zlacker

> The economical fallout would be extensive.

So is the fallout from Trump's new tariffs, yet they still got done.

I don't think the government cares about economic fallout unless it affects billionaires, so you're right, advertising will never be banned because it would cut into the profits of the president's richest and most vocal supporters.

>>DrillS+(OP)
Trump's tariffs are idiotic, and I'm against them. I don't see your point

>>whacko+9D3
My point is that US government economic policy is completely disconnected from the concept of economic fallout, so it seems silly to consider that a gating item for this hypothetical.

>>DrillS+hs4
> My point is that US government economic policy is completely disconnected from the concept of economic fallout

Unless the economic policy stands to benefit the working class.

Tax cuts for billionaires will pass all day, with zero issues at all. Anything, and I do mean anything that stands to benefit the general public has to have three plans on how it will either pay for itself or otherwise be paid for, and if any of them involve even a slight tax increase, it will never even see a vote, let alone pass.

>>DrillS+hs4
I read that as "the US government is already crippling the economy, so other measures potentially crippling the economy are not a problem," but maybe I'm misunderstanding you?