The Lunatic Fringe - Political Chat

[searcher]

Nothing to see, can listen in one tab, play around the forum in a different tab.

Was The Blackout In Spain A Coincidence?​

Apr 30, 2025 Doug Casey's Take

In this episode, Michael Yon provides a detailed update from Panama, discussing the geopolitical struggles for control of the Panama Canal, and the larger global context involving China, the United Nations, and the United States. The conversation covers the ongoing migration crisis, particularly through the Darien Gap, and explores the impacts of global power plays on Panama and other key naval choke points. The discussion also touches on economic issues in China, the significance of historical events, and the potential for large-scale conflicts and famines in the near future.
Chapters / timeline below the vid on youtube.


1:46:30

 

[searcher]

 

[Goldhedge]

Rand is looking compromised like a democrat....

 

[Goldhedge]

 

[Goldhedge]

Great interview!

 

[Voodoo]

Rand is looking compromised like a democrat....

What you talkin bout Willis?

 

[Goldhedge]

Fussy David Brooks, Virtuous Conservative™ recently authored a New York Times opinion piece that literally calls for an uprising of our privileged “elites” against what he calls “Trumpism.” (I’ll link to the article in my comment post immediately below, as the algorithm hates third party links.)

This article is of a piece that we have seen over and over since 2016 from both the elitist left and the elitist right—i.e., it’s a mish-mash of woebegone self-pity mixed with outright contempt for the unenlightened proletariat as the self-appointed “elite” author struggles to understand why the power of the intelligentsia has slipped away, why the institutions that grew over centuries have failed to garner the respect they once held, and what must be done to restore the status quo.

First of all, it’s impossible to restore that status quo.

The reason why it is impossible is the same reason why the “elites” have watched their power evaporate.

That reason? It’s pretty simple to grasp. It’s called “the Internet.”

I’ll explain.

You see, for thousands of years, the elite members of society who gained power through knowledge did so because that knowledge was SPECIALIZED, and to even have access to that knowledge, one needed to be a member of the guild that was the custodian of that knowledge.

Only physicians had access to the latest medical science. Only attorneys had access to the most recent common law court decisions in their vast legal libraries and, later, Westlaw. Only psychologists had access to the latest understandings of the human mind. Only Medieval literature professors had access to the footnoted versions of Chaucer. Only journalists had access to a printing press and, later, Lexis/Nexis. Only political scientists had access to the forums and journals where their collective theories were formed. Etc. Etc. You get the idea.

To be in the guild meant you had access to the guild’s knowledge, it meant you could BLOCK THAT ACCESS from the non-guild members, and whatever analyses, judgements, recommendations and policies your expert position created was unchallengeable by the unwashed masses because only the guild had access to the knowledge upon which such analyses, judgements, recommendations and policies were made.

But along came the Internet, and all of that knowledge was suddenly available to EVERYONE.

Now don’t get me wrong—you still need medical training to understand most medical literature. You still need to know how Olde English worked to really get Chaucer. Same with being an attorney. I’m one, and it drives me crazy when a client thinks they know the law because they read something online about “piercing the corporate veil” and it makes them think they are an expert on the subject, even though they miss key concepts.

Yet…

What the Internet has done is give the layperson access to the guild’s knowledge at a deep enough level to know WHEN THE GUILD WAS WRONG.

That’s what’s new, at least since the Internet, the WWW and AI became ubiquitous.

The layperson may not understand immunology, but that layperson now has enough knowledge to know how wrong the guild was on COVID.

The layperson may not understand all facets of Russian spydom, but the layperson had enough knowledge to know that the guild was wrong on “Trump/Russia collusion” and Hunter’s laptop.

The layperson may not understand all of the intricacies of criminal law, but the layperson had enough knowledge to know that the guild’s lawfare against Trump was both legally and morally wrong.

Basically, the Internet gave the layperson access to the guild’s knowledge, and with it, the layperson could see JUST HOW WRONG THE GUILD USUALLY WAS.

Which got the layperson thinking: “If they are that wrong now, how do I know they have not been that wrong for centuries??? They probably have been!”

And with THAT, the “elite" status of our self-appointed betters went *POOF*, and it ain’t ever coming back, at least not until EMP puts us back into the Stone Age.

It’s so simple to see, but the guilds still cannot see it: once the average person has access to your knowledge, they will know when you are wrong, and when you lie to them.

The status of a diploma or some initials after your name no longer have the power they once had, and they never will again, thanks to the Internet.

I do not understand why this is so hard for the Fussy David Brooks of the world to understand.

 

[Goldhedge]

What you talkin bout Willis?

GROK: Is Rand Paul fighting against Trump’s tariffs

Yes, Senator Rand Paul is actively opposing President Donald Trump's tariff policies. As a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky, Paul has consistently criticized Trump's tariffs, arguing they act as taxes on American consumers, raise prices, and harm the economy. His opposition is grounded in both economic and constitutional concerns, emphasizing that the power to impose tariffs (or taxes) belongs to Congress, not the president, and that using emergency powers to enact tariffs is an overreach of executive authority.

Here are key points of his efforts:

Legislative Actions:
Paul co-sponsored a bipartisan Senate resolution with Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to terminate the national emergency declaration Trump used to impose global tariffs, arguing it violates the Constitution by bypassing Congress. This resolution, supported by Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Tim Kaine, aimed to repeal tariffs but failed in a 49-49 Senate vote on April 30, 2025, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Vice President JD Vance ensuring its defeat.

He supported a successful Senate resolution (51-48) on April 2, 2025, to block tariffs on Canada, co-sponsored with Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.). However, this faces challenges in the Republican-controlled House and a likely Trump veto.

Paul introduced the "No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2025" to require congressional approval for tariffs, aiming to curb unilateral presidential tariff powers.

Public Statements and Advocacy:
Paul has publicly called tariffs "a tax on the consumer" and warned they could lead to higher prices for goods like groceries, smartphones, and cars, citing estimates that tariffs could cost American families $1,200-$4,200 annually.

He has argued that tariffs are politically damaging for Republicans, referencing historical examples like the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which led to GOP electoral losses.

In a Senate floor speech on April 2, 2025, Paul criticized the use of emergency powers for tariffs, stating, “I don’t want to live under emergency rule,” and emphasized bipartisan concerns about executive overreach.

He has claimed that some GOP lawmakers privately support his stance but fear backlash for publicly opposing Trump.

Economic Arguments:
Paul, a proponent of free trade, argues that trade is mutually beneficial and that tariffs disrupt this, harming industries like Kentucky’s bourbon, auto, and farming sectors, which face retaliatory tariffs from countries like Canada and Europe.

He has cited market downturns, such as the stock market’s significant losses after Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs (10% on all imports, with higher rates on Canada, Mexico, and China), as evidence of their economic harm.

Context of Opposition:
Paul’s stance makes him an outlier among Republicans, most of whom either support Trump’s “America First” tariff agenda or remain silent. Only a few GOP senators, like Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, have joined him in voting against tariffs (e.g., the Canada resolution).

Trump has criticized Paul and other dissenting Republicans, calling them “disloyal” and accusing them of siding with Democrats.

Despite his opposition to tariffs, Paul has supported other Trump policies, such as his cabinet nominees and the DOGE initiative, indicating his disagreement is policy-specific.

While Paul’s efforts have garnered some bipartisan support and media attention, they face significant hurdles due to Republican majorities in Congress, Trump’s veto threats, and procedural blocks in the House. His campaign against tariffs continues to focus on rallying both public and congressional support to limit executive power and protect free trade.