President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Reuters: Dollar falls as investors lose confidence in US assets
The dollar fell broadly on Friday as ongoing concern about U.S. tariffs undermined confidence in the currency as a safe haven, sending it to its lowest in a decade against the Swiss franc and a three-year low versus the euro.
In its latest retaliation against U.S. tariffs, China said it would impose 125% duties on U.S. goods from Saturday, up from 84%.
That added to a global selloff that has battered stocks and even once safe-haven U.S. Treasuries - 10-year yields are on course for their biggest weekly jump since 2001. [MKTS/GLOB]
"Before it was more like a dollar deleveraging; this is just a dollar crisis," Francesco Pesole, FX strategist at ING, said.
"We need to get something from (U.S. President Donald) Trump essentially ...it (the dollar) is clearly telling us that markets are very minded to sell America," he said.
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...
I just read with these tariffs, an iPhone will cost 2K in the USA. How much are they now?
Women gonna get real mad.
What's the price of eggs these days?
There's no way the markets will have their confidence properly restored unless Trump goes, unless he just shuts the **** up for the next 4 years when it comes to international politics and business.
I just read with these tariffs, an iPhone will cost 2K in the USA. How much are they now?
Women gonna get real mad.
Weird spot to throw in a dash of sexism, but okay.
Elections are only ever won by persuading the other side's voters to switch to your side, so the attitude expressed above is a failsafe election loser. The question is why the Democrats' offer was so bad that people actually voted for the certified menace that is Cheeto Benito instead.
It wasn't the offer that was rejected. It was the fact that under Biden inflation caused prices to go up like 20% in 4 years. Nobody really cared that this was a result of Covid and not specifically Biden. All industrial countries faced the same or worse inflation. And of course part of the inflation especially in 2020 and 2021 was a result of Trump closing the borders so billions of tons of food in the US never got picked. Since Kamala was part of that administration, voters, especially independents, blamed her as well. Kamala was also blamed for being the Border Czar which in terms of facts was untrue.
Also Kamala was less popular than Biden during his presidency. She had been only a Senator so unclear if she could run a country. As a black woman there were difficulties in getting votes from people who were racist and/or misogynistic. Incredibly Biden won 92% of the black vote and Kamala won only 77%. My understanding was that it was some black men who didn't want to be ruled by a black woman.
I doubt that if there had been a primary that Kamala would have won. I think Gretchen Whitmer could have been the nominee and that would have changed things in MI and WI and possibly PA. Not sure though if a woman can win yet. Gavin Newsome might have been the choice. Still I don't know if a Democrat could have won given the rise in prices and the ratchetting up of immigration issues. But because of Biden's choice to run in the primaries the choice of Kamala to run was not made by Democrat voters. In many ways it was a replay of 2016 where I'm not sure if Kamala could have won against any Republican nominee.
Is it still sexist if there are twice as many female Apple users than male Apple users?
I thought it was just alluding to this post by Luciom:
Missed Lucio's post. Didn't know owning an iPhone and/or being concerned about the price of an iPhone was gender-coded, but you guys carry on.
There was speculation from the business channel talking heads that this will help Samsung immensely.
Is it still sexist if there are twice as many female Apple users than male Apple users?
Will only the women get mad at the price increase?
Is answering either "yes" or "no" going to be construed as sexist?
Missed Lucio's post. Didn't know owning an iPhone and/or being concerned about the price of an iPhone was gender-coded, but you guys carry on.
Aside from the fact that we were talking laptops and not iphones, what's gender coded is the unwillingness to tinker with your devices changing options from the default ones.
Apple devices require less customization to work properly.
I don't think that claim is controversial.
It was rhetorical. You and I both know the answer is no. Therefore, the distinction you are trying to make is irrelevant. Women were singled out for being the ones to get mad when they weren't the only ones that would get mad. Unless you can tell us what the purpose of the distinction is, there aren't many conclusions we can draw from here.
So the essence of my question is: why was the statement "women gonna get real mad" and not "people are gonna get real mad?" I'm not bent out of shape over this, just trying to explore the proposed logic.
It was rhetorical. You and I both know the answer is no. Therefore, the distinction you are trying to make is irrelevant. Women were singled out for being the ones to get mad when they weren't the only ones that would get mad. Unless you can tell us what the purpose of the distinction is, there aren't many conclusions we can draw from here.So the essence of my question is: why
I singled out women as those who get mad *if you tell them to change options in IOS laptops for scrolling*, not at prices.
Women in literature are actually systematically found to be a tad more price conscious than men, especially for groceries where the effect is huge and replicates in many paper, even if for purchases that are made only very occasionally the effect seems to reduce/not be statistically significant most of the times.
Ah, I missed the context as I have Luciom blocked.
My bad.
Ah yes, women haven't evolved to perform complex masculine tasks such as using latptops, that makes sense.
All men are trash.
I know you hate democracy but Yoh have to accept your constitution and the way people vote disagree fundamentally with leftism these days.
It's so funny to say this about microbet. Do you not read his posts? The guy is routinely participating in American democracy; he's attended meetings/protests (i.e., a democratically/Constitutionally approved method of activism) and I would be willing to bet he votes at least semi-regularly (unlike yours truly -- I've never voted)
You can maybe stretch things enough to say this about ME (it wouldn't be accurate, I don't "hate democracy", but I'm at least vaguely skeptical), but arguably no other left-winger in this forum is with me there.
It's so funny to say this about microbet. Do you not read his posts? The guy is routinely participating in American democracy; he's attended meetings/protests (i.e., a democratically/Constitutionally approved method of activism) and I would be willing to bet he votes at least semi-regularly (unlike yours truly -- I've never voted.
He claims not to believe in nation states or laws. Obviously that's a pose, but there it is.
It was rhetorical. You and I both know the answer is no. Therefore, the distinction you are trying to make is irrelevant. Women were singled out for being the ones to get mad when they weren't the only ones that would get mad. Unless you can tell us what the purpose of the distinction is, there aren't many conclusions we can draw from here.So the essence of my question is: why
Right. This is from the same people who find it meaningful and not racist nor condescending to talk about what candidates can do to obtain votes from black and brown voters, as if they're some alternate human lifeform due to the color of their skin.
Alright... who wants to be the first one to rationalize why that's totally different and not racist to single out a specific group of people based on race when pandering for votes?
Right. This is from the same people who find it meaningful and not racist nor condescending to talk about what candidates can do to obtain votes from black and brown voters, as if they're some alternate human lifeform due to the color of their skin.Alright... who wants to be the first one to rationalize why that's totally different and not racist to single out a specific group
I have absolutely no idea what you are even referring to. Are you insinuating that I have ever said "what can candidates do to obtain votes from black and brown voters?" If not, what on earth are you saying?
This is all moot, anyway, as the context made it clear that diebitter was not being sexist, which I've already pointed out and said "my bad" to (resulted from me not seeing Luciom's posts anymore unless they are quoted).
