Tariffs?

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, mirkwood said:

@JohnsonJones the violent political left is quite small.  Very few of them have any training or skill.  The violent left kicks something significant off and they will die in droves.  If you think otherwise you are quite naive.  

The most violent Left I hear about are the gangs, and supposedly there are enough gang members throughout the US that they actually outnumber the US military, which means they also outnumber the amount of Police. 

Gangs are supposedly a major problem in the US  (and have been since at least the 60s), have guns, and do a LOT of crime.

I know Salt Lake City is actually considered one of the safer cities in the nation and has far less crime and criminal activity than most, but even there I would think the Law Officers would recognize that could be a serious problem if all those people ever got organized and angry.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The most violent Left I hear about are the gangs

Gangs aren't political.  Folks join gangs when the streets are safer than home, or out of boredom, or a love of crime.

You think AOC or Pelosi is gonna rile up the Tongan Crips or the 38th street brotherhood or the Sinaloas, and get them to march to anyone's banner?  

Are you thinking about antifa or BLM?  They aren't gangs.  There are radical leftist organizers peppered throughout them, manipulating the mass movements, but they're not inherently political either.  

Edited April 5 by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The most violent Left I hear about are the gangs, and supposedly there are enough gang members throughout the US that they actually outnumber the US military, which means they also outnumber the amount of Police. 

Gangs are supposedly a major problem in the US  (and have been since at least the 60s), have guns, and do a LOT of crime.

I know Salt Lake City is actually considered one of the safer cities in the nation and has far less crime and criminal activity than most, but even there I would think the Law Officers would recognize that could be a serious problem if all those people ever got organized and angry.

I have to shake my head and laugh at some of the things you say...

 

The total number of gang members do not outnumber the total number of the US military or law enforcement.

There are approximately 700,000 gang members in the US.

There are approximately 1.2 million police officers in the US.

There are approximately 2 million members of the military in the US.

Now add in the retired members of both the military and law enforcement who are still capable of operating.  

Yeah, gangs would die in droves.

The violent left would die in droves.

 

VERY few of those gang members have any sort of firearms or tactical skills.  Most of them hate each other so most of them will not work together...for any reason.

 

Next point, see @NeuroTypical's comment above about AOC and Pelosi and gangs.

 

 

 

 

[Ironhold]

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Are you thinking about antifa or BLM?  They aren't gangs.  There are radical leftist organizers peppered throughout them, manipulating the mass movements, but they're not inherently political either.  

Organizers? 

The modern Antifa movement is shot through with anarcho-communists who believe that violence is an inevitable part of the "revolution" that will destroy capitalism and so they use that as an excuse to be violent. 

They fail to understand that their decision to engage in violence in order to suppress and destroy alternate viewpoints and those who express them makes them the fascists by default. 

One of the fastest ways to get an anarcho-capitalist screaming at you is to confuse them with an anarcho-communist, as anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists *hate* each other despite both being anarchists at heart. There's also no love lost between the anarcho-pacifists and the anarcho-communists. 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

It is all about encouraging these countries to drop the tariffs they use against us.

[Carborendum]

19 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

It is all about encouraging these countries to drop the tariffs they use against us.

It's more than that.  There is a reason Trump is "playing" with tariffs.  And it will cause the entire world economy to go up and down quite a bit throughout this year.

Everything must be perfectly executed for it to work.  Otherwise, Trump is going to destroy the world economy.  And the activist judges are doing everything in their power to make sure things are NOT executed perfectly.

It is a roll of the dice. 

Edited April 7 by Carborendum

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It's more than that.  There is a reason Trump is "playing" with tariffs.  And it will cause the entire world economy to go up and down quite a bit throughout this year.

Everything must be perfectly executed for it to work.  Otherwise, Trump is going to destroy the world economy.  And the activist judges are doing everything in their power to make sure things are NOT executed perfectly.

It is a roll of the dice. 

Our so called allies have been tariffing us blind for decades, it is time for that to end. 

[NeuroTypical]

On 4/6/2025 at 7:31 AM, Ironhold said:

Organizers? 

The modern Antifa movement is shot through with anarcho-communists who believe that violence is an inevitable part of the "revolution" that will destroy capitalism and so they use that as an excuse to be violent.

I'm thinking we probably don't have much disagreement here.  If you haven't watched the 1984 Yuri Bezmenov interview, it's absolutely worth an hour and a half.  When they make me emperor of the humans, watching it will be a prerequisite before you can vote. 

[Backroads]

I'm just going to say thank-you for this thread. It was fairly idiot-friendly for the tariff debate. I still have no real opinion.

[Carborendum]

For those who will understand:

Stupid Giant Penguins.

[NeuroTypical]

34 minutes ago, Backroads said:

It was fairly idiot-friendly for the tariff debate. I still have no real opinion.

Well, I'm largely an idiot on the subject, and remain pretty much unqualified to cast a relevant opinion. 

The case for tariffs have a lot of things that sound good but I don't understand: 

- For decades the US has slashed trade barriers, while many/most other nations have not returned the same. America is happy to buy everything from everywhere.  Other places are often much more selective and protectionist.

- Besides plain old tariffs and VAT taxes, other nations use non-monetary barriers like currency manipulation, subsidizing exports, stealing our IP, adopting unfair rules and technical standards, creating 'pollution havens'. 

I've heard all of these things talked about over the decades by both parties - usually the ones not in power are accusing the ones in power of not doing more to stop it.  So Trump's talk is that of 'no more unilateral surrender' and 'we're not gonna keep refusing to fight the economic war we've lost for decades'.  Is he right?  Dunno.

I do know I'm still not too impressed by everyone screaming about the stock market and forecasting armageddon: 

[JohnsonJones]

Well, what I see about his tariffs is that a lot of people's 401K's are taking some serious hits right now. 

There have been some interesting things this year.  I was finally going to retire at the end of this semester  (and still plan to).  My health is actually not that great these days so the need to finally retire is...basically now.

A few weeks ago I was asked to reconsider my retirement.  It sounds like grants and other things are also giving the administration (university, not Nation) headaches with the going on's recently.  I am done with all the insanity of the university though, I'm ready to at least enjoy a year or two (hopefully more) of just being with my wife, maybe travelling...etc.

I am lucky with this though.  If I was having to rely entirely on a 403 or 401 after this last month, I would probably be seriously worried about my future.  With the market crashes we've been having (not unexpected with the tariffs battles we've had which have marked some market instability, which is where a lot of investments are placed) over the past little while quite a few are probably very nervous about their retirements.

That said, we are probably going to buy a new washing machine and dryer this week and I already ordered a new laptop before the time when the tariffs could hit and drive the prices of those items up. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/5/2025 at 4:35 PM, mirkwood said:

I have to shake my head and laugh at some of the things you say...

 

The total number of gang members do not outnumber the total number of the US military or law enforcement.

There are approximately 700,000 gang members in the US.

There are approximately 1.2 million police officers in the US.

There are approximately 2 million members of the military in the US.

Now add in the retired members of both the military and law enforcement who are still capable of operating.  

Yeah, gangs would die in droves.

The violent left would die in droves.

 

VERY few of those gang members have any sort of firearms or tactical skills.  Most of them hate each other so most of them will not work together...for any reason.

 

Next point, see @NeuroTypical's comment above about AOC and Pelosi and gangs.

 

 

 

 

According to the DOJ

Quote

More than 20,000 gangs consisting of approximately 1 million members exist in the United States; gangs are present in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories. The 2007 NDTS and current law enforcement reporting reveal that more than 20,000 gangs are active throughout the United States. Moreover, 2007 NDTS and law enforcement data indicate that at least 780,000 members of street and prison gangs currently reside within communities across the country and at least another 123,000 documented members are incarcerated in state correctional facilities⁴ (see Appendix A, Scope and Methodology). The 2007 NDTS data further reveal that at least 30,000 OMG members operate in communities throughout the country (See Appendix E, Maps 2, 3, and 5). Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) tracks Security Threat Groups, defined as groups, gangs, or inmate organizations that have been observed acting in concert to promote violence, escape, and drug or terrorist activity. As of March 2008, 20,811 individual inmates in BOP custody have been identified as being affiliated with a Security Threat Group.

 DoJ gang estimate numbers

They seem to think approximately 1 million members of gangs exist in the US. 

Isn't that one of the reasons Trump is stating for deporting a lot of those he is deporting (and the pictures that I've seen show a group that had the MS-13 tattoos all over their body) them without a hearing?

He claims they are a threat and that many of them are doing criminal activity (even if they have not had their day in court to prove it or show it).

It's a good point that we do not know the political affiliation of gangs, but I think most Republicans that I know would not want to claim gangs as being politically affiliated with the right.

More often, I would think things from the Left (legalization of Drugs, relaxed rules on pornographic material [with the idea of free speech] rather than the laws many conservative states are issuing regarding restrictions on them) would be more of the political arenas the gangs would prefer.

There would be areas where the gangs would have a stronger hold and areas where they would be weaker (for example, Salt Lake would probably be a safer area in the case of a Gang violence, whereas Chicago with an estimated 100K gang members probably would not be).

Of course, the gangs are not the only people that have guns on the left. 

There are 45.1 million Democrats.  Supposedly 20% of them also are gun owners (and I would imagine some have been trained on them, for example, Walz who was the recent VP candidate under Harris has had training with weapons).  That would be around 9 million more right there. 

How many voters have a party affiliation

Pew Research About Americans and Guns

And of course, that doesn't mean that encompasses all those on the left.  As per another thread, some one said that 55% of Democrats condone violence (against the President).  I believe it's the Trump Derangement Syndrome Thread.  That doesn't sound very unviolent to me.  That would mean, with 55% of 9 million you'd have almost 5 million (4.95) armed and angry people.

I do not condone violence, and I hope that violence like that doesn't break out.  However, if people started to threaten this type of stuff, I'm not sure that it would be something to easily laugh off either. 

Edited April 7 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Supposedly 20% of them also are gun owners

Down here, even the liberals own guns, they are just quiet about it.

[Ironhold]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm thinking we probably don't have much disagreement here.  If you haven't watched the 1984 Yuri Bezmenov interview, it's absolutely worth an hour and a half.  When they make me emperor of the humans, watching it will be a prerequisite before you can vote. 

Remember, between my MBA training and what I got from the School of Hard Knocks I have a de facto minor in psychological warfare, with an emphasis on how to determine points of failure within a system. 

I was essentially trained to do the kind of thing he was warning about. 

That's why I'm doing what I can to warn people without coming off as the Boy Who Cried Wolf. 

As it is, a *lot* of people who identify as "educated", "woke", and "progressive" have chosen to ignore me because what I'm trying to tell them would force them to engage in the kind of self-reflection that by definition they feel they aren't required to do. 

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Backroads said:

I'm just going to say thank-you for this thread. It was fairly idiot-friendly for the tariff debate. I still have no real opinion.

I'll go ahead and explain a bit more about tariffs.

FREE TRADE:

The ideal situation for all involved would be if the entire world engaged in free trade (i.e. no tariffs anywhere on earth). But the fact is that any single nation will see the benefit of imposing tariffs on other nations while they, themselves, aren't charged any tariffs at all.  Naturally, that results in others issuing tariffs in retaliation just to balance things out.

But we (the US) have a unique position in the world.  We are so much more wealthy than the vast majority of the world that we have been mostly tariff free when importing from other nations, while other nations issue insane levels of tariffs on our goods going to them.  Some of them are over 90%.  Yet we keep chugging along as if we have all the money in the world to spend.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS:

Adam Smith liked the idea of free trade.  But he also knew that it is the natural tendency of all nations to want to impose tariffs.  So, being a realist, he indicated that protective tariffs (while still undesirable) may be a necessary tool to negotiate the elimination of the foreign country's taxing of our goods.

NECESSITY OF TAXES:

We all know that in order for a government to function, they need some form of revenue.  Before the 16th amendment, the vast majority if Federal Revenues were from tariffs.  And it ran well until a war raged.  They imposed other taxes (including income taxes) to make up the difference.  But that was only until the war ended.

ENDLESS WARS:

The 16th amendment was passed just a few years before WWI broke out in Europe.  When the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania, the military-industrial complex was born.  Leaders got it into their heads that as long as we had to fight a war, then we can continue to tax people.  And they'd make bank.  We've basically been in an endless state of war ever since then.  Yes, there were many justified reasons to go to war over the past century.  But most of them could have been solved differently.  (WWII was as close to a "good war" as we dare to apply the term.)

PRESIDENT OF PEACE:

Unknown to most liberals (in fact, to most conservatives as well) is that Trump has largely been a President of Peace.  During his first term, he did not get into any new wars. He tried to keep the peace.  He does his best to hold off on any boots on the ground if other means are a reasonable option.  And he wants each battle to be quick and decisive. And we've only had some small skirmishes in his 2nd term.

So, he's fighting the military-industrial complex.

TARIFFS ARE BETTER THAN INCOME TAX:

While trade wars with retaliatory tariffs are an undesirable, they are a preferred method of revenue as opposed to an income tax. They are basically a federal sales tax (i.e. a consumption tax).  And Trump is advocating for 10% across the board for all nations, all goods, both directions.  Everything is even steven.  So, after all the trade warring is over and everyone has settled down, we will still have a small tax to generate income for the federal government.

The reason why sales tax and tariffs are more favorable for the average citizen is that it gives control to us.  With an income tax, we have no choice but to pay, be jailed, or die.  That's it.  But with a consumption tax, we can always decide  that the price is too high and refuse to pay.  We have control.

We see it right in front of us. With payroll taxes, we don't even see it.  We don't have any decisions.  All we see is what we get whether we like it or not.  And we have to deal with it.  A consumption tax is very visible every time we go to the store.  We decide by looking at the price tag.

And they don't ask such personal questions like: How much money did you make?  How did you make it?  What did you spend it on?  Yet we voluntarily give up this information with the hope that the government will be "kind" enough to give us back some of our money that they are stealing.

BOTTOM LINE:

He's trying to get us back to the times before the 16th amendment when we saw the greatest economic development the world has ever seen.  When you see the real GDP of the US, there was never any period in history where any nation saw such economic growth. 

That was true a few decades ago.  I have not seen the data since the tech boom. And that may be a challenge to that statement.  But imagine if we have this tech boom AND the economic freedom that we had in the 1800s.

Edited April 8 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'll go ahead and explain a bit more about tariffs.

FREE TRADE:

The ideal situation for all involved would be if the entire world engaged in free trade (i.e. no tariffs anywhere on earth). But the fact is that any single nation will see the benefit of imposing tariffs on other nations while they, themselves, aren't charged any tariffs at all.  Naturally, that results in others issuing tariffs in retaliation just to balance things out.

But we (the US) have a unique position in the world.  We are so much more wealthy than the vast majority of the world that we have been mostly tariff free when importing from other nations, while other nations issue insane levels of tariffs on our goods going to them.  Some of them are over 90%.  Yet we keep chugging along as if we have all the money in the world to spend.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS:

Adam Smith liked the idea of free trade.  But he also knew that it is the natural tendency of all nations to want to impose tariffs.  So, being a realist, he indicated that protective tariffs (while still undesirable) may be a necessary tool to negotiate the elimination of the foreign country's taxing of our goods.

NECESSITY OF TAXES:

We all know that in order for a government to function, they need some form of revenue.  Before the 16th amendment, the vast majority if Federal Revenues were from tariffs.  And it ran well until a war raged.  They imposed other taxes (including income taxes) to make up the difference.  But that was only until the war ended.

ENDLESS WARS:

The 16th amendment was passed just a few years before WWI broke out in Europe.  When the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania, the military-industrial complex was born.  Leaders got it into their heads that as long as we had to fight a war, then we can continue to tax people.  And they'd make bank.  We've basically been in an endless state of war ever since then.  Yes, there were many justified reasons to go to war over the past century.  But most of them could have been solved differently.  (WWII was as close to a "good war" as we dare to apply the term.)

PRESIDENT OF PEACE:

Unknown to most liberals (in fact, to most conservatives as well) is that Trump has largely been a President of Peace.  During his first term, he did not get into any new wars. He tried to keep the peace.  He does his best to hold off on any boots on the ground if other means are a reasonable option.  And he wants each battle to be quick and decisive. And we've only had some small skirmishes in his 2nd term.

So, he's fighting the military-industrial complex.

TARIFFS ARE BETTER THAN INCOME TAX:

While trade wars with retaliatory tariffs are an undesirable, they are a preferred method of revenue as opposed to an income tax. They are basically a federal sales tax (i.e. a consumption tax).  And Trump is advocating for 10% across the board for all nations, all goods, both directions.  Everything is even steven.  So, after all the trade warring is over and everyone has settled down, we will still have a small tax to generate income for the federal government.

The reason why sales tax and tariffs are more favorable for the average citizen is that it gives control to us.  With an income tax, we have no choice but to pay, be jailed, or die.  That's it.  But with a consumption tax, we can always decide  that the price is too high and refuse to pay.  We have control.

We see it right in front of us. With payroll taxes, we don't even see it.  We don't have any decisions.  All we see is what we get whether we like it or not.  And we have to deal with it.  A consumption tax is very visible every time we go to the store.  We decide by looking at the price tag.

And they don't ask such personal questions like: How much money did you make?  How did you make it?  What did you spend it on?  Yet we voluntarily give up this information with the hope that the government will be "kind" enough to give us back some of our money that they are stealing.

BOTTOM LINE:

He's trying to get us back to the times before the 16th amendment when we saw the greatest economic development the world has ever seen.  When you see the real GDP of the US, there was never any period in history where any nation saw such economic growth. 

That was true a few decades ago.  I have not seen the data since the tech boom. And that may be a challenge to that statement.  But imagine if we have this tech boom AND the economic freedom that we had in the 1800s.

I didn't read everything in full detail here yet...but glancing over it...I think it's missing the problem of intellectual properties/patents/copyrights, etc.

Free trade is a problem without some level of IP/patent/copyrights/TM protection. Tariffs are one means of dealing with that. Which is why, regardless of any other views of Tariffs on other countries, we (and the rest of the world) should be Tariffing the blinking stink out of China.

Edited April 8 by The Folk Prophet

[mordorbund]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'll go ahead and explain a bit more about tariffs.

FREE TRADE:

The ideal situation for all involved would be if the entire world engaged in free trade (i.e. no tariffs anywhere on earth). But the fact is that any single nation will see the benefit of imposing tariffs on other nations while they, themselves, aren't charged any tariffs at all.  Naturally, that results in others issuing tariffs in retaliation just to balance things out.

But we (the US) have a unique position in the world.  We are so much more wealthy than the vast majority of the world that we have been mostly tariff free when importing from other nations, while other nations issue insane levels of tariffs on our goods going to them.  Some of them are over 90%.  Yet we keep chugging along as if we have all the money in the world to spend.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS:

Adam Smith liked the idea of free trade.  But he also knew that it is the natural tendency of all nations to want to impose tariffs.  So, being a realist, he indicated that protective tariffs (while still undesirable) may be a necessary tool to negotiate the elimination of the foreign country's taxing of our goods.

NECESSITY OF TAXES:

We all know that in order for a government to function, they need some form of revenue.  Before the 16th amendment, the vast majority if Federal Revenues were from tariffs.  And it ran well until a war raged.  They imposed other taxes (including income taxes) to make up the difference.  But that was only until the war ended.

ENDLESS WARS:

The 16th amendment was passed just a few years before WWI broke out in Europe.  When the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania, the military-industrial complex was born.  Leaders got it into their heads that as long as we had to fight a war, then we can continue to tax people.  And they'd make bank.  We've basically been in an endless state of war ever since then.  Yes, there were many justified reasons to go to war over the past century.  But most of them could have been solved differently.  (WWII was as close to a "good war" as we dare to apply the term.)

PRESIDENT OF PEACE:

Unknown to most liberals (in fact, to most conservatives as well) is that Trump has largely been a President of Peace.  During his first term, he did not get into any new wars. He tried to keep the peace.  He does his best to hold off on any boots on the ground if other means are a reasonable option.  And he wants each battle to be quick and decisive. And we've only had some small skirmishes in his 2nd term.

So, he's fighting the military-industrial complex.

TARIFFS ARE BETTER THAN INCOME TAX:

While trade wars with retaliatory tariffs are an undesirable, they are a preferred method of revenue as opposed to an income tax. They are basically a federal sales tax (i.e. a consumption tax).  And Trump is advocating for 10% across the board for all nations, all goods, both directions.  Everything is even steven.  So, after all the trade warring is over and everyone has settled down, we will still have a small tax to generate income for the federal government.

The reason why sales tax and tariffs are more favorable for the average citizen is that it gives control to us.  With an income tax, we have no choice but to pay, be jailed, or die.  That's it.  But with a consumption tax, we can always decide  that the price is too high and refuse to pay.  We have control.

We see it right in front of us. With payroll taxes, we don't even see it.  We don't have any decisions.  All we see is what we get whether we like it or not.  And we have to deal with it.  A consumption tax is very visible every time we go to the store.  We decide by looking at the price tag.

And they don't ask such personal questions like: How much money did you make?  How did you make it?  What did you spend it on?  Yet we voluntarily give up this information with the hope that the government will be "kind" enough to give us back some of our money that they are stealing.

BOTTOM LINE:

He's trying to get us back to the times before the 16th amendment when we saw the greatest economic development the world has ever seen.  When you see the real GDP of the US, there was never any period in history where any nation saw such economic growth. 

That was true a few decades ago.  I have not seen the data since the tech boom. And that may be a challenge to that statement.  But imagine if we have this tech boom AND the economic freedom that we had in the 1800s.

 

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't read everything in full detail here yet...but glancing over it...I think it's missing the problem of intellectual properties/patents/copyrights, etc.

Free trade is a problem without some level of IP/patent/copyrights/TM protection. Tariffs are one means of dealing with that. Which is why, regardless of any other views of Tariffs on other countries, we (and the rest of the world) should be Tariffing the blinking stink out of China.

Yeah, maybe. But have you guys considered cat videos on the Internet?!?!

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

 

Yeah, maybe. But have you guys considered cat videos on the Internet?!?!

Not a cat guy?

 

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, Ironhold said:

I have a de facto minor in psychological warfare, with an emphasis on how to determine points of failure within a system.  I was essentially trained to do the kind of thing he was warning about. 

I thought that was you I saw in that cafe a few years ago!  Sitting there wearing your earphones, looking innocent. 

[Carborendum]

42 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Yeah, maybe. But have you guys considered cat videos on the Internet?!?!

Tariff those too, baby!!!

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think it's missing the problem of intellectual properties/patents/copyrights, etc.

I disagree.  I didn't mention it because I don't think that tariffs would be an effective means of combating the issue.

And where international intellectual properties are concerned, I don't know if there is a workable solution.

[Ironhold]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I thought that was you I saw in that cafe a few years ago!  Sitting there wearing your earphones, looking innocent. 

There's a song out there called "You're Gonna Go Far Kid" by The Offspring.

It opens with the line "Show me how to lie / you're getting better all the time / and turning all against the one / is an art that's hard to teach" and goes from there; note that the version you hear on the radio is actually censored for airplay. 

I've tried to play that song for people, or at least show them the lyrics, as a way of explaining to them that years of having to deal *with* manipulative people & what I've learned about how to turn things around on them has basically trained me to do very horrible things to people. 

I can destroy someone through words alone, and back during the bad old days of the internet when people would come for my scalp just for being a member of the church I would do just that; I could actually tell when someone's sanity was on the verge of cracking and whether or not pressing my counter-attack would do the job. 

It's from this experience that I know how things are done, which is why I'm trying to warn people about how it can happen to them.

[LDSGator]

40 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

I can destroy someone through words alone

Almost all of us can if we hit a persons weak spot or insecurities, which we all have.  It’s also not something to brag about. 

I’d be much more impressed if you said you can heal someone with words-that’s a talent that actually takes skill. Being a jerk is easy. 

Edited April 8 by LDSGator

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

It’s also not something to brag about. 

That's my point.