apawloski

Free speech includes disagreeing with things people say.. Surely in your absolute model they should also be allowed to do this?

Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the administrative procedure act, etc.

Exercising its power as a purchaser is "not buying it" or "choosing a competitor." Instead, this is arbitrarily and capriciously using an administrative mechanism in a novel way to punish a company.

Unless the counts were unclear it would actually be all three!

I’m curious what your findings are for the best model for your use case

Are you a real American? Am I?

Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually."

But unfortunately, there are other channels for them to effectively do the same thing, as discussed in oral arguments. So still not a major win for American manufacturers or consumers, I fear.

Can you clarify what you mean by "not very durable?"

Agree. It is harder to manufacture in America when the party leader breaks critical parts of your supply chain with rapid and unpredictable tariff changes. It is impossible to lower consumer prices on a good by raising taxes on it.

This is not even mentioning the astounding corruption of a president and his family personally and directly benefiting from these tariffs threats.

Does the party not understand the realities of this? Do they understand and are just lying about it because they're afraid of the leader? Afraid of admitting that they're wrong? I believe people are usually rational but I do not understand a rationalization where choosing to harm American manufacturers and consumers on the whims of a visibly corrupt leader is good, actually.

Does fishing without a license warrant the same large-scale violent carceral approach that DHS is taking? That would be an insane, disruptive overreaction for something that poses no public safety danger.

> It was accomplished by simply choosing to enforce the law.

They accomplished it by terrorizing people based on the color of their skin. There's nothing "simple" about creating a gigantic secret police force. There's nothing "lawful" about blatantly ignoring court orders.

You already conceded that there is no public danger. Your argument boils down yet again Great Replacement nonsense about immigrants being bad for America.

> Well because I want the laws enforced.

All laws? Because there are several that the administration are actively breaking. Surely you want those enforced too? How about court orders?

> Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to.

I mean, Obama was way more effective at deporting illegal immigrants than Trump. Even by raw numbers. So I'm not sure how you can honestly argue that de-naturalization quotas are necessary now, when they weren't before for an even more effective administration.