Hmm, probably because anyone who keeps up with the field is already aware, and its not a controversial statement. But anyway, what do you think would happen if you were to ask for substantiation or examples?
"Dig"? Your understanding is so primitive you never do more than brush away the topsoil.
Yes, it does, and then any respectable researcher publishes their methods and data so that we can dig into it ourselves. Government statistics are managed and tracked and published where we can dig into them.
As stated, I don't care. And neither do you, since you decided to just ignore me name-dropping the famous Ivy League educated doctor of economics who personally pitched the idea of widespread reciprocal tariffs to Trump.
Then don't make accusations you have no willingness or ability to back up.
I mean, you name-dropped him in a way that didn't really make it clear why. But ok. This would be the Laffer who made absurdly optimistic (and long since fallen-apart) predictions about the 2017 tax plan.
1) Most of the announced tariffs were never applied, and therefore such consequences of non-existent tariffs tend not to happen. And it's like you can't even remember that this has already been pointed out to you.
Arthur Laffer? You mean the guy who had this to say about Trump's 2025 tariffs?
Immigration judges are in the executive branch... Immigration cases don't go through judicial courts.
There was IIRC only 1 person that shouldn't have been deported El Salvador.Yes, a man sleeping on the floor for 2 days is very comparable to ICE shipping people off to a foreign torture prison in contravention of international law and judicial orders.
You absolute clown.
It was literally the first article that came up when I googled "Obama" and "sanctuary city." You could have taken literally 5 seconds to check if you were wrong before you started spouting bullshit.
The number of sanctuary cities actually grew during the Obama administration, but technically there's been formalized sanctuary cities since 1985, and some of them are in Republican states.
There's a list of sanctuary cities on Wikipedia which includes the year that they became sanctuary cities, quite a few were under Obama.
Sanctuary city - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And yes, 90% of people do want immigration enforcement, they just don't want it to be done in the chaotic and intentionally cruel and violent way that the Trump administration is intent on doing it.
There's a reason that the vast majority of people aren't in support of the current ICE raids despite the majority of people being in support of immigration enforcement. It's almost like it's because the Trump administration is actively terrible at it.
You tell me, what's wrong with spuriously charging people with crimes they didn't commit and which they probably won't be found guilty of? The federal prosecutors who quit over this probably see something pretty wrong with it.
No, you started this discussion after ICE had already been illegally sending people to a foreign torture prison in contravention of international laws and court orders.
You started this discussion after ICE started illegally barring members of Congress from entering immigration detention facilities to prevent oversight. (This happened last year and a judge ruled just this week that yes, DHS broke the law when they refused those Congress members entry).
You started this discussion after the per capita deaths in Trump's ICE detention facilities last year was double the usual rate. (We did the math earlier in this thread.https://forums.escapistmagazine.com/threads/us-2024-presidential-election.288870/page-337#post-13365320)
You started this discussion after Alligator Alcatraz.
You started this discussion after Kavanaugh stops became a thing allowing federal agents to stop and detain people based purely on their perceived ethnicity.
Kavanaugh stop - Wikipedia
There's plenty of reasons to protest ICE.
but why build Alligator Alcatraz when you're just going to ignore laws and deport people? I don't have a problem in saying I like that ICE is doing ABC, but don't like they are doing XYZ. The original comment I'm responding to was that ICE should be abolished, which is asinine.
Huh, I did not know that. The American system looks even more open to political abuse than I thought.Immigration judges are in the executive branch... Immigration cases don't go through judicial courts.
Hearings in immigration court are conducted by immigration judges, who are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review in the DOJ.
The Immigration Court System, Explained
Most immigrants facing deportation are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, but their legal rights differ from those in criminal cases.www.brennancenter.org
Initially I was expecting him to get found guilty on the third shooting, right up until the guy he shot testified and said more or less the only thing he could have possibly said for it to count as self defense. Trying him for the other two was entirely about politics (not trying him would have caused riots, possibly not just local ones) - and despite the thoroughly filmed and very public trial you'll still have people make claims directly contradicted by the presented evidence.
If you're hoping to catch illegals, arresting people for looking like they might be Hispanic and based on nothing else is just common fucking sense huh? That is after all how we ended up with ICE detaining Native Americans for not being white.
I can only believe that you are setting me up to spike the ball in your face on purpose.
www.foxbusiness.com
You still haven't provided any proof of that, it's something that you just keep stating when it isn't true.
So he says they don't cause inflation. But the point in response to which you brought up Arthur Laffer wasn't just about whether tariffs cause inflation, was it? It was about whether Trump's approach to tariffs had been advantageous or not, and the question was whether you could find a reputable economist who thought they were a great idea.Perhaps we should hear some of what he has to say from his own mouth:
"[Tariffs] have not weighed on inflation at all, and it shouldn't logically weigh on inflation either."Tariffs historically lead to a 'huge' decrease in prices, inflation rates: Art Laffer | Fox Business Video
Former Reagan Economic Adviser Art Laffer discusses whether President Donald Trump's tariffs will eventually cause inflation to spike on 'Varney & Co.'
"We've never had inflation following a major increase in trade barriers."
"Tariffs do have lots of problems but they don't cause inflation, period. That silly, bad economics."
You really couldn't have set it up better, linking blatant media deception as your evidence for why I'm apparently ignorant, it just really sets up every single point I'm making in one blow.
No, there were two points of contention, one broad and one narrow.
That article mentioned no risk of a famine. None of the people involved in that article spoke of consequences through the lense of "peope might starve".
All of this is abstracting the conversation back to its broadest terms. But its not relevant to the specific contention we're trying to sort out here.
Don't go actually looking at the sources to see if what tstorm said they said was true.
He was literally the person who advocated tariffs to Trump, he directly advised Trumps 2016 campaign. He did so because he's basically a free trade purist who thinks tariffs are bad, specifically tariffs against the US, and that by reciprocating the treatment the US received from other nations, it would pressure them into bilaterally lowering them overall. And the internet can sit around all they like and say "well, he couldn't go through with them all cause TACO, roflcopter!" all it wants, not only was that the plan from the beginning, it was Art Laffer's plan. We are still seeing headlines of Trump lowering or removing tariffs in response to concessions by other nations because that was always the plan. Why was that the plan? Because us having tariffs has some upsides and some downsides for us, but for the countries the tariffs are on, it's pure downside, much like their tariffs against us are pure downside for us.
Yet Trump's tariffs weren't reciprocal. They were levied on the basis of trade deficit, which was misrepresented as "tariffs" in that nonsense pitch he did, or on the basis of other political gripes; they were largely not mirroring existing tariffs against the US.
