Well done.

Precisely.

Yes, other writers have observed that Trump has made protectionist mouth noises for decades.

While stupid and clueless probably covers a lot of ground there's also an angle that Trump was simply psychologically unable to simply take the accomplishments of the man who whupped him in 2020 and not try and destroy them. Other writers have also pointed out that Trumps protectionist impulses have a long pedigree in what passes for his thoughts.

Which is all somewhat besides my point that Yishans' analysis is just as incoherent as Trumps policy.

It's just... he just... like... it's such a blizzard of bull that I'm hesitating on where to even start. Like you noted, outlawing private tutoring simply means that it went underground. And characterizing China's "strengths" as strengths... well I am trying not to call the guy a contrarian or a fool.

But even his last summary- that Trump is trying to bring supply chains back into the US. This ignores that Trump is tariffing everything. He's tariffing the parts you'd need to make the US into an more industrial society. He's tariffing the steel and bauxite and aluminum that the US doesn't and, by and large CAN'T make itself (you can't tariff bauxite deposits or the relevant coal and iron deposits into existence). So even if we take him at his most sane washing best; everything he's saying remains deranged. He seems to me to just be a guy, on twitter, trying to hack out Trumps antics into some kind of industrial policy like a housecat trying to barf out a volleyball sized hairball of steel wool.

He's assuming an entire drawer full of can openers and also ignoring pretty much the entire field of economics so it's basically just rather vapid "what if there's some deep deranged method to the authoritarian madness" post.

It's a new height of idiocy from a dude who already was setting new records for it. He even, fishing, tariffed the Israeli's after they dropped all tariffs against the US.

It is possible though I don't know if it's plausible. The Dems haven't really decided what the fish they're offering yet which is to be expected at this stage of the electoral cycle and Bezo's "personal liberty and free markets" lines are word for word republitarianism which is something Trump has coopted in word (though emphatically not in deed).

Well, sure, if they meant it they would be hammering Trump. If I were a libertarian I'd be absolutely furious with what Trump and Musk are up to. Small government nostrums and Libertarian terms are all over this stuff. If Musk and Trump keep at this the whole dictionary and directory of libertarianism will go from being not taken seriously to being actively despised.

Smart. I'm not a coder but I can predict that if they're deranged enough to try it; it's going to be a clusterfish to rival all clusterfishes.

Is that before or after he tries to migrate Social Security off its legacy systems and onto newer ones in the course of a couple months?

https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-administration-cobol-benefits/

What cat isn't?

Heh, my "enjoyment" of bowling is so marginal it'd easily tip it into a "nope, never wanna do it no matter how good the company is" mindset.

Yes it's very well done! Good on you DavidTC!

Okay automated pin setters make a lot of sense- could you imagine paying for pin boys?

Like an overhead projector? That you'd write on with erasable marker? That's just nuts! The past really is another country.

Also... what is with those various strike-spare animations? They are different at various alleys and a lot of them seem like they came right out of a crack hallucination.

Well done.

I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).

And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.

And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.

*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.

To be clear the little pleasure in this case is Stefanik's discomfiture; expecting a seat out of those districts isn't something you celebrate unless it's in hand.

Also Trump and the Muskrats would be, presumably, walking and talking a lot softer if they knew that excessive clowning would get them snap elections.

First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.

Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.

I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.

Oh no heheh.

I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.

I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.

Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.

Yeah good point, basically a very mild version of the delusions John Warnock Hinckley Jr. entertained in the 80's.

Just that. From the article at the end of the first paragraph where he shifted to talking about the gay angle. "Gay men didn’t start acting straighter; straight people started acting like us."