jross

i give it a B for trolling. but also true…

Yea this is true on abortion, sex ed, and religion in ed. All very touch subjects with sound reasoning behind the beliefs.

Progressive outcomes seem to undermine justice. They enable unfair wages via illegal labor through open borders and lax enforcement. They prioritize criminals’ rights over victims. They define rights / benefits by race. They strip personal choice / freedom. Words vs. deeds...

I see and appreciate what you are saying... but pitbull is a stretch. Progressives are less about defending their territory and more about dragging everyone into their yard. A pitbull doesn't care what you are doing in your yard but they will end you quickly in defense of theirs. If not a jack russell terrier, a progressive is more like a border collie. A collie had a lot of positive traits that fit... but the progressive has less discipline...

It’s not about progressives living their views or ruling themselves; it’s when they force those views on the majority, stripping freedom, grabbing resources, and breaking trust. That’s when the patience ends. You can replace 'progressive' with most ideologies and cross a line. The math is not in the progressive's favor is the point being made, in a dogmatic manner of speaking.

I'm not starting anything, I'm sharing math.

It would be ugly and unwanted by everyone sane. Remember that gun ownership is 3 to 1 in favor of one ideology, the ideology that knows how to use them while having the discipline to use responsibly. Sometimes the little terriers nip one to many heels.

Yes like a 10 pound Jack Russel Terrier... hyper, loud, relentless, scrappy... and completely outmatched by the 200 pound Mastiff... sleeping through the noise until the line is crossed... then game over. Thankfully the Mastiffs have enormous patience.

the defense needs cuts; not more. disgusting. but cheated by DOGE? no!

It wasn't fully rhetoric and it wasn't about Harris specifically. The calm, clear-eyed stoics would eventually move to violence if there was continuation of progressive culture and policies. It takes a lot longer for the silent majority of strength to respond, but it would be effective and efficient when moved to act.

What is a critical thinkers framework to 2020 election being the most secure ever? Observe oddities, ask questions, seek answers... Oddities The Spanish flu pandemic saw a decrease in voters. Yet the covid pandemic saw 23M more votes in 2020 compared to 2016, and more votes than the "most consequential election in U.S. history” 2024 vote. 19 states had no ID rules. Ballot harvesting is legal in some states Counting was paused Real people testified to problems that resulted in 60 court cases; mostly tossed on standing rather than merit. Favorito's Georgia case (145K ballots) still lingers in 2025. The Biden laptop suppression... The "Cabal" steering outcomes... “Hundreds of millions” spent to change rules, influence media, and control info flow. The published article in the Times about "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that saved the 2020 election." You mentioned Dominion... okay The University of Michigan computer science professor J. Alex Halderman hacked the Dominion ImageCast X machine in multiple ways from seconds to minutes in front of government officials. Now ask questions... And seek answers...

I didn't say J6 is propaganda, I said propaganda is spun throughout. You seem to see it through one lens and not through both. This doesn't reflect well critical thinking. Very similar reflection on election security rhetoric. There are many signals, you brought up "Dominion." That isn't one that I was thinking of... though I wouldn't exclude it based on evidence.

It would be best for the consumer if the Toyota Hilux was available in the US. GIVE US THE HILUX

"The 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history" is more rhetorical than provable. There are many unanswered signals that run counter to it... suppressed/omitted/spun by the trusted media and judicial system... J6 has so much propaganda spun throughout... Someone is not thinking critically when they believe what the media and government organizations said about those...

We are in the wait and see mode. Where if you have funds, it is time to buy. The timeline ends in late 2025/early 2026 based on Trumps push for a economic rush in 2026.

So my first question is why Tesla has factories in other counties. I don’t know but wonder if it relates to tariffs that other counties impose on the US. Germany is not cheap.

Actually some of those Republican survey results paint Democrats in a horrific light.

I wonder if there is a reboot nightly or every Sunday at 3AM to clear cache and reset memory? Seem's like a just-in-time restart approach. It's blazing fast after the restart. I'd wager with our small community that this is a one to two server self-hosted setup and we don't care much about a 5 minute down time weekly in favor of performance.

Is this true? Left-of-Center respondents justify murder for Elon Musk (48%) and President Trump(55%). 58% say it is acceptable to destroy Tesla dealerships. Left-of-center is self-identified as selecting far-left, liberal, or slightly liberal in the survey. https://networkcontagion.us/reports/4-7-25-ncri-assassination-culture-brief/ The Network Contagion Research Institute is an organization focused on studying how ideas, misinformation, and extremism spread across social media and into the real world, often using data-driven methods like machine learning and social network analysis. I've seen a bunch of propaganda surveys that are anti-right, and this one seems too unbelievably skewed against the left. The NCRI doesn't seem too transparent on their survey questions and methods...

I made it to the state finals in youth wrestling, and in one match, Chris complimented me mid-takedown, and again during a reversal. It was the only time I ever heard another wrestler speak during live action. At a major tournament when I was 11 or 12, I took a kid down right off the whistle and cut him for a release. He grabbed my wrists, made them his own, and took me down with ruthless force. It was the first time I’d ever been overpowered. Later, I found out he was a state champ. Then there was Josh V., who used pressure points on my neck and inside my elbows to control me completely. I felt cheated. As a freshman, I dueled Jason B., a multiple-time state champion. He caught me in a headlock in the first period, but I countered with a gut lock, rolling him to his back as I powered through. The crowd’s reaction was the first I’d ever noticed. He recovered and dominated me. As a sophomore, Mike P. pinned me with overwhelming strength. Back when he was the new, chubby kid, I’d pinned him easily multiple times. As a sophomore, I went up from 145 to 153 and tech falled my teammate during wrestle offs. I showered and was ready to leave when coach comes to the locker room and makes me wrestle the upper classman again (first time ever for multiple wrestle offs). I lose by one point. We then have a best of three and I landed on my head from a whizzer position. I sprained a muscle in my neck, had a huge lump, and could only turn one direction without turning my shoulders for the better part of a year. I had bumped up after having to stop cutting too much weight; hospital visit due to dehydration. Returned to wrestle at regionals four weeks later at 160lbs... DNQ. (second year at regionals with an injury) Junior year, at 16, I moved up weight classes. After two stagnant years, I was having success but felt nervous facing a kid with a 20-2 record. My interim coach asked, 'What do you think he’s thinking about you?' I pinned him in the first period. I never had a record intimidate me to that degree again. Junior year summer after high school, I soundly beat Joel T. (multiple time state champ, D1) by controlling ties. I had no idea who he was. My coach had taught my to dig my thumb under the jaw to turn the opponent's head away. He was the only wrestler I ever did it to, and it was effective. As a senior, I majored Adam P., a multiple-time youth champion who’d beaten me at least five times growing up. One of those losses stung; I’d caught him with a cow catcher and taken the lead with 20 seconds left, only to lose. Senior year state semi finals: I'm losing by one point, on bottom, with a minute left int he third period. Hit a standing switch and reversed him to his back. Held him there for the win... on to the finals. At an alumni wrestling event, I was winning against a younger, stronger opponent. About three minutes in, I was on top, but I’d hit my limit. I muttered, 'Enough, I quit,' and he quickly reversed me. Flat on my belly, gasping for air, I heard my old high school coach angrily yell from the sidelines, 'What are you doing? Just roll over and let him pin you!' Too exhausted to argue, I gave in to a chicken wing. Afterward, I stumbled outside and lay on my back for 45 minutes, trying to recover. It wasn’t ego; my heart was about to burst. That match was a wake-up call about fitness. In hind sight, my best win was probably against a kid from Ellsworth (Clint F). It is only memorable because after taking third that year, he won youth state every year from then on. He placed at High School Nationals... I didn't know there was a "nationals"... Looking back, I never learned how to be strategic or wrestle close matches. I found defensive / passive wrestlers incredibly frustrating. I only had one year (junior) with a coach having had college wrestling experience. That coach enabled my mental break thru. My senior year, I had a dollar coach that just graduated from college playing football. That man could bench 385lbs and wrenched on my neck. He made me learn how to power through painful positions to score. I graduated at 17, and I’d have given anything for another year of high school like my peers; to keep growing, keep learning, to dominate. My only options were Neosho County Community College with Terry Pack. I drove myself down there, saw the trashy trailers, and decided my girlfriend was more important. Dog gone it.

art. intelligence

Is the Trade War Worth It? Hard to call it “worth it” so far. Trade wars, like Smoot-Hawley in 1930, tend to backfire, shrinking trade and hurting all sides. In 2025, Trump’s tariffs—10% baseline on all imports (April 5), 25% on Canada/Mexico, 34% on China (April 9)—aim to fix a $1.2 trillion trade deficit and boost U.S. jobs. But Canada’s 25% on $20.7 billion of U.S. goods (March 13) and China’s 34% (April 4) are hitting back hard, and global trade’s already down 15% this year (WTO). Tax Foundation pegs U.S. household costs at $1,900 from these hikes—tough to swallow when prices are up and growth’s slowing (RSM estimates a 0.36% GDP hit). The jury’s out on long-term gains, but right now, it’s a lot of pain for uncertain reward. Is It Working? Not clearly, not yet. Trump’s goal—cut deficits, bring jobs home—hasn’t landed. The deficit’s still massive—$1.2 trillion in 2024—and while first-term tariffs (2018-19) added maybe 1,000 steel jobs (EPI, 2023), they cost 300,000 elsewhere (Fed, 2019). In 2025, Canada and China’s counter-tariffs are slamming U.S. exporters—soybean farmers lost $27 billion since 2018, and manufacturers are scrambling. The commenter’s “net loss” point holds: escalation’s driving higher costs (2.3% price bump, Budget Lab) without shrinking the deficit or sparking a factory boom. Supply chains are shifting—some to Vietnam, not the U.S.—but that’s not “working” as planned. Has the U.S. Benefited Yet? It’s a mixed bag. On one hand, steel’s scoring wins—Hyundai’s $5.8 billion Louisiana plant (2025) shows tariffs can draw investment and jobs, a tangible boost for U.S. industry. Trade diversion’s happening too—China’s export share to the U.S. dropped 3% since 2018 (NBER, 2022), nudging some production closer to home. Politically, Trump’s base is energized—his “Liberation Day” (April 2) pitch fuels a sense of American grit. On the flip side, the costs are real: inflation’s up, stocks slid, and Canada’s 25% and China’s 34% counter-tariffs are biting U.S. exporters hard. Retaliation’s outpacing us—and while there’s progress, it’s tempered by the broader economic squeeze. Bottom Line It’s a bold play with stakes on both sides—short-term hits like higher costs and lost exports are real, but the seeds of long-term wins—more jobs, a leaner deficit—are planted. Worth it? Hinges on whether the economic grit pays off over the political flex. Working? Not fully, but it’s early. Benefits? Enough to keep hope alive, with room to grow if the tide turns.

AI continues Fair point—Trump’s tariffs, the big 25% ones on Canada and Mexico and 20% on China, aren’t fully in effect yet; they’re set for May 1, 2025, and we’re already seeing chaos. Canada’s slapped 25% on $20.7 billion of U.S. goods since March 13, China’s upped theirs to 34% as of April 4, and markets are freaking out before the ink’s dry. It’s a good parallel to question—what’s happening before the tariffs even hit? But your Smoot-Hawley timeline’s off a bit. Congress didn’t pass it in May ’29—that’s when the House voted, May 28, 1929. The full Congress, House and Senate together, passed it June 13, 1930, signed into law June 17. Mid-1929’s decline—industrial peak in July, crash in October—was already rolling before that House vote even happened. So, it’s not “just before mid-1929” for the law; the House move was early, but the real deal was over a year later. Your unemployment jump—~1% to 12% by year-end, 15% in seven months—and inflation to -10%? That doesn’t track with May ’29 either. Unemployment was around 3% in early ’29, crept to 5-6% post-crash by December, hit 9% by late ’30, and 15% by mid-’31—way past seven months from the House vote. Deflation got to -10% in ’32, not ’29. The crash and pre-tariff slump drove that early pain, not the House passing it. Reciprocal tariffs—Canada, Europe—didn’t bite ‘til late ’30, after the law. The anticipation angle’s real, though. The House vote in ’29 spooked markets—exporters worried, stocks got shaky. Could’ve primed the pump for October’s crash, like some say about Trump’s threats now. But the big unemployment and deflation you’re citing? That’s post-June ’30, when tariffs actually hit and trade tanked—$5.2 billion in exports ’29 to $2.9 billion ’31. Smoot-Hawley made it worse, no doubt—just not right off the May ’29 bat.

AI responds: The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill (H.R. 2667) on May 28, 1929. The Senate took longer, debating and amending it extensively, and didn’t pass its version until March 24, 1930. After that, the two chambers had to reconcile differences in a conference committee, which finalized the bill in early June 1930. Congress as a whole—the combined House and Senate—officially passed the reconciled bill on June 13, 1930, and President Hoover signed it into law on June 17, 1930. Scale of Impact Short-Term (May ’29): Minimal direct impact—more psychological than material. Trade didn’t collapse overnight; the bill still faced a year of Senate wrangling. But it amplified uncertainty in a bubble about to pop. Think of it as a tremor, not the quake. Long-Term Setup: The House vote locked in momentum. By the time the Senate passed it in March ’30 and Hoover signed it in June, markets had been stewing on it for months. Some argue (e.g., economist Allan Meltzer) that prolonged debate worsened the ’29 crash’s fallout, though hard proof’s elusive. So, in May 1929, Smoot-Hawley’s impact was real but indirect—rattling nerves, shifting plans, and priming the pump for worse to come. It wasn’t law, so no tariffs bit yet, but the signal mattered. Compare it to now: Trump’s 2025 tariffs aren’t in full swing, yet Canada’s already hitting back. Same vibe—anticipation can hurt before the ink dries.

The steelman arguments for each case—"Smoot-Hawley did not cause the Depression" and "Smoot-Hawley exacerbated the Depression"—appear strongly different because that’s the nature of steelmanning: it involves constructing the strongest possible version of a position, even if it means emphasizing different facts or interpretations. For the "did not cause" case, I leaned into the timeline of the Depression’s onset, the relatively small share of trade in GDP, and the dominance of monetary policy failures. For the "exacerbated" case, I highlighted the tariff’s role in shrinking trade, triggering retaliation, and worsening domestic conditions. These arguments diverge sharply because they’re designed to stand as robust, standalone defenses of opposing views, not to reconcile with each other. As for the "real truth" of Smoot-Hawley’s impact, it’s messy and lies somewhere between these extremes—history doesn’t offer a single, tidy answer. Most economic historians agree the Depression had multiple causes: a speculative stock market bubble, massive income inequality, overproduction, and a banking system prone to collapse, all compounded by the Federal Reserve’s disastrous tightening of the money supply. Smoot-Hawley entered this already chaotic picture, so pinning down its exact role is tricky. The consensus view is that Smoot-Hawley didn’t cause the Depression—the downturn was well underway before June 1930—but it likely worsened it to some degree. Trade data backs this: U.S. exports and imports cratered after 1930, and global trade volume fell sharply. Studies, like those from economist Douglas Irwin, suggest the tariff explains part of this decline, though not all—maybe 20-30% of the trade drop, with the rest tied to the global slump. Retaliatory tariffs from countries like Canada and France amplified the effect, but their impact varied by region and wasn’t always as severe as popularly claimed. Quantitatively, trade was only 8-10% of U.S. GDP, so even a big hit to exports couldn’t have been the sole driver of a 30% GDP collapse. Compare that to the money supply shrinking by a third or 9,000 bank failures wiping out savings—those were bigger blows. Qualitative evidence, like contemporary accounts and the 1,000+ economists opposing the bill, suggests Smoot-Hawley damaged confidence and strained international relations, but it’s hard to measure how much that mattered. The "real truth" is probably this: Smoot-Hawley was a bad policy at a terrible time, amplifying an existing crisis without being its root. It’s like throwing a punch at someone already falling down—painful, but not what knocked them off their feet. The debate persists because its effects are entangled with everything else that went wrong, making it a perfect scapegoat for some and a footnote for others. Without a counterfactual—no Smoot-Hawley world to compare—we’re left with educated guesses, not gospel.