tariff you unless it benefits our national security.

those are all logical and reasonable things.
If we go through with these tariffs long term, history says we lose really ******* hard. Market isn't correcting - it's freaked out due to uncertainty/chaos. Sledge hammer trade wars don't work out - unless you are seeking out a depression.

What my hope is that this is typical Trump made for tv theatrics. He will create a problem to fix and claim victory. A couple of countries that don't move the needle will lower their tariffs, he will take the sledge hammer away, claim he won, reward the wealthy with a tax cut, and the cult will fap while nothing really changes and our deficits continue to increase. But hey....we're sending people to El Salvadorian prison so that's cool for you I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dorndawg

Villagedawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
1,122
763
113
Going to be a lot of bloodshed to start the day
The tariff formula is literally value of imports divided by value of deficit with that country and then halved. Like a fifth grader came up with it. As if the only thing preventing a Lesotho from buying American goods is that they discriminate against American goods.

"This is not serious trade policy or grand strategy. The boss hates trade deficits, and his team of willing sycophants came up with a formula, however idiotic, that ticked the box" said Adam Tooze, a Columbia economic historian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrontRangeDawg
Jul 5, 2020
156
93
28
Correct, but there’s a chance this leads to more US jobs. The chance is greater than the chance with no reciprocal tariffs.
This is the critical flaw with the alleged plan. I listened to a podcast with Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) and Dan Carlin the other day (not exactly two liberal commentators), and Rowe noted that we don't currently have a workforce who will take these alleged *new* manufacturing jobs, because we already have a surplus of *open* manufacturing jobs that can't be filled, and have since at least 2008. We don't have the workforce, kids aren't learning these skills, and most importantly, THEY DON'T WANT TO.

So, even if we could magically create hundreds of new factories/manufacturing centers in the next 2-4 years (we know that the cost and time to build a domestic factory is prohibitive), we don't have an available workforce and won't for an extended period of time.

The argument that a "shock" to accomplish these goals is ridiculous, because you could have enacted all of the same policies with actual runway for firms/individual small businesses to prepare for them and not get slobberknocked like they're (we're) doing right now. Anyone who thinks that it is smart policy to announce the introduction of a tariff (a major economic undertaking with dramatic global implications) to begin on a Monday then changing that announcement the day before it begins is not being honest with themselves. We are doing untold harm to a generation of people looking to retire in 15-20 years that could have been largely avoided while still enacting policies that rewarded repatriating manufacturing.

As for the need to end the post WWII order, while I think that theory has some major holes, assuming that is true, this ham-fisted approach is not the way to do it. At the end of the day in 2025, this is driving China/East Asia and other economies to increase trade with the entire rest of the world. They'll make up their losses through trade in other areas (the continuing development of BRICS is just one of many examples). We, on the other hand, will have more expensive basic costs and less trade. This is a failure of policy by almost any definition, and it's only hurting Americans.
 

Pilgrimdawg

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2018
1,383
1,613
113
I spent 45 years in manufacturing and was a victim of NAFTA in 2001 so I appreciate what the President is trying to do. At one time I worked for a division of United Technologies that had around 1,500 employees but about 25 years ago (2001) part of it went to China and the rest of it went to Mexico. Eventually that 550,000 square foot plant was torn down and sold for scrap. Now days that location is grown up in weeds and brush. It was a big hit on our community and obviously the employees and their families. As a retired person I don’t want a big hit on the 401K but if that’s necessary to help insure a bright future for my children and grandchildren then I am happy to do my part. The market will be back, just be patient. The biggest concern I have in trying to bring jobs back is that such a large percentage of the young generation Z types not only don’t want to work, their efforts and attitudes are shockingly pathetic. I used to try to council some of them about what it takes to be successful but for a lot of them it was like trying to talk to a pine stump. I’m not sure about the specifics on all of these tariffs, but I appreciate the President being brave enough to draw a line in the sand and try to stop the bleeding. We have been hemorrhaging bad for a long time and we all know what happens when you run out of blood.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
I guess I should stick to very vague comments with no researchable claims. I’ll take better notes from your work next time.
Its pretty simple to see that there are drastic fundamental differences between the article you linked and many of the deportation stories that are coming out(yet sadly not taking over) in news.

Trump Administration has justified, in video form and not edited, that Due Process isnt a concern or priority.
 
Jul 5, 2020
156
93
28
I'll explain it.

Lose now. Win later.

facts:
-the market has been unreasonably inflated. needs a correction.
-other countries have taken advantage of our generosity

long term goals:
europe - pay your fair share of NATO. This shouldn't be argumented. They should pay the same percent of GDP we do. It benefits them more than us but it is mutually beneficial.
all countries. stop tariffing us and we wont tariff you unless it benefits our national security.

those are all logical and reasonable things.
Proportionate contribution to NATO from member nations and the tariff discussion are completely different topics.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
2,620
6,239
113
Gender is a social construct. I know that can be a triggering concept for some, but it really shouldnt be controversial if you have any ability to critically think.
Please keep this up. It's a 85-15 issue for the right. Just to be clear, you are the 15. Please keep it going. Seriously. No notes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownDawgg

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
Maybe if I repost this, the SPS collective brain trust will see it and opine...



Back to tariffs - can someone give me a serious answer on why Trump included multiple unpopulated island groups(one with a military base), and why some islands that are part of countries are listed separate from the countries they are part of?

I am a map nerd and had to look up a few of the places Trump included on his boards.

Heard and MacDonald Islands - uninhabited. 4 day boat ride from Australia to reach em(just learned that last night when I looked up where the 17 these are).
Christmas Island - this is an Australian territory. Just include it with Australia.
Mayotte - some tiny island east of Africa that is run by France. Just include it with France.
BIOT - This is a handful of Atolls in the Indian Ocean that is British Territory. They are Atolls!! Why in the glory17 is this listed? Just include it with Britain. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTS AND THE ONLY PEOPLE LIVING THERE TEMPORARILY ARE BRITISH AND AMERICAN MILITARY!
Gibralter - this is a British territory. Just include it with Britain.
Reunion - another tiny French island. Once more, just include it with France.
Svalbard and Jan Mayen - I dont know how to say this or even understand who controls the land. 30 seconds on Google shows it might be Norway, but its a partnership? Anyways, why the 17 is it specifically called out at all?
 

jethreauxdawg

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2010
9,528
10,253
113
This is the critical flaw with the alleged plan. I listened to a podcast with Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) and Dan Carlin the other day (not exactly two liberal commentators), and Rowe noted that we don't currently have a workforce who will take these alleged *new* manufacturing jobs, because we already have a surplus of *open* manufacturing jobs that can't be filled, and have since at least 2008. We don't have the workforce, kids aren't learning these skills, and most importantly, THEY DON'T WANT TO.

So, even if we could magically create hundreds of new factories/manufacturing centers in the next 2-4 years (we know that the cost and time to build a domestic factory is prohibitive), we don't have an available workforce and won't for an extended period of time.

The argument that a "shock" to accomplish these goals is ridiculous, because you could have enacted all of the same policies with actual runway for firms/individual small businesses to prepare for them and not get slobberknocked like they're (we're) doing right now. Anyone who thinks that it is smart policy to announce the introduction of a tariff (a major economic undertaking with dramatic global implications) to begin on a Monday then changing that announcement the day before it begins is not being honest with themselves. We are doing untold harm to a generation of people looking to retire in 15-20 years that could have been largely avoided while still enacting policies that rewarded repatriating manufacturing.

As for the need to end the post WWII order, while I think that theory has some major holes, assuming that is true, this ham-fisted approach is not the way to do it. At the end of the day in 2025, this is driving China/East Asia and other economies to increase trade with the entire rest of the world. They'll make up their losses through trade in other areas (the continuing development of BRICS is just one of many examples). We, on the other hand, will have more expensive basic costs and less trade. This is a failure of policy by almost any definition, and it's only hurting Americans.
If we quit paying capable people to stay home and not work, we might have more people willing to work.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
51,197
16,933
113
I hope this isntl the long term goal. I hope thats just what trump is saying so he can use tariffs as a negotiation point.

tariffs aren't going to pay down much of the debt and if they do it will be just like income taxes but paid through higher prices vs income taxes.
I think this is what's happening. It's classic Trump. He takes a hard line position (whether it's economically or in foreign policy), everyone freaks out and talks about how he's starting World War III or the next Great Depression. Then our enemies capitulate because it's gonna hurt them more than it is us, and we're all better off. At least that's what I hope is happening.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
Please keep this up. It's a 85-15 issue for the right. Just to be clear, you are the 15. Please keep it going. Seriously. No notes.
I dont want it to be a National Issue because there are other things that I think are more important. It is an issue because the right continues to make it an issue by forcing it into conversation(like you did), instead of focusing on ways to improve the lives of Americans.

Keeping the issue in the spotlight hurts Democrats and helps Republicans from a power perspective.
Keeping the issue in the spotlight does not improve the economy, education, parks and rec, employee safety, employee pay, or really anything.

It is a distraction. Just be cool with people viewing their gender how they want, since it doesnt hurt you or others, and try focusing on actually policy that improves America. It should be easy to do, yet you and others cant bring yourself to do it.
You have all the power right now and yet people's lives are not measurably better or tracking to be better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dorndawg

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
I think this is what's happening. It's classic Trump. He takes a hard line position (whether it's economically or in foreign policy), everyone freaks out and talks about how he's starting World War III or the next Great Depression. Then our enemies capitulate because it's gonna hurt them more than it is us, and we're all better off. At least that's what I hope is happening.
Why are Canada, England, Japan, Taiwan, German, Norway, Serbia, Iceland, etc our enemies? Liechtenstein is an enemy?..why?! Sint Maarten is our enemy?...why?! They are just trying to not drown from hurricanes each year.

I truly dont understand why over 180 countries are viewed as our enemies. They are trading partners and both sides benefit from trade.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
2,620
6,239
113
It is a distraction. Just be cool with people viewing their gender how they want, since it doesnt hurt you or others,
False. When I'm told I must acknowledge a lie as the truth, it hurts me. It hurts everyone. You cannot change your biology. Period. Full Stop. Rachel Levine is a man on the cellular level and there is nothing that will ever change that. There is no argument here. There are lunatics who tell us to ignore our eyes and ears and there are common sense people who are tired of it. Truth matters. Words matter. On this issue you are completely and totally wrong.

I can understand why you might want to shift it back to something else. You'd have a better leg to stand on defending Rick Ray's hire.
 

Curby

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2012
1,222
905
113
Its pretty simple to see that there are drastic fundamental differences between the article you linked and many of the deportation stories that are coming out(yet sadly not taking over) in news.

Trump Administration has justified, in video form and not edited, that Due Process isnt a concern or priority.
Did orange man get due process on all of his indictments/convictions?

If Due process was a concern for the anti-trump snowflakes, there wouldn't be LawFare in this country. Fed agencies using almost all their resources to attack a candidate purely for political purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxwellSmart

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,408
4,368
113
False. When I'm told I must acknowledge a lie as the truth, it hurts me. It hurts everyone. You cannot change your biology. Period. Full Stop.
Ok, I see the issue here- you still dont understand the difference between gender and sex.
Viewing your gender in whatever way you view it isnt a lie.

And claiming it hurts you is the 17ing weakest cry excuse claim I have read in forever. Ironic that you are weakly claiming it hurts you in a conversation about gender roles and stereotypes.
It doesnt hurt you and it doesnt hurt everyone, despite your empty claim.

Once more, gender and biology are different. You said 'you cannont change your biology' and that is not what I have been talking about since gender and biology are not the same thing.
How can you seriously not understand this by now? 17 man, at least argue the correct thing if you are going to argue.
 

Villagedawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
1,122
763
113
Did orange man get due process on all of his indictments/convictions?
To be brief, yes. That's literally what an indictment/conviction is.
If Due process was a concern for the anti-trump snowflakes, there wouldn't be LawFare in this country. Fed agencies using almost all their resources to attack a candidate purely for political purposes.
The only administration doing this is the Trump/Musk administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstateglfr
Status
Not open for further replies.