Ben Shapiro: What The Hell Happened on LIBERATION DAY?!

[wing2000]

JPMorgan raises recession odds for this year to 60%​

 

[BCP1928]

No matter, the MAGA faithful will still fall for "America is getting ripped off" line even as the price of imported goods rise.

The MAGA faithful are prepared for a period of austerity and harsh government as necessary to support the fight against the woke monster, If Trump was a left-wing tyrant we would be talking about "the dictatorship of the proletariat" but under whatever name it is common to all authoritarian systems of government.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Interesting how " progressive " is somehow considered ill conceived

In many cases, it is.

Even if well-intentioned, many of the policies proposed are done so with laser focus on the narrow goal, with little to no consideration for the externalities.

Examples?

Economic policy proposals like rent control expansion, and "we need to double the minimum wage by next year".

Social policy proposals like "defund the police" and Oregon's "we should remove the prohibition on all drugs" (which they ended up having to walk back after their overdose rate tripled in 3 years)

Which would you have , progressive ideologies where equality, reform, inclusion and diversity is practiced or regressive ideologies where exclusion, restriction ,isolation and suppression dominates.

That's an oversimplification of the dynamic.

If the only national topics being discussed were police reform, LGBTQ stuff, and abortion, then what you said may be a little more accurate.

However, when you factor in other topics, there are plenty of examples of regressive policies coming from the left.

NIMBY-like policies done in the name of "historical or environmental preservation" (which has the effect of blocking new affordable housing development) are certainly pervasive in very progressive cities.

Overly bureaucratic systems that end up acting as barriers to even progressive-sounding goals would be another example.


Ezra Klein recently called Gavin Newsom out on the carpet in their recent sit-down conversation about that.

Paraphrasing: "I'm a liberal, living in the most liberal city, in the most liberal state, with a liberal mayor, a liberal state legislature, and a liberal governor, with virtually no republican opposition. Why can't we seem to get any of the things we want done that we claim to care about?"
(and then went on to cite the homeless issues in San Fran, the high-speed rail flop, and how it was nearly impossible for him to get solar installed, but his friend living in Austin managed to get it done in 3 weeks)

 

[Merrill]

kind of like a

It's amusing that the Trump administration thinks we are being ripped off by penguins and polar bears. I think somebody failed geography and just decided to transcribe a list of regions, assuming they were populated nations.

Somebody could have just asked ChatGPT or Copilot for a list. But that might involve asking an expert with an unbiased agenda.

presidential candidate confusing or conflating Europe with the Mexican border

oh wait, that already happened https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ng-concerns-about-events-at-us-border-during/

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who are you talking about in those last two paragraphs who dodges intellectuals like Shaprio (a sentence I never thought I'd write) while "gleefully engaging" the content of more fringe characters? Because it sure sounds like you're talking about me, especially given your calling out the word "huckster."

You're not the only one I've heard use that in reference to some of those guys...

In fact, sometimes the dismissiveness is even more shallow when I hear people talk about him.

"I can't stand his voice" is one I've heard people use as a means of dismissal. (the same people who would lob sexism accusations at anyone who said they found Harris's cackle to shrill and irritating)

Regarding Shapiro, I generally don't hold him in high regard because he's not as insightful as you or the rest of his fan base seem to think. I listened to the video you posted and... so what? He's not wrong in any of it, but all of what he said on the subject of general tariffs is pretty elementary.

He actually is a sharp dude, I suspect the reason why people say that, is because they're only exposure to him are some of the viral clips where he does quick-form debates with college students.

I obviously don't agree with him on a lot of things, but for the people who pretend "he's an idiot because I he doesn't agree with me on policy", that's being disingenuous. The dude graduated summa cum laude for his Master's in Political Science from UCLA, and cum laude for his Juris Doctor from Harvard.

As another poster commented, what good is he as a commentator if he waits to say anything until after bad policies have been enacted when most of the fallout was easily foreseeable?

because the extent of the policies and the details weren't known at the time when other people started making their critique. People knew about the "universal baseline tariffs" of 10-20%, and they were aware that there would be heightened tariffs on China. But as far as the "two tier reciprocal tariffs" (on countries that don't even have tariffs on us in the first place), or the fact that he was going to mistakenly conflate import/export trade deficits with tariffs was something that wasn't spung on people under his "Liberation Day" speech as far as I can tell.



If a politician said, "I plan on raising the speed limits" (but had not yet provided granular details)

If half of the country pounces and says "that'll make things less safe, the sky is falling"

I'd rather hang back and hear exactly what's getting increased, and where.

If the proposal ends up being "We're going to increase the speed limit on the major highway from 55 to 65", then it's not a huge deal and the pearl clutching was an overreaction.

If the proposal ends up being "We're going to raise the speed limits in congested city center areas from 25 to 45", then the fears were warranted.


In Shapiro's case, he's been notoriously stand-offish about tariffs for quite some time, he's been saying "most tariffs are pure idiocy" since back in 2015 as he has a more absolutist view on free trade.

 

[Bradskii]

kind of like a

presidential candidate confusing or conflating Europe with the Mexican border

No way. There's no possible way whatsoever that you thought that happened. Absolutely no way. But assuming that someone actually found an example that was as idiotic (or, and I find this impossible to believe, that somone really did believe that a senior politician did not know the differernce between the Mexican border and Europe) then I would then appreciate them noting how monstrously dumb both examples were.

 

[zippy2006]

Even if well-intentioned, many of the policies proposed are done so with laser focus on the narrow goal, with little to no consideration for the externalities.

That's exactly right.
It's like they need a lecture from a Buddhist on interdependent origination.

 

[FireDragon76]

kind of like a

presidential candidate confusing or conflating Europe with the Mexican border

oh wait, that already happened https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ng-concerns-about-events-at-us-border-during/

She wasn't confused or mistaken. She was merely stating there are alot of places she didn't go, so why focus only on the border? She was reframing.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's exactly right.
It's like they need a lecture from a Buddhist on interdependent origination.

That isn't exclusive to Democrats. That's a wider problem in western cultures. People only tend to consider first order, immediate causes as a final explanation, and attribute too much agency to individuals.

 

[zippy2006]

That isn't exclusive to Democrats. That's a wider problem in western cultures. People only tend to consider first order, immediate causes as a final explanation, and attribute too much agency to individuals.

I think it is exclusive to Progressives, not Democrats. Conservatives and liberals are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think it is exclusive to Progressives, not Democrats. Conservatives and liberals are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration.

Despite the "laugh react" your post got, what you said is true.

It's the distinction that exists between leftists and liberals.

Conservatives and Liberals tend to view things through the lens of "just vs. unjust", but simply have different criteria for those designators.

Leftists view things through the lens of "oppressed vs. oppressor", and whether or not something is just, is secondary to making sure the perceived underdog makes it to the finish line at the same time as the "privileged" person.


The former is fine because it encourages spirited debate, dialogue, and a good-faith ideological tug-o-war of ideas until a compromise can be reached.

The latter is an issue because when one only has the "oppressed vs. oppressor" lens to look thru, when one runs out of actual oppressors, they simply concoct new ones out of thin air.

The very concept of intersectionality proves my point.

That's how you end up with the CBC publishing pieces encouraging gay men to "check their privilege" because the fact that gay men have become accepted in Canadian society (and the author felt that made them complacent), it was somehow an attack on "gender non-conforming indigenous peoples"

https://www.cbc.ca/arts/gay-culture-has-grown-toxic-with-unchecked-privilege-it-s-time-for-us-to-reset-1.5639251

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think it is exclusive to Progressives, not Democrats. Conservatives and liberals are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration.

Despite the "laugh react" your post got, what you said is true.

It's the distinction that exists between leftists and liberals.

The reason I laughed is because the notion that “Conservatives… are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration” is absurd unless your knowledge of political history only started at Dobbs. Abortion was the #1 most animating force among evangelicals for 30+ years. They were the poster children for single-issue voters. While their shift rightward may have been driven by a number of factors, it was abortion that was used to prime them into hating the “baby-killing Demonrats”.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reason I laughed is because the notion that “Conservatives… are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration” is absurd unless your knowledge of political history only started at Dobbs. Abortion was the #1 most animating force among evangelicals for 30+ years. They were the poster children for single-issue voters. While their shift rightward may have been driven by a number of factors, it was abortion that was used to prime them into hating the “baby-killing Demonrats”.

Don't forget Catholics. When I was a kid abortion was 8 of the top 5 political issues (and 8 of the top 10 social issues, don't forget divorce and birth control).

 

[Aryeh Jay]

JPMorgan raises recession odds for this year to 60%​

I'm waiting on the bookies in Vegas for the word that the fix is in.

 

[Bradskii]

Leftists view things through the lens of "oppressed vs. oppressor", and whether or not something is just, is secondary to making sure the perceived underdog makes it to the finish line at the same time as the "privileged" person.

Maybe you should ask someone on the left.

Hey, Bradskii. Do you want the 'underdogs' to have everything that the privileged have?

Why gee, Rob. Not at all. I just want them to have the same opportunities.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think it is exclusive to Progressives, not Democrats. Conservatives and liberals are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration.

Don't confuse political rhetoric with cognitive ability. Political rhetoric in the modern world must, by necessity, be relatively simple to understand.

 

[BCP1928]

I think it is exclusive to Progressives, not Democrats. Conservatives and liberals are far less likely to let one issue overshadow every other consideration.

While Conservatives focus on one issue because they think there is really only one issue?

 

[Yarddog]

I am not a big fan of Shapiro, who I believe is basically a self-serving Zio-con

but I am not a big fan of these tariffs either: I think Trump went to far with them, too quickly (although I reject the idea that the US should never use tariffs)

There are reasons that make tariffs effective but Trump doesn't understand what's going on. He equates trade deficits with countries ripping us off with tariffs.

 

[Perpetual Student]

No matter, the MAGA faithful will still fall for "America is getting ripped off" line even as the price of imported goods rise.

Prices will not rise.
They will just have a negative decrease.
Or it would have been worse under Kamala Harris.
And the world respects America again.
Or that's the prise of greatness.

 

[Merrill]

No way. There's no possible way whatsoever that you thought that happened. Absolutely no way. But assuming that someone actually found an example that was as idiotic (or, and I find this impossible to believe, that somone really did believe that a senior politician did not know the differernce between the Mexican border and Europe) then I would then appreciate them noting how monstrously dumb both examples were.

but you will believe that Trump personally looked at a map, saw some uninhabited islands, and told his trade and economic advisors

"put tariffs on that place"

ok