I'm going to say something that will blow YOUR surprisingly cliched, paper-thin skinned mind. Are you ready? I spend most of my social media day arguing with Cult45.
Your 4 paragraph rant built on the assumption that the world is only divided into two 100% agree/disagree camps belies everything you say you are when it comes to discussion …
I'm going to say something that will blow YOUR surprisingly cliched, paper-thin skinned mind. Are you ready? I spend most of my social media day arguing with Cult45.
Your 4 paragraph rant built on the assumption that the world is only divided into two 100% agree/disagree camps belies everything you say you are when it comes to discussion with your readers.
I'm just pointing out that you're not very good at it. I could tune into Lawrence McDonald or an AOC tweet and get better critique. I just subscribed because I though you were smarter than this hysteria. But I guess I found out differently when I dared to push back a little on a Gaza column.
Also, just because I like to check I’m not imagining things, I went back and revisited our conversation on Gaza. Can you tell me where the “hysteria” is? Is it possible you’re reacting to a faulty memory of how that conversation actually went?
I don’t have any idea where you got the idea that I think the world is divided into 100% agree/disagree camps. But I don’t. And actually, I think I live up to my values on discussion pretty well.
But I don’t tolerate rudeness very well. And don’t feel much obligation to try.
If you disagree with something I’ve said, that’s fine. Tell me what it is, argue in good faith, and I’m very happy to engage politely.
But leave snarky, rude comments under every article that criticises Trump (note that I decided to simply ignore it at first), and yes, you’ll discover that my politeness is a choice, and I’m actually quite capable of giving as good as I get.
Every? Again, thin skinned. My main pushback was on Gaza, and I was not the rude one.
Bubba, if I had the outrage you assume, I would have left more than a 2 sentence reply. I'm not outraged, I'm bored. This is not a column that invites discussion, it's a pretty closed end rant that's not terribly readable or interesting. And your assumption about my love of Trump can only come from the prison of 2 ideas, because it's NOTHING I've ever said.
If I subscribed to a golf channel and they spent a large part of their offerings on celebrity pro-ams, I would have a similar reaction to paying to watch baseball players golf.
I hate his tariff policy. They've cost me plenty. Tariffs impose taxes on a domestic population to protect politically favored, inefficient industries with a bad business model. Trade deficits are not even something real economists care about. If you want to write something that doesn't sound like everyone else's freak out, check out the insanity of the US tariffs on Madagascar.
“ Every? Again, thin skinned. My main pushback was on Gaza, and I was not the rude one.”
I’ve linked that conversation above. Could you point to where I was rude?
Nowhere in the description of this website does it say it’s a race and trans issues only Substack. In fact, politics is right there in the list of topics I cover. And it’s hard not to notice that your snarky comments only started appearing under Trump articles. You can show your bias with more than just declarative statements.
I didn’t say you were outraged, I said you were rude. Which you were. I ignored that rudeness last time, I thought I’d address it this time before it became a trend, you’re welcome to stop being rude any time you want. You’ll never find a conversation here where I open with rudeness or swearing or demands, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that in return.
Lastly, your closing paragraph here is truly baffling. You’re literally commenting on an article where I specifically call out the insanity of US tariffs on Madagascar. Am I missing something??
🤣🤣🤣Holy crap, okay man. So you're dismissing an article you're now claiming you didn't even read, and that contains exactly the kind of analysis you say you wanted, as "boring" and "shit you can get anywhere."
In fact, given that I haven't seen anybody else talking about Madagascar specifically, I strongly suspect you heard about the insanity of the Madagascar tariffs from me, and then forgot where you heard it.
What, exactly, am I supposed to do with this? You're admitting the source of your issue isn't the article itself (again, the content of the article is what you're claiming to want), so what am I supposed to attribute your reaction to except the fact that I'm criticising Trump? I'm all ears for alternative explanations.
That said, now that I've gone back and read the whole thing, there actually are some nuggets buried in the slag of unnecessary hyperbole. If you'd let them speak for themselves without all the cliched Orange Rich Man Bad And Oh Did I Mention He's Rich stuff, I would have gotten to them. It is MUCH better, however, than Lawrence O'Donnell.
If only we'd started here, eh? Would have saved us both some time and energy. Although, as I said below, I'm curious where you think I was hyperbolic.
Trump's wealth is obviously relevant when we're talking about his impact on the economy. That's not hyperbole, nor did I exaggerate it. [Edit: In fact, having gone back and had another look, I barely even mentioned his wealth at all!! There's literally just one mild allusion to it. Seriously! What exactly are you reacting to?!! Because it sure seems like your problem is criticism of "the orange man"😅]
I just used it to demonstrate a defining characteristic of Trump and the flaw in much of his decision making, namely that he doesn't think about how his actions will affect ordinary people, aka ~90% of Americans, and this is a real problem for a president.
Add in his narcissism and his genuinely mind-blowing ignorance and I think it's the kind of thing that's worth talking/writing about.
The GDP of Madagascar is 15.8 billion. The GDP of Fort Myers-Cape Coral in Florida is 50 billion. In 2023 the per capita income of people in Madagascar was $506 a year. That is, people there earn $1.38 cents a day. It is one of the poorest countries on earth.
We have a trade deficit with them so we are imposing a tariff. That is odious. We cannot have a trade equilibrium with them and this has nothing to do with their imposition of tariffs on us. They could impose a 100% tariff on us and that will mean nothing to us.
Madagascar's main exports are vanilla, cloves, nickel, and textiles, with vanilla being a particularly significant global export, especially to France. So, they will always sell to us more than we can ever sell to them simply because people in Madagascar cannot afford virtually anything we have to sell! The trade deficit with them is not due to Madagascar imposing trade barriers on us. As it is almost always the case, the reasons why there are trade imbalances are multiple and they are not due to “cheating.”
In fact, the trade deficit with Madagascar is very good for us because we get vanilla, cloves, cobalt, titanium, nickel, and textiles from them.
Nope, I saw it on National Review, AND a friend of mine posted a rather long analysis of it. I got about halfway through yours when my eyes glazed over at the hyperbole. Maybe I said something similar once before. I really don't remember.
Oh, okay, fair enough. The fact that Madagascar's alleged tariff rate was so high immediately drew my eye. I guess it was the same for others. That still doesn't address the silliness of attacking an article you haven't read. Or your motivations for attacking it that have nothing to do with Trump criticism.
And please, feel free to point out the hyperbole that made you're eyes "glaze over," I'm pretty sure everything in the article is well referenced fact.
I'm going to say something that will blow YOUR surprisingly cliched, paper-thin skinned mind. Are you ready? I spend most of my social media day arguing with Cult45.
Your 4 paragraph rant built on the assumption that the world is only divided into two 100% agree/disagree camps belies everything you say you are when it comes to discussion with your readers.
I'm just pointing out that you're not very good at it. I could tune into Lawrence McDonald or an AOC tweet and get better critique. I just subscribed because I though you were smarter than this hysteria. But I guess I found out differently when I dared to push back a little on a Gaza column.
Also, just because I like to check I’m not imagining things, I went back and revisited our conversation on Gaza. Can you tell me where the “hysteria” is? Is it possible you’re reacting to a faulty memory of how that conversation actually went?
https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/dont-worry-i-suspected-you-would/comment/47857108
I don’t have any idea where you got the idea that I think the world is divided into 100% agree/disagree camps. But I don’t. And actually, I think I live up to my values on discussion pretty well.
But I don’t tolerate rudeness very well. And don’t feel much obligation to try.
If you disagree with something I’ve said, that’s fine. Tell me what it is, argue in good faith, and I’m very happy to engage politely.
But leave snarky, rude comments under every article that criticises Trump (note that I decided to simply ignore it at first), and yes, you’ll discover that my politeness is a choice, and I’m actually quite capable of giving as good as I get.
Every? Again, thin skinned. My main pushback was on Gaza, and I was not the rude one.
Bubba, if I had the outrage you assume, I would have left more than a 2 sentence reply. I'm not outraged, I'm bored. This is not a column that invites discussion, it's a pretty closed end rant that's not terribly readable or interesting. And your assumption about my love of Trump can only come from the prison of 2 ideas, because it's NOTHING I've ever said.
If I subscribed to a golf channel and they spent a large part of their offerings on celebrity pro-ams, I would have a similar reaction to paying to watch baseball players golf.
I hate his tariff policy. They've cost me plenty. Tariffs impose taxes on a domestic population to protect politically favored, inefficient industries with a bad business model. Trade deficits are not even something real economists care about. If you want to write something that doesn't sound like everyone else's freak out, check out the insanity of the US tariffs on Madagascar.
“ Every? Again, thin skinned. My main pushback was on Gaza, and I was not the rude one.”
I’ve linked that conversation above. Could you point to where I was rude?
Nowhere in the description of this website does it say it’s a race and trans issues only Substack. In fact, politics is right there in the list of topics I cover. And it’s hard not to notice that your snarky comments only started appearing under Trump articles. You can show your bias with more than just declarative statements.
I didn’t say you were outraged, I said you were rude. Which you were. I ignored that rudeness last time, I thought I’d address it this time before it became a trend, you’re welcome to stop being rude any time you want. You’ll never find a conversation here where I open with rudeness or swearing or demands, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that in return.
Lastly, your closing paragraph here is truly baffling. You’re literally commenting on an article where I specifically call out the insanity of US tariffs on Madagascar. Am I missing something??
Oops, I guess I was just so bored I didn't get that far. But I'd sure like links to my multiple Trump defenses.
🤣🤣🤣Holy crap, okay man. So you're dismissing an article you're now claiming you didn't even read, and that contains exactly the kind of analysis you say you wanted, as "boring" and "shit you can get anywhere."
In fact, given that I haven't seen anybody else talking about Madagascar specifically, I strongly suspect you heard about the insanity of the Madagascar tariffs from me, and then forgot where you heard it.
What, exactly, am I supposed to do with this? You're admitting the source of your issue isn't the article itself (again, the content of the article is what you're claiming to want), so what am I supposed to attribute your reaction to except the fact that I'm criticising Trump? I'm all ears for alternative explanations.
That said, now that I've gone back and read the whole thing, there actually are some nuggets buried in the slag of unnecessary hyperbole. If you'd let them speak for themselves without all the cliched Orange Rich Man Bad And Oh Did I Mention He's Rich stuff, I would have gotten to them. It is MUCH better, however, than Lawrence O'Donnell.
If only we'd started here, eh? Would have saved us both some time and energy. Although, as I said below, I'm curious where you think I was hyperbolic.
Trump's wealth is obviously relevant when we're talking about his impact on the economy. That's not hyperbole, nor did I exaggerate it. [Edit: In fact, having gone back and had another look, I barely even mentioned his wealth at all!! There's literally just one mild allusion to it. Seriously! What exactly are you reacting to?!! Because it sure seems like your problem is criticism of "the orange man"😅]
I just used it to demonstrate a defining characteristic of Trump and the flaw in much of his decision making, namely that he doesn't think about how his actions will affect ordinary people, aka ~90% of Americans, and this is a real problem for a president.
Add in his narcissism and his genuinely mind-blowing ignorance and I think it's the kind of thing that's worth talking/writing about.
Ismael Hernandez
The GDP of Madagascar is 15.8 billion. The GDP of Fort Myers-Cape Coral in Florida is 50 billion. In 2023 the per capita income of people in Madagascar was $506 a year. That is, people there earn $1.38 cents a day. It is one of the poorest countries on earth.
We have a trade deficit with them so we are imposing a tariff. That is odious. We cannot have a trade equilibrium with them and this has nothing to do with their imposition of tariffs on us. They could impose a 100% tariff on us and that will mean nothing to us.
Madagascar's main exports are vanilla, cloves, nickel, and textiles, with vanilla being a particularly significant global export, especially to France. So, they will always sell to us more than we can ever sell to them simply because people in Madagascar cannot afford virtually anything we have to sell! The trade deficit with them is not due to Madagascar imposing trade barriers on us. As it is almost always the case, the reasons why there are trade imbalances are multiple and they are not due to “cheating.”
In fact, the trade deficit with Madagascar is very good for us because we get vanilla, cloves, cobalt, titanium, nickel, and textiles from them.
Nope, I saw it on National Review, AND a friend of mine posted a rather long analysis of it. I got about halfway through yours when my eyes glazed over at the hyperbole. Maybe I said something similar once before. I really don't remember.
Oh, okay, fair enough. The fact that Madagascar's alleged tariff rate was so high immediately drew my eye. I guess it was the same for others. That still doesn't address the silliness of attacking an article you haven't read. Or your motivations for attacking it that have nothing to do with Trump criticism.
And please, feel free to point out the hyperbole that made you're eyes "glaze over," I'm pretty sure everything in the article is well referenced fact.