- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:51 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:51 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
But if it is real, is it a problem?
No. Any other questions?
0
Posted on 1/19/26 at 12:43 pm to lurking
quote:
Do you agree that the inflationary impact, rising costs, higher unemployment and economic stagnation the pearl clutchers guaranteed hasn’t materialized?
Not entirely. Inflation has been higher than it was before took office, but only moderately so.
Unemployment has also ticked up moderately.
Other than Q1 GDP has been decent, but we’re don’t have the total annual numbers yet, only a forecast.
So, did the sky fall? No. Did the average citizen gain economic ground? Not really.
The brightest spot, economically, has been the stock market, but every team always uses the “stock market isn’t the economy” idiom when it’s beneficial to their narrative. I’ll take my personal gains though.
quote:
At a basic level, tariffs work to protect domestic industries. This objectively has been accomplished. Trillions have been invested in our industries by foreign governments/conglomerates.
That seems like a nice sentiment, but vague and not really supported. Look at manufacturing. Total US manufacturing jobs were significantly down in 2025. Take a look at the ISM index. It indicates weakness, and contraction in manufacturing, where one would expect successful economic policy to result in the opposite.
quote:
Beyond that, tariffs are a powerful negotiating tool. There isn’t a country/industry anywhere in the world that doesn’t depend on American markets. They risk insolvency without it. Canada is in the process of finding this out.
The US is a powerhouse market, and just about every country benefits from selling goods to US consumers, but that situation could be in flux. We’re seeing nations like Canada, and EU members strike more permissive trade agreements with China. If that accelerates, does US powerfully negotiate themselves out of beneficial trade alliances? I don’t know, but shitting on your friends seems like a bad play.
Also, it seems like Trump pussies out on the aggressive China tariffs pretty regularly. His hand seems to be growing weaker at the global poker table.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
Posted on 1/19/26 at 12:46 pm to SuperSaint
quote:ISWYDT
PM should feel fjordunate
Posted on 1/19/26 at 12:56 pm to boosiebadazz
if boosiebadazz is a racist, homophobic, transphoibc, Nazi does that concern you.
I know, I know fake news and whatnot. But if it is real, is it a problem?
I know, I know fake news and whatnot. But if it is real, is it a problem?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 1:02 pm to AubieinNC2009
are you claiming it’s fake news?Posted on 1/19/26 at 1:16 pm to Twix 23
quote:
So you don’t necessarily have a problem with Trump’s policies, just his supporters?
I wouldn’t if they were good policies. Just seems like a bunch of chaos from my vantage point. Our domestic and foreign policies are a mess, and our country is in decline under Trump. His supporters is another story. They’ll support whatever he tells them to support. It could be a complete 180 from their previous position.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 1:18 pm to boosiebadazz
A sure way to winning a prize is to send a letter to the wrong person complaining it was given to the wrong person
Posted on 1/19/26 at 1:19 pm to boosiebadazz
You really think this board is going to be critical of Trump whining about not getting something?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 1:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Sure. An easy one is our airbases in England and Germany allow us to project massive airpower into the Middle East.
Build them in Poland and Hungary. Countries that actually align with our values.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:03 pm to AHM21
So that’s real?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:15 pm to boosiebadazz
nah it might be legit
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:17 pm to td01241
quote:
There is like 20 people at Thule at any time. We intend to turn it into the worlds most ever advanced missile defense system which will in theory be able to deny even nukes on rockets. Yes we need to own it no one else would ever have the drive, money, or capability to do this
We could do this right now. No one made us downsize at Thule. We just did.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:24 pm to boosiebadazz
Does not concern me. People have been ripping us off my entire lifetime. I'm thrilled that we now have a President who will not allow for his citizens to be taken advantage of and ripped off.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 3:29 pm to Twix 23
quote:If you already get the strategic benefits without owning the territory, formal ownership is almost always a downgrade. Soft power lets you project force, base assets, and shape outcomes while offloading costs and liabilities. Once you “own” a place, you also own its politics, courts, infrastructure, social spending, and international headaches. That is not free power, it is a permanent bill.
If the US already has de facto military control and is pretty much solely responsible for its defense of Greenland, why shouldn’t we own it?
From a cost perspective, soft control is far cheaper. Bases and defense guarantees cost money, but annexation multiplies that cost indefinitely. You move from paying for a base to paying for roads, healthcare, pensions, disaster response, and governance. Greenland stops being a strategic asset and becomes a budget line item with voters attached.
Flexibility is the biggest advantage. Soft power is adjustable. You can expand, contract, renegotiate, or exit as conditions change. Territory acquisition is rigid. Treaties can be rewritten. Borders cannot without drama. Soft power lets you adapt without being trapped by sunk cost fallacy.
If you already have access, leverage, and strategic control, ownership adds cost, reduces flexibility, damages alliances, and creates liabilities you do not need. Power you can adjust beats power you have to maintain forever.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 3:42 pm to Twix 23
quote:The frick kind of logic is this?
I don’t know how anyone can accuse Trump of having dementia with a straight face after Biden’s term
"I don’t know how anyone can accuse OJ of murder with a straight face after Ted Bundy."
Dementia isn't the Highlander, bro. There can, in fact, be more than one.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 3:51 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:You seem to assume ownership is inherently stronger than influence in geopolitics. What mechanisms make that true, in your opinion?
I agree with this. We shouldn't invest as tenants.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 3:52 pm to boosiebadazz
Whats the problem?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 4:04 pm to PepeSilvia
What would be funny is if the Danes said, "OK, it's all yours, no, take it....really, for nothing."
Posted on 1/19/26 at 4:54 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
boosiebadazz
I'm not sure who has more issues. You or Donnie Lemon.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 1/19/26 at 4:58 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I know, I know fake news and whatnot. But if it is real, is it a problem?
Definitely not real
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News