• aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    WTF is with these dumb bitches and fucking doll quotes? Do they have a secret Nazi dollhouse they play with?

  • Veedem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Stephen Miller looks like a dude who definitely wears leather heels and a ball gag at home.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Maybe I’m reading into this too much, but I think they picked dolls on purpose. Not just because of the phrase “China Doll”, but also to play into their alpha male bullshit. They are intentionally feminizing the opposition to keep the manosphere engaged.

    • Parsizzle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s an interesting point. When I first read the quote from Trump about 2 dolls instead of 30, I thought he was just out of touch - I mean are dolls still a popular thing in today’s day and age? Is he just out of touch?

      But no, there’s a reason for the usage of the term. Quite an interesting point, especially considering the demographic that largely voted for him this second election was younger men.

      • Matengor@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It reminds me of 1954. A happy family sitting around the christmas tree, young Barbara unwrapping her new porcelain doll … It might be to appeal to the boomer generation and their conservative romantic memories?

        To me, it’s something my grandma might have said to me. So, yeah. Probably a choice of words to set the atmosphere 👵😊

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Amazing how quickly they pivoted from “Trump will bring down the price of groceries” to “It’s better if things get more expensive,” and his cultists just ate it up.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Three actually. The admin has also consistently claimed that they’re a new source of revenue that will offset tax cuts (in some versions this removes income taxes entirely).

        And yes, as you said (and I’ve made this point more than a few times on here myself), each version of what the tariffs do is mutually exclusive with the others. If they’re a bargaining tactic, they cannot be a source of revenue or a permanent change to manufacturing, because a bargaining tactic requires the offer of the tariffs being removed. Even if they’re not actually a bargaining tactic and are in fact intended to be permanent, they can’t be both a source of revenue and a way to rebuild American manufacturing. For the tariffs to be a source of revenue, imports have to continue at their existing levels. If manufacturing repatriates, the revenue disappears.