America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 41,698 comments
  • 2,017,769 views
“Intellectual diversity”, does he mean flatearthers should be as important as actual scientists from now on or what?

Trump referred to accreditation on the campaign trail as his "secret weapon" in his efforts to combat what he considers ideological bias in higher education. The executive action aims to use the process as a way to hold colleges accountable for "ideological overreach" and to increase "intellectual diversity" on campus.

 
Like "alternative facts", the imbalance of life having a liberal bias means these children want to eat at the grown-ups' table. Stupid babies need the most attention.
 
Like "alternative facts", the imbalance of life having a liberal bias means these children want to eat at the grown-ups' table. Stupid babies need the most attention.
We might need to teach simple numbers and letters for the new Trump-approved "diversity" students.

Meanwhile, lets pay $5,000 for people to have more children! I assume the people who would be swayed by this are the same ones who voted for Trump and would fit into his diversity selection for higher education.
 
Last edited:
We might need to teach simple numbers and letters for the new Trump-approved "diversity" students.

Meanwhile, lets pay $5,000 for people to have more children! I assume the people who would be swayed by this are the same ones who voted for Trump and would fit into his diversity selection for higher education.
$5,000 won't come close to covering the first 6 months of having a child.
 
I just want to get back to tariffs for a minute, because I watched this this morning and the part at 8:44 I found very interesting:



Lets say you have two companies that make equivalent bags for equivalent input costs, one in the UK and one in the US. Let's say the bag costs $200, and 30% of that cost ($60) is the raw materials from China, and 50% of the cost ($100) is labor and other overhead leaving both companies with a 20% profit margin ($40) as a pre-tariff basis.

US Bag Pre-Tariff:
$60 materials
$100 overhead
$40 profit/margin (20%)

UK Bag Pre-Tariff:
$60 materials
$100 overhead
$40 profit/margin (20%)

US Bag Post-Tariff:
$87 materials with 145% tariffs
$100 overhead (debatable if it would stay as-is)
$13 profit/margin if price remains $200 (6.5%)

UK Bag Post-Tariff
$60 materials
$100 overhead
$40 profit/margin
-$20 import duties @ 10% (remember - the tariffs are for final goods so it doesn't matter that the materials came from China)
$20 final profit/margin (10%)

Another way to frame this is that the US bag would now cost $227 with tariffs, and the UK-made bag would cost $220 if margins were kept the same.

Obviously this assumes a few things that might be unrealistic (like labor costs between US and UK which may tilt this even more in favor of the UK made product) but I wanted to focus just on the tariffs. So the UK-made bag has a competitive advantage over the US bag in the US Market (ignoring shipping costs which would probably bring that down a bit) with US protectionist policies in place - which is crazy.

The feeling I get is that the tariffs, if they remain in place, are going to much more heavily impact small businesses in the US, which often rely on sourcing components/materials from China, because they have very limited runway (IE: they may only have enough capital to sustain a few months of payroll) and finding alternative supplies within that timeframe is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. It's like being kneecapped without warning. Nearly as bad is if they are frantically attempting to source new suppliers, and the tariffs evaporate, they'll have wasted a lot of money and time for no reason. Either way, small businesses can't really absorb these constant shocks and uncertainty and I imagine there's going to be carnage by summer whichever outcome happens.
 
Last edited:
"See it's good we renditioned him to a foreign prison without trial and conviction because his wife got an order of protection against him in 2021 and by the way there's an address on here it's been a few years but maybe she still lives there."

I understand stupidity may be a more likely force than malice in something like this but I don't really think that's the case here specifically.
 
Last edited:
D'oh. Ok so it's way worse :lol:

Team USA's margin goes to -$47 if they don't change the price or they have to sell the exact same bag for $267 to have the same profit margin as Team GB. :eek:
This appears to be sheer economic illiteracy. No wonder he got Chiynah to make his MAGA caps.
 
Last edited:
Deliberate subversion of security...

MAGA in 2016 about Hillary's emails "LOCK HER UP!!!!"

MAGA in 2025 about Hegseth's violations:
cricket.png
 
Last edited:
Back the Blue?
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the other one? Not saying she's unattractive buuuuuttt...

Sorry for the bad taste joke. She's a monster regardless of her looks.
 
Still can't quite believe how weak and feeble "Vladimir, STOP" posted to social media looks. Yet the cult will still praise the "strong man".

Just like the whole tariff back and forth with China, where 0.957 projected just the weakest image in constantly talking up doing a deal before caving and saying he'd roll them back, while China either didn't respond or placed reciprocal tariffs every time.

This guy is weaker than a homeopathic remedy. And no less of a fraud.
 
Back