tommy

@chris_sav14357 @Cernovich Of course it doesn’t seem right. He just made it up like he makes everything up.

@Cernovich I wouldn't go that far. That doesn't seem right.

Did Tim Walz activate an assassin against a political rival who voted against him plan to give illegal immigrants free healthcare?

@justindross @paulg @eastdakota Has Trump read it?

@paulg @eastdakota Trump does like to play the “heel” in WWE terms. I realize this may sound silly, but have you read his book The Art of The Deal?

I’m playing everyone’s favorite party game: guess the Trump administration’s strategy. Like most of you, I have no inside information. But that’s what makes it fun. Here’s my best theory. Some assumptions first: 1) They’re not crazy. There is a strategy. It doesn’t align with conventional economic principles. But there’s something they’re playing toward. 2) They’re not stupid. I know enough of the players involved to know they’re not idiots. They may be making what will turn out to be accurately predicted to be horrible decisions, but they do have a plan and it’s coherent. As part of this, while I think they think they can increase U.S. manufacturing, they don’t really believe they can bring everything on-shore. 3) They’re intentionally being opaque as to what the real plan is. Trump fashions himself a negotiator. Holding his cards close to his vest, even lying about what cards he has, is part of the game. 4) They’re not just in it for themselves. I get that this has become non-conventional wisdom, but I am going to assume for this that the goal isn’t merely grift. Even if you believe it is, suggest that’s an easy out to thinking through what may be more complex motivations. 5) China is the real enemy. China has done some things in the last two years that have made even the China doves in the last administration into hawks. Again, I know there’s lots of media saying Trump wants to kiss up to Xi. But, having spent enough time with enough folks in this and the last administration, they really worry about China morning, afternoon, and all night. So with that context, I posit the strategy is entirely: destabilize and ultimately decapitate China. If that’s right, you could just impose tariffs on China. But China has lots of export markets, so goods will just flow out through those. What if instead you impose tariffs on everyone? While China and the U.S. have similar GDPs, China is much more dependent on exports. That means while the countries of the world like cheap Chinese exports, they don’t depend on the Chinese market for their exports (yet). China has actually been on a nationalistic spree recently so foreign brands are more out of favor, meaning they’re an even less interesting market to sell to. The U.S., on the other hand, is the world largest buying market. We are the consumers to the world. If we stop buying, everyone suffers. That means nearly everyone needs to come to the table with the U.S. if there are universal tariffs. The U.S. is also unique in that it is among the only countries that doesn’t need to import anything. Don’t get me wrong, we want to import iPhones and PlayStations and French wine and German cars. But we don’t need oil or food or water or most the other raw materials to make sure people stay alive. So the U.S. will hurt under a high tariff regime but won’t collapse. Some manufacturing will move back on shore. But the biggest thing is every country needs to negotiate with the U.S. What does the U.S. ask for? I’m sure a bunch of nits with every country. But what if the big ask is: it’s us or them. You either trade with the United States, or you trade with China, but trading with both isn’t acceptable anymore. For some countries — Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines — the promise is to be the next China, but this time under more careful rules dictated by the U.S. For most the rest of the world, they’re already massive net importers from China. Forced to make a choice between selling to China or selling to the U.S. I’d guess most will pick the U.S. German automakers are terrified of BYD. And the Italians and French haven’t proven they can sell wine or cheese to China at any real volume. What’s China’s response? It’s tricky because they’ve preached self-sufficiency and internal focus. But if the whole world order suddenly aligns against them, what do they do? I have no idea if this is the Trump administration’s plan. But it’s the only thing I’ve come up with that passes the sniff test.

@pingupug01 @MicrosoftHelps Snap. Locked out of my account for two days now. If you get anywhere can you let me know pls?

@MicrosoftHelps I’ve been locked out of my email. I try to get a verification code through the number associated with my account and all I get is Try another verification method That verification method isn't working right now. Please try another method. How do I get past this

@shorthaters @admcrlsn Because RFK will leave a trail of dead children in his wake?

@admcrlsn Why vote against a pick who already has enough vote only to lose your primary? And one who did bring materiel votes to your party in the elections.

Unfortunately you seem a bit more preoccupied with protecting your right flank in next year’s primary than you are about further measles outbreaks.

@calleigh407 @DShaywitz @SarahLongwell25 @BulwarkOnline @BillKristol @JVLast @Timodc Fellow uk sub here, couldn’t do without them!

Delighted by success of @BulwarkOnline, who've retained their values+focus rather than conveniently accomodate or rationalize. Congrats to @BillKristol @SarahLongwell25 @JVLast @Timodc & entire team, glad to have been able to share occasional piece w this terrific readership.

@SarahLongwell25 Subbing to you guys keeps me sane. With thanks and respect from the UK ❤️

The Bulwark Is Leading the Anti-Trump Resistance nymag.com/intelligencer/…

@TomRoseIndy @henryolsenEPPC @realDonaldTrump You guys must be so proud of how your man Trump is transforming America. Make sure you keep tweeting about all those great things he’s doing - don’t go quiet on us if things start to get rough!

#Canada is our best friend and a wonderful neighbor. But it has a highly protectionist economy that has punished U.S. businesses for decades. Even w/@realDonaldTrump #USMCA Canada still imposes all kinds of restrictive policies that prevent fair competition for American companies across multiple industries. One of the most glaring examples of Canadian protectionism is its so-called "supply management system" for dairy, poultry, and eggs that imposes exorbitant tariffs—sometimes exceeding 300%—on American dairy products. Although the #USMCA was supposed to increase dairy market access for U.S. farmers, Canada continues imposing hugely restrictive policies that hurt American farmers. Canada enforces stringent foreign ownership laws in industries such as banking, telecommunications, broadcasting, and airlines that prevent American investment. For example, American ownership in the Canadian telecommunications sector is capped at 20%. Canadian companies face no such restrictions when investing in the U.S., creating a clear and unfair imbalance. @kevinolearytv @Varneyco For decades, Canada has unfairly subsidized its softwood lumber industry and flooded the US with artificially cheap Canadian lumber. By allowing Canadian companies—shielded from American investment—to harvest timber on public land virtually for free, American lumber is unfairly punished. Canada repeatedly makes promises to address this imbalance, yet somehow never manages to fulfill these commitments. Despite its vocal opposition to U.S. "Buy American" laws, which have many Canadian carve-outs, Canada enforces a much stricter version of "Buy Canadian" provisions that prevent American companies from participating in Canadian government infrastructure projects. Canadian firms face no such limitations on many US government contracts. @marklevinshow @DonaldJTrumpJr But perhaps most egregiously, even though Canada exports most of its oil and gas to the U.S., it heavily favors its own domestic energy industry by strictly limiting American investment. Even when aggressively supporting construction of the #KeystoneXL pipeline—canceled by #JoeBiden on his first day in office—Canada prevents American firms from participate in its energy sector. Canada imposes major limits on US ownership in media, film, and broadcasting in Canada to protect Canadian content. U.S. companies like Netflix, Disney, and Amazon are subject to strict Canadian content quotas and financial obligations that force American companies to support Canadian media. Canadian media companies face no similar restrictions when distributing their content in the U.S. Canada's recently passed Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) makes matters worse by absurdly requiring U.S. companies to promote AND finance Canadian content. Canada’s restrictive liquor control laws prevent U.S. alcohol producers from effectively competing in the Canadian market. Each province enforces its own set of rules; heavy taxation and quotas on American wine, beer, and spirits favor local Canadian producers, at the expense of American companies. Despite benefiting immensely from free trade agreements such as the USMCA, even w/ @POTUS 25% tariffs, Canada is still far more protectionist than we are. President Trump has made it clear that America businesses must no longer be unfairly disadvantaged by Canada’s restrictive trade policies.A fairer, more even trading relationship between our two great nations will be better both our peoples

@_Steve_Lieb_ You don’t think ABC and CBS should have their licenses revoked?

@elexnstom @NateSilver538 In answer to your question: never. Free speech is the first amendment for a reason, it is an intrinsic good. There is no justification, ever, for government limiting the speech of its citizens.

It's somewhat dirty pool, but something Democrats have done too (see below), and certainly within the realm of protected First Amendment speech. Not really a great sign that the Democracy Knowers want to limit speech they don't like. politico.com/story/2012/07/…

@gelliottmorris Is this publicly available pls?

We're really not learning much from the state level results yet (or from implied state-level results from county data). We don't have precinct data, so more uncertainty in what I'm looking at. Really need more swing-state data n the north before updating these priors much. Early!

the internal 538 live model reacted sharply to the florida call:

@kapoano @AstorAaron Don’t disagree that could happen. But MI & WI already guaranteed access to abortion in ballot initiatives two years ago, so the issue might be less salient. And thus partially explain the gap?

@elexnstom @AstorAaron Think about that for a minute though. Do you think there are more or less voters that are worried about abortion access in MI/WI/PA vs IA? A national ban knows no state lines. And those states could lose their Dem govs at any election. They see their neighbors in IA.

Take a second and read @Nate_Cohn's thread on the Selzer Iowa poll...from 2020. Almost everything he says here in terms of how much this poll differed from the national consensus can be applied this year.

@AstorAaron It could easily be an Iowa-specific phenomenon, ie. the abortion ban coming into effect.

This is a good thread on how far off Selzer would have to be in order for this to be anything other than bad for Trump. x.com/ferald_gord/st…

@dwallacewells @sbg1 That’s understandable tbf. There weren’t any.

"Trump and his allies spent 81 percent of their ad dollars on invective against Harris and Tim Walz. Less than 1 percent went to ads touting the former president’s accomplishments or policy proposals." #trumps-extraordinarily-negative-tv-ads" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">nytimes.com/live/2024/10/3…

@EricMGarcia He’s gonna go spare when he finds out the philanderer who’s on top of the Republican ticket.

Not only is this cruel and outright ridiculous to say, but it ignores the fact that the majority of divorces do not happen because of infidelity. They fail because of finances.

@RonFilipkowski If no one bothers applying the law, is it really a crime?

This is actually a crime in the state of FL where Trump resides - to promise a state appointment while running to get an endorsement - but I guess since it’s federal it’s ok.

@stuartpstevens twitter.com/lennybronner/s…

Good question. statista.com/statistics/109… Average for recent presidential elections has been 4% more women voting than men. Compare to early voting numbers.

@emckowndawson It’s not about changing voters’ minds, Eli. It’s about affirming the commitment to the principles that guide their coverage. That’s why the owner declining to run the editorial board’s endorsement is a chilling move.

This is good. In general, newspapers and other publications shouldn’t endorse presidential candidates. It’s not changing anyone’s mind (at least nationally) and there’s some evidence that endorsements can reduce trust in a publication: nature.com/articles/s4156…

@WindsorMann @AntiToxicPeople His first term usually saw his incompetence override his authoritarianism. In his second term we won’t be so lucky.

In Trump we have a man in whom authoritarianism, incompetence, stupidity, criminality, derangement, bigotry, corruption, and dishonesty are each struggling to take the upper hand.

@nataliemj10 @matthewmarnold This is a big concern and you’re right to raise it. But it’s a very different argument from your original “hot take”!

@maxtmcc The stakes are a lot higher for Dems. If Harris wins, Trumpers set fire to a few things, shrug and go back to their boats and enjoy the booming economy.

Instead, Republicans on here are crowing about winning New Mexico when they are about as likely to lose this election as Dems are. Sure, they’re a little delulu, but idk, maybe embrace the delulu, there’s no point coping and seething about an election that hasn’t happened yet

you can get so much media mileage out of the fact that personality-related poll is like “I could survive a head-on collision with a jet engine” 78% of Republicans say yes “I don’t make breakfast because I’m afraid my toaster might spontaneously combust” 67% of Democrats agree