[mks]

In an increasingly real way, Trump has incanted and invoked, out of his seething cauldron of cruelty and contempt, the darkly fictitious version of America he used to get elected to abhorrent life. His multiple contentions that (“most beautiful”) tariffs could be used 1) as a protectionist measures for US-owned industry, 2) as a means to replace revenue generated by taxes, and 3) as an instrument of national power (among those conceptualized under DIME-FIL) has been thoroughly debunked by economists and demonstrably disproved throughout the history of their employment. However, coming from a man who once recommend bleach to the American public as an elixir for COVID, fetishizes Arnold Palmer’s penis, Putin and “little rocket man,” blathers on inanely about toilets and windmills, and is disconcertingly at ease mocking the disabled, women, and war veterans, no one legitimately wonders at Trump’s “cognitive” capacity never mind his selfless love of humanity in general.

However, I’ll admit, despite the facts, meaningfully contextualized as they are, I may have been looking at this all wrong.

Yes, I suppose I could concede a bit and be willing to alter my perspective.

How’s this…

Given the sundry list of his of impairments, one can indisputably conclude that Trump may be the most exemplary DEI hire we’ve ever had in the White House. Hire may not be quite the right word. Just to expound on the thought experiment, perhaps Trump, a lame duck who represents the last in a generation marked by increasing attrition, wasn't so much elected (by a plurality and not a majority--in case there was any confusion) or hired, but leased by Musk for a quarter of billion dollars. Will of the "people" reduced to the whim of a smitten billionaire with whom all of that aforementioned plurality most definitely shares such valued, hometown affinities. Maybe they all secretly do want to own Teslas and go to Mars. Yup. Wait, MAGA to Mars...are we misunderstanding Musk's real genius? I am willing to admit I've been wrong all this time. Although I'd rather a solution that finds us all able to live civilly together, perhaps it's time to Make Mars Great...Again. MMGA does have the same (phonetic) ring to it.

So, that's a test. Is what I've written above "political" content? Or just an attempt (a poor one, sure) at comedic relief? Too much/far for some to stand--the same crowd that take it personally, maybe?

I’ve already commented in this forum extensively about the nature, history, and current use of tariffs.

Edit 5 Feb 25 re: admin warning concerning the posting of “political” material.
Just What is a “Political Post?”
(We need something better than the Casablanca Test.)

I submit in advance that defining what constitutes political content merely for the sake of more easily banning it fails to address the gorilla in the room, i.e., people’s trigger-happy proclivities and trigger-sensitive dispositions. Can we solve that, no, not likely. So, next best thing. I, therefore, concede that for any banning of content to be reasonable, it must be defined. Otherwise, we’re subjecting ourselves to the abyss of the arbitrary and vagaries of the “whatever,” the “unknown unknowns” (thanks, Mr. Rumsfeld). Poor Alice in her wonderland could only be so lucky to find her jam yesterday and tomorrow but never today (thanks, Lewis).

Given the calls for the wholesale elimination of supposed political content, understanding what constitutes “political content” could perhaps use its own thread. That, however, seems undoable given that previous attempt to maintain a “religion and politics” section (what did anyone think would happen with those combustible topics?). Again what or who were the gorillas in that particular room? The subject matter per se or the sudden saliency of people’s “truer” character? So, if not a dedicated section or thread, it nonetheless seems fair and necessary to have a vetted definition of a “political post.” Having no standard risks tacitly condoning the posting of material which will find it and its author subject to arbitrary banning. Folks will test the fence to see just how high the charge is...and keep coming back until the shock finally registers with them. That seems silly.

At least two admins have commented (59,235, 236, 8613) on the surges of ostensibly political speech that becomes threaded within the discussion, dialogue, and discourse of seemingly neutral topics of concern. I would observe that what has appeared here (in this thread and others) has ranged from fact-based, informed (in some cases even cited) speech (generally, civil and productive debate) to something akin to ill-manner heckling. It’s this latter tendency, whereby puerile and captious retorts that present as disgruntled taunts designed only to provoke a fight and actually derail threads, which are the nexus of the problem arising here and in other forums (more of the same in a thematically related thread). Yet, even those retorts are not “political speech” but spite rearing its ugly head. For example, I’ve come across a series of dyspeptic sneering centered on the motif of “hurting butts” or being “butthurt”—whichever and others peevishly guised in the cant of “owning the libs.” No one could confuse the petulant tenor of those (rather fixated) remarks with political speech. Uncivil and worthy of forum censure, maybe—but not denotatively political nor even oriented toward the political. Just discernably lacking in comity, decorum, reason, etc.

However, given the genuine concern for informed discussion and debate in this forum, whose members value expertise, don’t immediately discount anecdotal experience or evidence, and prize, therefore, deductively empirical proof, etc., might we at least define what is meant by so-called “political speech” as it occurs in this venue?

To dispel the obvious right up front. Whatever the definition admins have employed to date, classifying speech as political might seemingly imply to some that it is, therefore, protected. It is not—if it was, the First Amendment could be used to intercede on behalf of members. Here, the collection of our admins (whom are not elected) wouldn’t even rise to the level of a quasi “government” but, rather, are management—in our metamodern parlance, agentic moderators. In any case, such protected speech is defined, in part, as that which is critical of the government, governmental action, elected officials, and so on, even when such speech should “include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Full stop: calling someone “butthurt” may be caustic, but it is not political speech per se, just unnecessarily crude. What may be worse is when those leveling such barbs somehow elevate themselves in the face of pushback, claiming people are simply too sensitive and overreacting. They are those whom, in the revelry of their seething schadenfreude, demand their cake and to eat it, too (thanks, OED citation on its 1546 collection of John Heywood). It is, as such, a form of petty gaslighting, blatantly passive-aggressive and, perhaps, the sign of serial deflection and other personal issues. It is also an indication that not only has that person lost the argument, but debate as a whole is ended. Not quite the point of a forum.

>> Resuming our regularly scheduled program, already in progress <<

Note, none of that suggests that launching into “sharp attacks” against other members of the public is promoted speech, merely protected. Indecorous, yes, very often. Perhaps worse but definitely woefully misguided, is the idea that one’s offense instantiates a violation of one’s First Amendment protections. It does not. No more so than being disagreed with or being proven wrong would be considered a violation of one’s First Amendment rights. Being banned on a forum or social media platform is not a violation of one’s free speech. We all get that. So, absent a definition of “political posts,” how do we protect our discussions from the onslaught of arbitrary censure?

Do we know what, denotatively, is a “political post?” Or, again, is our root concern the intent of individuals who continually “test the fence” because, in part, we have no definition of political material? So, some take advantage and enjoy their de facto immunity. In either case, you kinda have to accomplish the first no matter what. Addressing intent, motive, etc., is perhaps a step beyond necessity or capacity in a car forum. I get that, too.

So agreed, then. If members can be banned for posting allegedly political content, then it follows that we ought to have a vetted definition of what it constitutes. For example, does everything I’ve written above to remark on the nature of political speech itself constitute political speech? I don’t think any reasonable argument could be made to that effect. Yet, I’ve little doubt some would find my remarks politically motivated and, therefore, worthy of censure or, as likely the target of caustic derision of those whom are, ironically, more (over)-ruled by their feelings vice reason and are too easily themselves triggered by all things that vex them—even if they can’t reasonable articulate why. Without a definition of political content, conceivably, any post runs the risk of being censored and its author banned (and/or bullied by detractors).

We’re not the Matrix, no matter what pill you swallow once or every day. Reality is not optional. The truth is there is a spoon. Admitted conundrum: defining it probably shouldn't mean we automatically ban all “political” content—which is not the problem or shouldn’t be in a room of adults. People’s trigger-happy and trigger-sensitive emotions are the “content” with which we should (also) be concerned. However, employing a definition at least lets everyone know that not only is the fence on, it shocks, so test at your peril (or convenience—just let your natural affinities be your guide).

This isn’t so much a challenge per se to the admins but to all members participating in this marketplace to find the accord that should accompany well moderated, informed, and civil debate when the subject matter arises—as it clearly has in this forum.

For what I’ve written, I would rather the admins delete entirely my profile rather than just delete this post or impose a ban. Who wants to belong to a club that would have them as a member (thanks, Groucho)? This is not to be extreme--just the opposite. If we are what we say, that is, mature, thoughtful, respectful adults and “citizens” of this forum, why would I subject myself to such arbitrary rules of censorship or the hostilities of those easily triggered individuals with no impulse control? This is a discussion forum, not a cage match. Rather than threaten bans and banishment for a violation of something we have not even defined, perhaps a call for dignity and respect should be first and foremost our endeavor.

That said, at the risk of being banished, but apropos of the very subject of this thread, titled, “Trump Tariffs,” one cannot overlook Trump’s patently harmful use of tariffs in his last go as POTUS in any of the capacities I mentioned above. None need take my word; rather, one needs only to avail themselves of the numerous reports from our own government, think tanks, and research firm to discern what was (and likely will be) discernably evident in the economy, international relations, national unity, and so on as the metrics go.
----------------------------------------------
Here is a partial (revised) list of fact-based, vetted, peer-reviewed sources for consideration and edification:

CBP: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-impo...25%20or%20free
PIIE: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...mps-trade-deal
PIIE: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...it-large-flows
PIIE: https://www.piie.com/search?search_api_fulltext=Tariffs
CFR: https://www.cfr.org/blog/92-percent-...-angry-farmers
CFR: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-tariffs
CRS: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11030
CRS: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11387
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/tarif...e-food-prices/
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs/
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/
EWG: https://farm.ewg.org/
EWG: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps...der-trump/map/ (Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage Map)
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/ch...ugher-8e9e3e21
WSJ:

Atlantic Council: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...ect-this-time/
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43512098
CATO: https://www.cato.org/publications/pr...934#conclusion
CATO: https://www.cato.org/blog/seven-char...-auto-industry
CATO (Debuking Tariff Myths): https://www.cato.org/commentary/tariff-myths-debunked (Response in part to damaging fallacies like this: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1832508262316699871?mx=2)
CATO: https://www.cato.org/blog/seven-char...-auto-industry
CATO: https://www.cato.org/blog/more-costl...ariffs-horizon
AP on CATO: https://apnews.com/article/trump-tar...96229068894720
SPG: https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en...US%20as%20well

Re: the USMCA Automotive Rules of Origin:
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub5443.pdf

Further historical evidence of the failure of dangerously nostalgic tariff advocates to realize that modernity has long surpassed the relevance and utility of such import duties in relation to revenue, restriction, and reciprocity (thanks, Professor Irwin). A ton more can be found in overabundance across the spectrum of sources: trade and jobs, US-China, manufacturing, FRED analysis, toasters and steel cost more (American steel company took advantage by raising their prices to “compete” with tariff’ed imports), China, what could be strategically beneficial great power cooperation, Trump turned into a great power competition that he lost, WSJ posits the Trump’s woeful lack of understanding of tariffs, Forbes get real about Trump and tariff folly, Wharton School’s own PWBM analysis and commentary, say again, “manufacturing jobs" (research estimate of impacts of the famous washing machine fiasco and job cost). In general, there are wheelbarrows full of conclusive postmortem studies that cite the tariff-inspired trade war Trump started (and lost on our behalf) in his first term (and which he appears ready to renew in 2025) produced near- and long-term net negative distributive impacts on nearly all aspects of the US economy.

Given the evidence, are we declaring that it's "political" merely to say so? Of course not. That wouldn't be a reasonable conclusion. Rather, it's the crass, reactionary response to such evidence presented within mature discussions that we may wrongly classify as "political speech" when, really, it's just antagonism for its own sake.