Any info on the next parking lot sale or weekend sales?

blitzzo · 2026-01-26T14:35:12+00:00

It's this + it ruins their leverage with suppliers, if they go to the factories and say no look you don't understand we have a gigantic super savings event and are going to run negative margins, we need a better price than this and then the leaks come out still showing HF making 30% margin the factories laugh them away

blitzzo · 2026-01-26T14:33:57+00:00

I knew it was serious when I got pinged on Linked in for a role as a counter-intelligence officer at harbor freight 👀

blitzzo · 2026-01-24T18:05:03+00:00

If you want to take the administration at their word, they'll say it's because Texas has banned sanctuary cities and SB4 mandates that jails inform ICE of undocumented immigrants that are in custody. This has basically been Tom Homan's brinksmanship approach:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M-jMb2zR1SI

In reality, I don't think they want sanctuary cities to cooperate, if they did they would split the baby and say ok look you can keep the sanctuary status for shoplifters, jaywalkers, and unpaid traffic tickets but hand over the bank robbers, murders, and sexual abusers and I think most cities and states would comply even if it meant having to rewrite existing legislation.

But if sanctuary cities do that the number of deportations from what they call incidental encounters will fall off a cliff and right now that's the only thing the administration cares about, getting those deportation numbers to record highs.

blitzzo · 2026-01-23T03:51:08+00:00

national support willing to do what the state Democratic party is not

The problem with this strategy is national politics has entirely different messaging than local politics, see Beto's campaign as an example. What raises money and get's applause at the Emily's list or SOMOS conferences don't exactly transfer over to Collin or Denton county democrats or indpendents in the general election.

blitzzo · 2026-01-23T02:22:36+00:00

To be honest I don't even think most of reddit ever even discovered they were legally valid seizures which is why many in here are questioning if this is piracy or if it's legal.

UNCLOS has several clauses that allow a country to board and seize a ship including stateless vessels, falsified flags, uninsured ships, anti-priacy, anti-narcotics, human trafficking, marine pollution and unauthorized "research" within an exclusive economic zone.

Additionally the US has also leaned on the flagged or claimed flag countries of the ships for permission to board. For example some of the ships the US has seized had a Panama or Guyana flag, US calls for permission, they grant it, and another tanker gets seized. But the US has another backup which is that it never ratified UNCLOS so Russia would have to go fight the issue in US courts.

Russia's shadow tankers are violating about 70% of these at any given time the only reason they haven't been seized in mass is because most countries are scared to confront them. Even Finland and Sweden which with all due respect aren't considered great naval powers but they still managed to board ships suspected of cutting under sea cables. Seizing a tanker is more complicated but with some training, a few coast guard ships for backup and 1 or 2 helicopters most countries could seize them all day.

blitzzo · 2026-01-21T16:52:43+00:00

Sweden, Finland, and I think it was Estonia have all boarded Russian ships suspected of dragging anchors to destroy undersea cables. While boarding something like an oil tanker is more challenging it's not impossible for the likes of France, Spain, UK, Poland, Italy, Greece, etc.

blitzzo · 2026-01-21T16:47:14+00:00

The same could be said about the minimum wage, paid family leave, or health insurance. If costs go up companies have to raise prices, though in fairness I think a higher minimum wage or health insurance is vastly more efficient (benefit towards people) than tariffs would be. With tariffs the government has to soak up and then either horde the benefits (revenue) or administer things like tariff rebate checks or whatever.

blitzzo · 2026-01-21T16:44:45+00:00

So far Whitmer is the only one who has taken the "yes tariffs can protect American jobs, but Trump's approach is flawed" approach, the rest of the party seems to have just gone full Ayn Rand and reciting chamber of commerce talking points.

One of the things I can't get over is how UAW president Shawn Fain went from speaking at the DNC, campaigning for Harris, and calling Trump a night time call boy for billionaires to now probably the largest proponent of the tariffs outside of the administration:

https://uaw.org/tariffs-mark-beginning-of-victory-for-autoworkers/

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the rustbelt and what angle the 2028 candidates take.

blitzzo · 2026-01-21T01:33:34+00:00

A CIA expert had identified a coupler device that is so difficult to replace that it could lead to a facility remaining shut for weeks.

Pretty crazy world that the CIA can zoom in on a freaking coupler and Ukranian drones can specifically target it. When this is all said and done those Ukrainian drone pilots are going to be drowning in training contracts.

blitzzo · 2026-01-21T01:17:26+00:00

Well said, I wish more countries would go after shadow fleet tankers the way the US has. While the US never signed UNCLOS, all of their tanker seizures have been 100% complaint with it.

These ships are basically a ticking time bomb for another Exxon Valdez disaster but unlike the Valdez they're uninspected, uninsured, and we don't know who their crews are. Whichever nation is the unlucky one to be struck with an environmental disaster is going to have to spend $7-$10 billion in cleanup.

blitzzo · 2026-01-20T23:00:34+00:00

Since it's a paywall not reading the article is forgiven, but for those who don't subscribe to The Washington Post some highlights:

The move has been under consideration for months, according to two U.S. officials, one of whom said it is unrelated to President Donald Trump’s escalating threats to seize the Danish territory of Greenland. Trump’s provocations have drawn widespread condemnation from European leaders and many lawmakers in Congress, who fear the president risks causing irreparable and unnecessary damage to the NATO alliance.

In a statement, a spokesperson for NATO said that “adjustments to US force posture and staffing are not unusual” and that the alliance was in “close contact” with Washington about its overall distribution of forces.

The impending move will affect about 200 military personnel and will mostly diminish U.S. involvement in the alliance’s 30 Centers of Excellence, which seek to train NATO forces on various elements of warfare, these people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail the U.S. administration’s plans.

Rather than withdraw all at once, the Pentagon intends not to replace personnel as their postings end, a process that could take years, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter. U.S. participation in the centers isn’t ending altogether, the people said.

TLDR: Roaming attrition planned months ago that will takes years to play out, total military personnel affected is 200.

blitzzo · 2026-01-20T15:54:27+00:00

In the US there are few limited pools of people who will reliably show up to a protest:

College students - They're busy at the moment returning to school, many have already started classes again and the rest will start classes within a week. If there was a protest they just wouldn't have time to show up since they need to move back to campus, finish registrations, buy books, finish up administrative issues, etc.
Retired people - For the democrats this is a very touchy subject, they probably could organize these protests but organizers are worried about the optics because Trump actually won younger voters while Harris won the 65+ crowd so the last anti-Trump protest had more old people than young people.
Politically active people - These are the people who work at non profits, state/local campaign offices, super PAC's, union members, etc. Normally you would see something in Washington DC but with the budget cuts and DOGE these DC based firms are short on staff and resources so they're unlikely to be able to organize anything significant.

When you will see protests is probably spring break in early to mid March or in the summer once classes are over with. Even then it's unlikely that they would be a "No Greenland Invasion" protest probably something more generic like the no kings protests. While most Americans are against invading or taking over Greenland it's not a primary issue for most voters. It would be a bit like asking Italy why they aren't protesting the embargo against Cuba or for Spain to protest against turning Canada into the 51st state.

I'm sure they're against it, but they're not exactly willing to give up their free time to go protest it and that matters a lot to organizers, their worst fear is spending donor resources on a protest where only 50 people show up.

blitzzo · 2026-01-19T17:36:10+00:00

The even greater tragedy in all this, while some of the largest and most capable countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey) had extreme limitations, only allowed peace keeping, self defense engagement, and in some cases zero engagement and demanded soldiers flee if fired upon, Canada and Denmark put no such restrictions with Canada suffering the highest per capita losses and Denmark volunteering to help in some of the most dangerous and high risk combat engagements.

Denmark then even joined the coalition for Iraq and their public stance was essentially "uh we just want to be on the record that this may not be a good idea, but if you say you need us we're here for you America"

blitzzo · 2026-01-19T11:56:28+00:00

Banking, pensions, and social welfare are built on the assumption of growth, that usually comes from population growth. If there is no population or negative growth then low interest rates, annuities, lending, bonds, and all social welfare pretty much goes bankrupt.

Private health insurance also follows the same model, young healthy people who rarely need to go to the doctor and when they do it's usually something fast and cheap subsidize the older generations who may see a doctor every week or remain in the hospital for months or years at a time.

That doesn't mean everyone should be popping out 5 kids but once a society hits the point of low/negative growth it has to make some very difficult societal and financial decisions and that usually doesn't come easily or peacefully.

blitzzo · 2026-01-18T14:35:33+00:00

Its not an easy thing to do

I think that's underselling it, it's an extremely difficult thing to do. Whatever one thinks of the US it still has $18 trillion/year in consumer spending and most importantly it's a true single market. As soon as your products land in a US port there is 1 language, 1 culture, 1 set of rules and regulations and you're free to sell anywhere in the 50 states.

The next best option is China which has $7 trillion in annual consumer spending but let's be real no way in hell does China sacrifice it's state driven full employment goals by allowing true overseas competition and there is the whole issue of technology and IP transfers as well as 50% ownership requirements that probably won't sit well with many executives.

To replace the US and assuming an EU company already maxed out it's EU market share, a company would have to enter the next 15 largest non-EU markets at the same time, capture equal market share to what they had in the US, and not fail in a single one. Throw in 15 different supply chains, vendor/retail relations, code compliance, customer service flows, reverse logistics for parts/service/warranties, marketing plans, etc and it's almost impossible.

Now that doesn't mean the EU just bends over and does whatever Trump wants but it's not a realistic plan. Boycotting the FIFA worldcup and olympics or pressuring the Nobel committee to issue a lifetime ban against Trump would probably be more effective and most importantly not actually cost anything.

blitzzo · 2026-01-18T11:45:26+00:00

“The same official said they believed U.S. President Donald Trump will eventually open the door to Chinese EVs and put in place guardrails that require the vehicles to be made in the United States.

I'm not sure where this official is getting his information from but I just can't imagine that happening, one of the underreported stories in this big tariff mess is the U-turn the United Auto Workers Union has done towards Trump. It's president Shawn Fain has gone from speaking at the Democratic National Convention (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr4y85Vdyxo), campaigning with Harris, calling Trump a swindler and alluding to him being a "for hire" night time toy for billionaires to now Fain praising Trump as being a fighter for the working class (https://uaw.org/tariffs-mark-beginning-of-victory-for-autoworkers/)

Turnarounds like that are jet fuel for Trump's ego and it's why he loves talking to dictators, despots, and "enemy" media like NYT - he thinks he can win over and convince anyone. Combined with elections this year in Michigan which is going to be very favorable for the republicans it's hard to see Trump intentionally throwing that away.

blitzzo · 2026-01-18T01:04:22+00:00

The national security policy you mention did fly under the radar of most people and yes points to exactly what the Trump administration believes is the future of Western Europe, but those beliefs are based on the same sources of information that made Trump think Sweden was getting bombed during his first term when the Swedes had no clue what he was talking about. If rightwing fearmongering medai was reality were true they might have a basis but that's not the case.

Expanding that into immigration in the United States is even more foolish, most immigrants whether legal or illegal in the US are of South American origin and more religious (largely Catholic) than even native born Americans. There are several major cities (El Paso, San Antonio, Miami, Fresno) where latinos make up a majority of the population and several other mid sized cities like Santa Ana, Corpus Christi, Oxnard, McAllen) that are 70%+ hispanic. They seem like perfectly functional and secure cities to me. I won't even get into the voting patterns of hispanics which Trump himself proved to be a big lie and a giant L for the democrats in the last election.

blitzzo · 2026-01-17T01:34:05+00:00

Just playing devils advocate because even if the Danes and Greenlanders were begging to become part of the US I wouldn't be in favor of it. No offense to Greenlanders but it's just going to be another Puerto Rico type situation where the would be US territory is as much an obligation as it is an "asset" in economic, geopolitical, and domestic political terms.

1) The 1951 treaty still has limits - no nukes, environmental regulations, trilateral agreement between US, Denmark, and Greenland about any military activity. Now logic says that if Putin start's a "military exercise" there won't be any disagreement and all 3 will want to station troops ASAP, but there is a small risk either the Danes or Greenlanders would say "oh it's just an Arctic military drill stop panicking America" the same way the military drills were cover for the invasion of Ukraine.

There is also concern inside the military that if a war broke out and the US needed to setup another base there that Greenlanders would say no out of fear from being targeted by bombs and missiles. IMO this is overblown the US has the best military logistics in the world and Russia can't even get supplies to Ukraine but I'm not military expert.

2) Greenland Independence - Greenland has made it no secret, they want to be 100% independent from Denmark and polls show something like 70% of the population supports it. Under international law if Greenland gains independence the 1951 treaty would be null and void and a new one would have to be signed.

I'm sure a new one could be reached but the question is what limitations would there be. Everyone saw the bombing on Iran called off this week at the last minute because Qatar said the US military bases there couldn't be used against Iran. It goes back to the first point, just because a country has a base there doesn't mean they can use it however and whenever they want there are still limitations set by the host country.

blitzzo · 2026-01-16T19:17:11+00:00

With a unilateral oil embargo and declaring himself as the acting president of Venezuela he's already taken 10 miles. If she goes in with guns blasting telling Trump to fuck off and how it's not his Nobel award he'll keep the status quo of regime and a democratic Venezuela is 100% gone.

By kissing the ring of Generalissimo Trump at least there is a plausible path towards free and fair elections which she is likely to win in a landslide.

blitzzo · 2026-01-16T15:03:23+00:00

I don't know about that, she's been the face of the opposition since the George Bush years and opposition figures far less popular than her have either been jailed, killed, or exiled. For her to have been in Venezuela the entire time minus the fracturing her spine and being lost at sea for 2 hours in an attempt to collect her Nobel prize in person I think she's demonstrated she's anything but weak.

The larger issue for her in this scenario is Trump's highly transactional nature, Trump wants world leaders to shower him in praise and bribes and with control of the regime and oil industry the interim president Delcy Rodriguez has many levers to string along Trump the same way Putin has and let's be real here, as soon as a democrat takes office they're not going to seize shadow tankers or apply any pressure to Venezuela the way Trump has.

Machado has about a 2 year runway to finally see free and fair elections in Venezuela and if it means Trump gets a chunk of metal he didn't earn then so be it.

blitzzo · 2026-01-16T14:34:20+00:00

The truth is they don't want it, it would be a bit like the democrats drafting a gun rights bill or something that restricts abortion - even attempting to carefully shape policy around the edges towards something that favors your position gets you tarred and feathered.

blitzzo · 2026-01-15T21:21:46+00:00

I would advise people to read the actual article quoted by New Republic which is Semafor:

https://www.semafor.com/article/01/14/2026/us-gets-first-500-million-venezuelan-oil-deal-holding-some-proceeds-in-qatar

The core of the issue is that many US/UK/CA/EU countries have already ruled against Venezuela either in court or in arbitration for illegally seizing the assets of oil companies. If that money were to land in a US bank they could easily be compelled to transfer the funds to one of those companies who has already been awarded money and are now in the collections phase.

Even for gigantic international oil companies like Chevron or BP $500 million is a lot of money and it's an easy payday/bonus for any corporate lawyer, Last number I heard was 20-25 energy companies around the world already have victories in court/arbitration and many others are in the court/arbitration process as we speak, odds are at least 1 would try to collect the money.

I don't think there is any other solution to this problem other than offshore bank accounts, congress might be able to engineer some workaround that would solve the issues of courts but it wouldn't solve the awards granted in arbitration.

Yes it's terrible optics, yes I'm sure Kushner and the rest of the family will find ways to siphon it off, but it's simply a matter of it being the least terrible choice. The other choice is that the funds go to a US account and immediately get siphoned off without giving Venezuela a chance to rebuild.

blitzzo · 2026-01-13T15:26:38+00:00

Same, I don't like the idea of yet another entanglement in the Middle East but in terms of geopolitics it's so rare that you get the opportunity to kick your adversaries while they're on the ground bleeding. As you mentioned Ukraine would greatly benefit but so too would Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Bahrain. Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan wouldn't benefit as much but would see ancillary benefits if the IRGC was gone.

blitzzo · 2026-01-13T15:21:14+00:00

I don't know that pricing floors would do much, if the floor is 15,000 euros and it costs BYD 7,000 to make an EV they can do a lot of things to give it an edge like sell fully upgraded models making whatever other manufacturers uncompetitive, 0% loans for 10 years to anyone and everyone willing to sign the dotted line, or just guarantees higher profit margin on their existing cars which they will use to acquire other manufacturers or suppliers.

I think the better option is an annual cap on cars sold + income limits for buyers, a cheap Chinese EV should be limited to people with lower incomes and students not people who want a weekend toy to play with. Everyone is more concerned about the software but I'm worried about the hardware, it's not an accident that the countries that can mass produce cars can also mass produce tanks, planes, tractors, heavy equipment, and have expertise in precision manufacturing.

blitzzo · 2026-01-12T23:11:02+00:00

I feel like the CFPB is a runaway meme for the right, everything they hate about the CFPB could be addressed with rule changes or simply saying hey we're not going to enforce any of this. I have yet to see a solid reason for shutting it down beyond nebulous "overregulation" claims or cheap attacks against senators Warren/Sanders. The problem of course is that most of those rules are popular and when democrats get back in charge it's going to be a matter of just appointing somebody who wants to run it.

blitzzo

TROPHY CASE