Nightwingdragon

Oh, I never said it would end there. I'm just saying that'll be roughly what the price will be when people start complaining.

"But it was up to the Biden administration to enforce it and they did a horrible job and the whole thing needs to be redone because of that. If Biden had actually enforced the bill that I put into place when I was President the first time we wouldn't be in this situation now where i have to redo everything from scratch so it's Biden's fault that you all lost your jobs and everything is twice as expensive and gas is $4 a gallon but dont worry in 2 weeks i'll have prices back down to normal and you won't have to worry about gas prices again and it'll be great and Canada and Mexico will be paying billions to our new external revenue department just wait and see."

Edward Snowden sitting in Russia thinking "Damn it, if I had just kept those documents in my bathroom, I could be President right now!"

Well, the prices of everything are about to skyrocket and will never come back down. Once companies see that consumers will pay these inflated prices (because they have no other choice if they want to do things like eat or drive), that's going to become the new price. Even if the tariffs are rescinded later, the decreased tariffs will just turn into more profit for the corporation, not lower prices for the consumer.

This is just going to turn into nothing more than lost jobs, skyrocketing inflation, and probably a recession.

And why would anyone ever "negotiate a deal" with Trump again? He already threatened them with a 10% tariff once before, and got them to commit to spending $1.3 billion on a "border control problem" that doesn't actually exist. Then he slaps bigger tariffs on them anyway? Who in their right mind is going to want to negotiate in good faith knowing full well that Trump can and will just go "eh....nah" on a whim and renege on his end of the deal because fuck you that's why? Especially since Trump's biggest problem is supposedly our current trade deal with Mexico and Canada, which Trump crafted back in 2020 in the first place.

Remember the day: January 31, 2024 will soon be known as the day that prices were at their lowest during Trump's entire administration. It's all uphill from here. Fast.

Schumer doesn't have the votes to do jack shit.

The GOP has a 53 seat majority, they only need 50 to confirm appointments. They can tell Schumer to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up and there's nothing he or the Democrats can do about it.

Given the damage they've been able to cause in just over a week, I don't think we'll be able to rely on that nearly as much as last time.

Let’s never be taken in by corporate marketing claims about “our values” again. Under capitalism corporations will throw anyone under the bus whenever they stand to make more money by doing so.

Always been that way. Corporations aren't benevolent. These DEI initiatives would have never been implemented in the first place if these companies weren't making even more money on the back end.

But now here's the thing. Trump has successfully made DEI initiatives political battery acid. He is also in control of the government. And his supporters have already been shown to be willing to back up their anti-DEI initiatives with boycotts that are actually effective and impact their bottom lines (See Budweiser and Target as prime examples), along with a willingness to physically show up and cause a scene when they walk into a store and see a rainbow display somewhere (there are about eleventy zillion examples of this on Youtube).

There's also another unfortunate fact to consider. The people who make these decisions aren't the ones who have to deal with the fallout. They get to sit in their corporate offices. It's Judy, the 16 year old cashier that happens to be the first person some GOP bigot saw when he walked in the store that has to take the brunt of it, while also being the least equipped person to do so. And these people aren't above using violence. I would not be surprised if at least some of the reason these companies are ditching DEI initiatives is to protect the safety of the rank-and-file employees.

Given the direction the political winds are blowing, the fact that Republicans know how to organize and pull off an effective boycott, and if all else fails are willing to commit acts of violence to get their way, it's not a big surprise that companies are trying to run away from DEI initiatives at warp speed. There's no more profit in it for them. In fact, it probably is going to do more harm than good. It puts employees at risk of retaliation. It's no surprise that companies are deciding it's no longer worth the hassle.

So the answer to this problem is to just remove the hotspots so kids don't get any viewpoints at all and remain uneducated......oooohhh

There's only one way to lower prices. Extremely aggressive government action that will never happen, especially under a Trump adminstration.

First, they would have to hold Congressional hearings and drag the CEOs of these large corporations in front of the House to explain why their profit margins are going up far faster than normal inflation pressures should dictate, and why this trend started during the COVID pandemic. Let these CEOs try to explain away the price gouging and the profiteering. Hold CEOs in contempt if they refuse to answer or give one of those meaningless word salads of buzzwords meant to say a whole lot of nothing, and actually start jailing these bastards for 30 days for trying to tiptoe around it.

Tax profit margins that are above 2019 levels for the industry at 100%. If the average profit margin for the industry in 2019 was 5% and your company suddenly has a 10% margin in 2024, then tax that additional 5% at a 100% tax rate. Make price gouging both illegal and pointless since the government would just take it all anyway.

When CEOs start having to make regular trips to Washington to explain why their profits keep skyrocketing and the government comes in to take all that excess profit anyway, and watch prices come back down.

Another problem is this: People think delaying using something is "boycotting". Boycotting is saying you're not going to use something and then actually not using it. Today, tomorrow, ever. That's a boycott.

Saying "I'm going to stand in solidarity and not use Facebook today in protest of XYZ" doesn't mean squat if you just jump right back on facebook the next day and spend twice as much time telling everybody how righteous you were for participating in yesterday's boycott. Saying you're going to protest Amazon on day XYZ doesn't matter if you just wait until the day after the boycott is over and just buy everything anyway. But this is what most people do, even if they don't realize that their actions ultimately make whatever message they were trying to send moot. Corporations already account for these kind of protests, and they know that more often than not all people do is just delay their purchases by a few days, so there's often no long term financial impact. At most, you annoy some bean counter who has to make a slight adjustment in some month-over-month sales report.

Old man was okay until the shit debate job then it was old man bad.

We were hearing everything from "he's too old" to "he's got dementia" for months. The debate was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Biden was trending at -5 before the debate.

Then guys who worked with Hillary made them stop calling trump and co. weird or saying “we’re not going back”, which were both effective.

"We're not going back" was her campaign slogan and there were people chanting it right up until election day.

I think they started backing off on the "weird" thing after the Trump/Harris debate. Trump gave the much-remembered "They're eating the dogs!" line, which itself would have been a campaign-ender for literally any other human being, and everybody started trying to use that against him. Which makes sense. Why stick to something like "weird" when your opponent is giving you such juicy ammo to use against them? I'd have done the same thing, and I think so would anybody else.

The problem is it didn't work. Voters heard that and said "Yes, I'd like to have more of that."

Top that off with trying to peel away R voters, muh egg prices, her refusing to say Biden did a bad job when she was on the view (she could have dodged and said she’d do better, lets be real.) and refusing Rogan entirely and you have a recipe for a bad time wrt undecideds.

There is never a situation where a candidate is going to say that an incumbent member of their own party is doing a bad job. That's just an unrealistic expectation to have. She would have been playing right into Trump's hands, who would have used that to make the last few months of Biden's presidency even more difficult and miserable. The most you could have expected is something along the lines of "We disagree on the finer points of some things......". But you are never going to hear a candidate basically shit on the leader of their own party like that.

And remember that she was Vice President. Go back and watch Trump during the campaign. When Biden dropped out, Trump essentially just swapped out Biden's name for Harris and continued on with his campaign, acting as if Harris had been President for the past four years. He convinced a whole bunch of those undecideds that the "Harris Administration" was the source of all their problems, even though the VP has little role in day to day administration. To these undecideds, the "Biden Administration" and the "Harris Administration" were one and the same, and her saying that Biden did a bad job would be like saying she did a bad job. Trump would have been beating her over the head with that up and down the campaign trail. She would have sabotaged her own campaign and basically taken a shit on the last 3 months of Biden's presidency in the process.