As a classic liberal (as The Economist would define it), which means I consider myself pretty centrist, and I agree with you completely Liberty. I've spent a lot of time of the last couple years debating right wing investors online, and I still can't say I understand them, but I think they understand that their policies will make us poorer, but it seems like something else is the priority for them. They are enjoying "their guy" (how they feel their guy represents them is beyond me) being in the drivers seat and sticking it to all the ppl they feel have been looking down on them for so long. Kinda like a socialist mindset of wanting the would to be more perfect than is practically possible, and more perfect to them is if their old jobs were considered as high status as they once were over 50 years ago. You and I know that's not possible. Likewise, the individualistic mindset of wanting to make it "ourselves" trusts anyone of the 350M people within our borders arbitrarily determined by some politicians long ago to make stuff, but not anyone outside those borders. The national flag creates a powerful US vs them team mindset. I've been making plans for my family to have an escape route should this guy succeed in dismantling rule of law completely, as I've read and watched this movie too many times before.
On bulldogs — even if you can’t be one yourself (young in your career, don’t have the personality for it, or whatever the case may be), just don’t be the anti-bulldog!! Support your local bulldogs and make sure even if you have disagreements on the “how”, that you loudly support the pace at which they want to operate.
We need as many pro-bulldog supporters as we need bulldogs.
This reduces trade policy to GDP math and “big countries produce more” logic, completely missing the point.
The issue isn’t whether Vietnam or China can buy as much from us as we buy from them. Of course they can’t. They’re poorer. That’s exactly the problem: we’ve offshored critical supply chains to countries that either exploit slave labor (China) or can’t afford to buy what we make (Vietnam), creating permanent dependency and strategic vulnerability.
This isn’t about efficiency anymore—it’s about sovereignty. It’s about whether the U.S. can build what it needs in a crisis, without begging our rivals for the parts. It’s about national security, industrial resilience, and moral clarity.
If your trade framework doesn’t account for any of that, then you’re not serious. You’re just rearranging numbers on a spreadsheet while the country gets hollowed out.
This is a different topic than what I was writing about, but there can be justification for trade policy that includes tariffs and targeted barriers for national security.
But what we're seeing is definitely not that. Good policy isn't this blunt and crude and improvised; broad-based tariffs on everyone based on nonsensical math and assumptions about trade deficits, huge supply chain disruptions popping up rapidly and unpredictably, changing daily and weekly, removing any predictability necessary to conduct business and invest. It's pushing away every ally and making it harder and more expensive to manufacture in the US at the same time. Counterproductive.
What we're seeing is hurting that objective of a stronger country with more robust sovereignty.
You’re still framing this through the old lens—like we’re living in a stable, rules-based global system where predictability matters more than sovereignty. We’re not. That world is gone. You don’t get to critique today’s policies using yesterday’s assumptions.
In times where national security is on the line, yes—things move fast, lines blur, and disruption happens. That’s not failure. That’s what transition looks like when you’re unwinding decades of dependency on adversaries and slave labor.
You’re asking for clean and quiet change in a world that no longer allows it. That’s the part you’re not seeing—and you’re not getting back the system you think you’re defending.
On LMNT: I have it and definitely notice a difference. I got a personal record in my 5K the first time I used it and felt great during and after.
Will admit that it is a little pricey for what is effectively just salt, and it may be a bit of a placebo, so I try to use it only for when I am sweating like crazy (long cardio days) or feeling exceptionally sore/fatigued after a workout. I sometimes will use a pinch of salt with lemon and a banana as a snack to get going in the morning for a smaller boost.
Do you notice any drop off between LMNT & Leanfit? Have you tried making your own mix at home?
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-man-meltdown/
As a classic liberal (as The Economist would define it), which means I consider myself pretty centrist, and I agree with you completely Liberty. I've spent a lot of time of the last couple years debating right wing investors online, and I still can't say I understand them, but I think they understand that their policies will make us poorer, but it seems like something else is the priority for them. They are enjoying "their guy" (how they feel their guy represents them is beyond me) being in the drivers seat and sticking it to all the ppl they feel have been looking down on them for so long. Kinda like a socialist mindset of wanting the would to be more perfect than is practically possible, and more perfect to them is if their old jobs were considered as high status as they once were over 50 years ago. You and I know that's not possible. Likewise, the individualistic mindset of wanting to make it "ourselves" trusts anyone of the 350M people within our borders arbitrarily determined by some politicians long ago to make stuff, but not anyone outside those borders. The national flag creates a powerful US vs them team mindset. I've been making plans for my family to have an escape route should this guy succeed in dismantling rule of law completely, as I've read and watched this movie too many times before.
It's sad that it has come to this. It's a bit like that meme from Breaking Bad.. You had a good thing going, but you had to ruin it!
On bulldogs — even if you can’t be one yourself (young in your career, don’t have the personality for it, or whatever the case may be), just don’t be the anti-bulldog!! Support your local bulldogs and make sure even if you have disagreements on the “how”, that you loudly support the pace at which they want to operate.
We need as many pro-bulldog supporters as we need bulldogs.
Yep! As long as the goals given to these bulldogs are good goals, of course!
There are also Bulldogs making organizations worse out there, I'm sure.
That would be a tough person to work with. Channeling energy, organizational cache, and a “get it done” attitude to implement really bad ideas. Yikes!
That's why leadership at the top is so important. Bad leadership can ruin great businesses, great products, great cultures, great teams...
This reduces trade policy to GDP math and “big countries produce more” logic, completely missing the point.
The issue isn’t whether Vietnam or China can buy as much from us as we buy from them. Of course they can’t. They’re poorer. That’s exactly the problem: we’ve offshored critical supply chains to countries that either exploit slave labor (China) or can’t afford to buy what we make (Vietnam), creating permanent dependency and strategic vulnerability.
This isn’t about efficiency anymore—it’s about sovereignty. It’s about whether the U.S. can build what it needs in a crisis, without begging our rivals for the parts. It’s about national security, industrial resilience, and moral clarity.
If your trade framework doesn’t account for any of that, then you’re not serious. You’re just rearranging numbers on a spreadsheet while the country gets hollowed out.
This is a different topic than what I was writing about, but there can be justification for trade policy that includes tariffs and targeted barriers for national security.
But what we're seeing is definitely not that. Good policy isn't this blunt and crude and improvised; broad-based tariffs on everyone based on nonsensical math and assumptions about trade deficits, huge supply chain disruptions popping up rapidly and unpredictably, changing daily and weekly, removing any predictability necessary to conduct business and invest. It's pushing away every ally and making it harder and more expensive to manufacture in the US at the same time. Counterproductive.
What we're seeing is hurting that objective of a stronger country with more robust sovereignty.
You’re still framing this through the old lens—like we’re living in a stable, rules-based global system where predictability matters more than sovereignty. We’re not. That world is gone. You don’t get to critique today’s policies using yesterday’s assumptions.
In times where national security is on the line, yes—things move fast, lines blur, and disruption happens. That’s not failure. That’s what transition looks like when you’re unwinding decades of dependency on adversaries and slave labor.
You’re asking for clean and quiet change in a world that no longer allows it. That’s the part you’re not seeing—and you’re not getting back the system you think you’re defending.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think even with your framing, the way this is approached is counter-productive and hurts these objectives.
I guess we'll see what happens either way.
Well, JP is definitely right that we’re not living in a “stable, rules-based global system” anymore 😂😂.
That part is definitely correct 💯
On LMNT: I have it and definitely notice a difference. I got a personal record in my 5K the first time I used it and felt great during and after.
Will admit that it is a little pricey for what is effectively just salt, and it may be a bit of a placebo, so I try to use it only for when I am sweating like crazy (long cardio days) or feeling exceptionally sore/fatigued after a workout. I sometimes will use a pinch of salt with lemon and a banana as a snack to get going in the morning for a smaller boost.
Do you notice any drop off between LMNT & Leanfit? Have you tried making your own mix at home?