Trump vows new Canada, Mexico, China tariffs that threaten global trade
President-elect Donald Trump on Monday pledged big tariffs on the United States' three largest trading partners - Canada, Mexico and China - detailing how he will implement campaign promises that could trigger trade wars.
Drunk, maybe?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, 2025, said he would impose a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico until they clamp down on drugs, particularly fentanyl, and migrants crossing the border, in a move that would appear to violate a free-trade deal.Trump also outlined "an additional 10% tariff, above any additional tariffs" on China, in some of his most specific comments on how he will implement his economic agenda since winning the Nov. 5 election on promises to "put America first".
"On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders," he said in a post on Truth Social.
While migrant arrests reached a record during President Joe Biden's presidency, straining U.S. border enforcement, illegal crossings fell dramatically this year as Biden instituted new border restrictions and Mexico stepped up enforcement.
More than 83% of exports from Mexico went to the U.S. in 2023 and 75% of Canadian exports go to the country.
Trump's threatened new tariff would appear to violate the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade. The deal which Trump signed into law took effect in 2020, and continued the largely duty-free trade between the three countries.
…
visit seeded article for remaining content
Red Box Rules
Whatever
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
342 visitors
The tariffs imposed on allies are meant to....
Dunno.
To punish them for letting people use their countries to enter the US.
btw China is not an ally.
I guess they never thought he would again be President.
And punish the middle class too it seems.
Pure stupidity.
If one views the election from the highest vantage point, the price of commodities might just be the killer issue.
Prices were lower under Trump and people s o m e h o w believe that Trump can lower prices.
We are all about to be hit with the short and long-term consequences of that level of economic ignorance.
Who knows what is going on in Trump's boggled mind? He must think he is Emperor of Earth.
Of course... tariffs made be given exceptions.
For friends.
Kleptocracy 101. I'm still trying to think of all the ways.
It is very simple TiG. Last time around just the threat of a tariff got Mexico to go along with a "Remain in Mexico" policy. They have a new leader there, who is a Socialist woman, who seems very eager to stand up to Trump. She needs a bit of educating. The Canadian Prime Minister must have thought Trump wasn't coming back. He too, needs to be mindful of what the US means for Canada. As for China only getting a 10% tariff, it seems a small price to pay for being the place of origin for all that fentanyl that came across Biden's open border.
You see, TiG, tariffs aren't just a way to make trade fair, sometimes they are motivators or punishments. In the above cases they are the latter.
Explain to us all why Trump chose to broadcast a threat of across-the-board tariffs to the world against three important trade partners rather than first privately engage in negotiation with those partners.
What value is it to publicly threaten as the first step? Not only does that motivate trading partners to publicly respond to the threat in a rebuking manner (making Trump look foolish as Sheinbaum did) but it tells the partners (and the world) that Trump is going to try to bully partners publicly to get what he wants. That will cause them to take actions to reduce their dependence upon the USA and to start choosing which countermeasures they will likely deploy given this specific threat.
It is foolish no matter how you look at it.
This is not negotiation, is a full-of-himself, emboldened buffoon engaging in loose-cannon diplomacy (as we would expect).
Now, Vic, explain to us all why it would not have been better for Trump to first privately deal with the trade partners and hold off with the public threats until such time (if ever) that they are beneficial.
And then explain to us how a 25%/10% across-the-board tariff is good for the American people. How Trump would avoid raising consumer prices with such nonsense. How Trump would avoid trade wars that could harm everyone for years. How Trump would keep other trade partners from taking preemptive action in anticipation of the loose-cannon PotUS coming after them next?
You do understand that he is not a king, right?
While America is dealing in "punishments", China is dealing in ports, highways, railroads, etc. We'll see which one will be more beneficial not only for the recipients, but also for the dealer.,.
You forgot dealing in threats to neighbors and internment of Muslim citizens.
LOL. What's the topic of this article - oh, TRUMP'S threat to America's neighbours, and America doesn't incarcerate terrorists and do what's necessary to maintain peace and order in its nation?
For some folks, the topic of ALL seeds is derailment.
I thought you might understand that. It is a negotiating tactic. Have you noticed that it got Mexico's & Canada's leaders attention? I believe Trudeau is at Mar-A-Lago right now. The beauty of Donald Trump is that those people believe he just might do it.
It is going to require their help to close that open border down.
China is doing as America did during the 19th century. America did it via its economic power and the great leaders of Capitol & industry, China is doing it via government planning in a mad dash to become the world's preeminent power. As far as South America goes, China has already become a leading trading power there.
All that being said, China has problems that the great engines of free enterprise didn't have in the 19th century. China has an aging population and suffers from a policy decision made long ago when it worried about over population. It will eventually face a freshwater shortage and maybe a conflict with India over that. It also maybe overreaching with all this expansion. Time will tell.
On the bright side I happen to think Xi Jinping is a political genius (though arguably an evil one) and once the Ukraine war is settled, he may have a very weak Russia in tow.
It is a brain-dead stupid tactic.
First step is to deal with them privately. Trump just broadcast a ridiculous, specific threat to the world and has already been rebuked by Mexico.
This is not how rational people negotiate, Vic. Quit defending this buffoon at every turn.
If anyone else in the world did it then it would be considered a negotiating tactic. Since it is Donald it is insane and even the possibility of it will bring a collapse of world markets according to the Trump haters.
Funny how it seems to be bringing people to the negotiating table well over a month before he is even sworn in. In this case there is a fear he is just crazy enough to do it so they want to negotiate now. So basically Trump doing it may be the most successful at using the talk of it as a good negotiating tool.
I disagree.
First step is to deal with them privately.
Why? Canada has a wacky woke leader. Mexico is a failed state that allows migrants to cross through its country and used to send its unwanted into the US. Its military and police are corrupt, and its government fears the drug cartels. That is exactly how you deal with countries that once were respectable.
Trump just broadcast a ridiculous, specific threat to the world and has already been rebuked by Mexico.
Rebuked? That Socialist bitch is going to secure her border with the US. You just watch.
Like threatening nuclear war?...
Because the buffoon just issued a specific threat in a public manner rather than engage in civil diplomacy. Issuing a public threat not only raises the ire of those you wish to persuade, but it motivates them to publicly rebuke you on the world stage (as Mexico did).
Further, it telegraphs to the world that the USA is going to behave as an irrational bully. The specific threat reinforces this to all trading partners. They will in turn be more likely to preemptively pursue alternate channels (more appropriately, start tapping into their contingency plans). Some may find the specifics of this threat sufficient to just start using alternate trade routes to get ahead of this moron.
There is nothing good that comes from being a prick at the onset. It is sickening that people support this loose-cannon no matter what he does.
The Socialist bitch, well done, Vic. Did you learn that from Trump or is it something that you’ve held a belief in for some time?
[deleted][✘]
I don't think that is as important to Xi as you seem to think. What Xi has determined is that by benefitting other nations in the world it would lead to the benefit of the Chinese people. If the benefit to the Chinese people and creating a better life for them were not important to Xi why did he bother eradicating abject poverty in ways that cost the government plenty for a whole decade and is continuing to assist in the rural areas to make sure there are no slide-backs. The benefit is to the people, not for self-glorification. Bread and circuses. The government is providing the bread and for the next four years Americal will provide the circuses.
Many nations in the world may eventually face a freshwater shortage, including America. What might happen when that occurs could well be a danger to Canada, which possesses 20% of the world's fresh water. I was aware of it a quarter of a century ago when my client, Marq DeVilliers wrote his book "Water: The Fate of Our Most Prescious Resource". I was at his presentation of that new book.
(SELF-DELETED) I have now been able to read the article elsewhere.
Hmmmmm, my bet is Trump is bluffing for a better three way agreement between Mexico/Canada/US. If Canada calls his bluff oil turns to gold, black gold and lot’s of it.
If the US wasn’t the largest user of illegal drugs in the world we wouldn’t have the problem we are in currently. Oh wait, Kennedy wants to increase the use of mind bending drugs, so there goes that idea.
The US new motto, we are stoned, come on it everybody is welcome.
I believe Canada is already selling its oil to the USA at a reduced profit margin.
Chances are quite good that Canada, Mexico, and China will call such a bluff.
I don't think Trudeau has the balls to stand up against Trump. His father would have told Trump to shove his tariffs up his ass.
25% tariff across all products is well beyond the point of insanity.
And again, if those tariffs go into place who does idiot Trump think will be paying higher prices?
Or Canada and Mexico could simply help prevent illegal immigration and drug smuggling to avoid the tariffs. Would be insane not to.
You blame Canada as much as Mexico? Is the immigration from Canada (which is now limiting immigration to itself) penguins and polar bears that are lining up at the 49th parallel, and the drugs are coming from the drug cartels located at the North Pole?
Who said anything about blaming them the same?
Canada will have to take some steps to avoid the tariffs. They won’t be the same steps as Mexico. I’m sure the new government will be happy to secure the border after the massive disaster of tredaeu,
It is likely that some promises will be made. If those promises are not upheld, 25% tariff across all products is well beyond the point of insanity.
Trump actually imposing these tariffs would be utter stupidity.
Yes, he’s too busy arresting Jewish journalists trying to document pro Hamas rally’s.
I cannot open that link. Would you mind posting what it says? Otherwise your reply means nothing to me.
To what end?
Pro Hamas protestors set up a protest in a residential neighborhood. Ezra tried to take pictures of it and Canadian police arrested him for it.
For trying to take pictures only ……
Other than that, it is a video of him telling his story
Trudeau? News to this Cannuk he has the power to order around the Toronto Municipal Police. As to Ezra Levant whose 'paper', The Rebel, has a continuous history of hiring far right radicals steeped in a soup of anti-everything including Jews; he's as much of a journalist as is Steve Bannon.
Have fun:
Moving on to borders, it is neither Canada's nor Mexico's responsibility to stop people from entering the US just as it is not the responsibility of US border authorities to stop Americans from leaving.
Ah yes, pointing out a lack of freedoms in Canada is a third rail to many of my left wing friends to the north.
And yet, the cogent point here is, this guy still got arrested for simply trying to take a picture …… and liberty for all …. Except for this guy ….
Spreading discord is the simple minded thing Ezra wallows in.
As to our "lack of freedoms" ... do digress.
I don't know,, a repeat of 1812? Pierre despised Nixon, and Nixon knew it.
Yet another reason I'm happier to be here. However, doing something to prevent the publicity of such a protest which would only strengthen anti-Israel behaviour is not the worst thing I can imagine.
Glad you knew and could post that about Levant, I was unaware of it. Also you're right about the border. The US blames Mexico for not doing enough to stop the migrants, but the migrants ENTER Mexico on their way to the US, so that's the reason for my comment about Polar Bears and Penguins migrating to the US through Canada.
Others are unaware, Hallux, that in some ways Canadians have a lot more freedom than Americans, and the total openness of Freedom of Speech has its warts as well.
Penguins? I do not believe we have any unless they are sneaking in from Pittsburg.
They're not welcome in Canada. They've won the Stanley Cup more recently than the Leafs.
Yeah, free speech is easy when you agree with it. It only gets hard when you don’t. So Dudley do Right taps in to save the day. Outstanding!
Better call Saul on the rest of it …..
Censoring of free speech is the worst thing that I can imagine. The ones doing the censoring most always believe their cause is righteous but it rarely is.
I just read this in Canada's Global News:
As I've said many times already, he'll never fill his father's shoes. I think it's time he diversified Canada's customers for its assets.
That comment ignores the reality of my comment. And you speak of openness and free speech. Ridiculous. The guy was simply trying to take a picture for Christ sakes. In England they are arresting people for praying in public. Amazing!
actions like that are not going to end well when done to peoples who love their liberties and free speech. Those people will fight back.
As is hate speech, a specialty of The Rebel.
Yes, Canada is more civilized. Hate speech is a national criminal offence and is a human rights offence in three of Canada's provinces. Canada's laws do provide other freedoms, such as freedom from the effects of not being able to afford health care, and IMO more freedom from being shot or wounded by gunfire. As well, women in Canada have been free for decades to be in control of their bodies and reproductive rights. I'm sure there are more examples - for example, I believe Canada is relatively free of politically biased courts.
Agree to disagree.
Pro Hamas displays of a Jewish massacre on a families front yard is acceptable but taking a picture of it is not?
Thus displays the rabbit hole Canada goes down while trying to be more “civilized” and free.
Nah, not buying what your selling Buzz.
America wrote its Bill of Rights a long time ago, and hasn't updated it since. Most advanced democracies include rights that have become apparent after 1789, such as health-care.
But Americans cannot imagine anything being done better, anywhere, so...
I know it's free speech to take advantage of me because it's midnight here and it's been hours since I should have retired. Wait a second, I've been retired for years, and I'm not a car anyways. So, I guess it's time to sign out before I pass out.
Lol. A country without free speech is a police state.
You'd think given your posts here about things like Hamas you'd be more sensitive since you could easily be convicted of hate crimes by a motivated court.
Funny how speech suppressors never realize their own speech can easily be punished. They are just happy to suppress others.
Believing Ezra's claim that he was only there to take a photo is as laughable as believing James O'Keefe only shows up to make unedited 'veritas' videos.
lol …. So are you worried about him photoshopping Trudeau into that Hamas leader chair?
Hilarious! Canada’s claims of “freedom” and “free speech” are often a joke. Sorry little brother.
And I along with 99.99999% of Canadians have managed to stay out of jail ... go figure. Ezra is not the innocent you are trying to make him be, he's a provocateur hoping to be on the front page of any 'news' organization willing to pamper him and his views.
Sorry sissy sis.
thanks for the louisville slugger to use when the revenge and retribution morons go after those in the media that said mean things about the maga dictator/savior ...
No court in Canada would convict me for calling a declared terrorist a terrorist, that they commit war crimes because they do and that their "bible" tells them to kill Jews because it does.
Don’t forget to pack a lunch, dinner won’t be required
Could Canada and Mexico simply shift their trade to China?
The US is too big a market to ignore. Trump is using the threat of tariffs as a bargaining chip.
It wouldn't be Canada and Mexico "ignoring" the US. It would be the US driving away Canada and Mexico.
Business needs stability. Stable partners are predictable partners.
Who is more stable/predictable right now: the US or China?
... yeah, let's alienate our neighbors to the north and south with a trade war over a policy the asswipe in chief negotiated his last term. good idea ...
Unless it prices itself beyond what can be purchased elsewhere because of increased American production costs along with causing a big drop in the affected nations' exports due to American tariffs. As Kavika indicated, be prepared for a lot of bailouts besides farmers, and a lot of bankruptcies.
Kleptocracy
It is funny to see the people who immediately point out that tariffs will raise prices as a reason against them, will turn around and support raising corporate income taxes
So who should we raise taxes on?
Guess what happens to prices if you raise taxes on businesses?
So just fuck the middle class and get it over with? That's the answer. Lets hope President Musk has a good answer.
How about the government spend less? You know, spend within your means, just like everyone should be doing.
The poor, of course. The poor deserve to be taxed.
Why do we need to raise taxes on anyone?
How about getting rid of some of the useless programs and organizations on the federal government that would save billions a year.
LOL! That's hilarious.
Three words for you....
basic....social.....services.
I have friends that insist no one should pay ANY taxes.....at all..........ever. Infrastructure? EMS? Fire? Police? That shit isn't free. So why are we not raising taxes on the fuckers that can actually AFFORD to pay more in taxes?
It would be fantastic if government spending was all on worthwhile initiatives that clearly do deliver the intended value. But that is indeed a fantasy.
I often wonder just how much waste really is in our system. It must be insane.
But our government just keeps piling on layer after layer of new spending and the past inefficiencies and waste just keep percolating underneath.
"The government" doesn't decide taxes. The President requests taxes. The House of Representatives decides whether or not to authorize taxes.
"The government" - those millions of bureaucrats - decides nothing. It does as its masters command.
Different projects have different priorities. Different people evaluate those priorities differently. For example, I consider medical research a high priority and military spending a low priority. That's me. Lots of people disagree.
I don't say that military spending is a "waste", though, because I know that some people consider it important. I know that my personal opinions are not the standard by which the nation is measured.
Having said all that... What do you see as "waste" in the Federal budget?
First: the GAO provides a framework for this topic:
Second: Recent GAO report of identified high priority waste:
In General:
The Federal government is a large, complex system that does not have a profit motive driving it to keep waste under control. You certainly know that the natural order is disorder and that means that all good intentions, if not actively monitored and adjusted, will degrade and contribute to waste.
So, do you really believe this is not true in the Federal government?:
But, really, beyond this I remain perplexed that you are taking the position that there is little significant waste in the Federal government. You challenge me to illustrate waste and you quote the word waste in your question.
I would think you would be one of the last persons to take the position that there is little significant waste in the Federal government.
Your list is probably kinda true... to some extent.
The same list would apply to any big bureaucracy.
I did not say that. I'm sure there is waste... but I wouldn't characterize it as "significant" because I really do not know. I'm not sure anyone knows .
I've spent a lot of time working with private companies of all sizes. All have had inefficiencies, greater or smaller. The biggest bureaucracy in the country is "the government", which is actually thousands of town, city, county, state and federal bureaucracies. So undoubtedly "the government" has all the defaults you listed. Inevitably . Government is a human creation, and errare humanum est .
We wouldn't eliminate a creation - an artwork or a bridge or a child or anything at all - because it is "imperfect". We wouldn't blame that entity for the defects that we error-prone humans have made. We would recognize imperfection, and try to improve.
I have never seen any credible evidence that public bureaucracy is less efficient than private. That's Ayn Rand dogma.
Most people try to do their jobs. It's human nature to want to do well, whatever it is that we're doing. This applies to "the government" as it does to all jobs.
Your list is is in fact two lists: inefficiencies, and policies you don't like personally:
... are not the fault of "the government". They aren't bugs in the system. They are features chosen by the President and Congress. (I don't agree with them, either.
)
... is obviously a personal evaluation. No research is "frivolous" to the particular researcher, and all research is "frivolous" to Ebenezer Scrooge.
... explains why private companies occasionally cut thousands of jobs that were "necessary" the day before.
--
I agree that "the government" is imperfect. I'm just not sure that it deserves the rap that "libertarians" like Thiel have imposed.
A point I have made throughout.
Then what, exactly, are you saying?
The profit motive is one dynamics. Market agility (the graceful ability to adapt to fast-paced change) is another. Both of these are present in a market-based, competitive environment. Neither exist in government. Private enterprises can run themselves out of business. Government, however, has no fear of bankruptcy.
What would be surprising is if credible evidence were to emerge that suggests the Federal government is more efficient that private enterprises that cannot indefinitely absorb wasting their resources.
I have not made any mention of individuals. I have been speaking in systemic terms.
I did not mention policies I do not like. Loopholes for the wealthy is an example of a factor that is counterproductive for a government serving the people.
Given I did not list the studies that are frivolous, your argument does not persuade me. Let's assume that we can define a criteria for a frivolous study and bind the criteria to the degree to which the study will provide important, material benefit to the people. If we can do that then the frivolous research would be considered waste.
Surely you are not trying to argue that no frivolous research exists in the Federal government.
Or why they cut jobs that were expendable the day before.
Not really my point. My point is that there is almost certainly substantial waste in the Federal government that could be put to much better use for the good of the American people. If we have new programs that we believe are beneficial such as renewable energy initiatives, I would be in favor of cutting waste and diverting those resources to those initiatives. I suspect you would too.
That's a given, since government is a human construct and errare humanum est.
Too often, though, people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Government is imperfect. Government is necessary. Navigation is required.
Indeed.
Not a point I have made. My point has been quite basic: the Federal government almost certainly has substantial waste that could be channeled towards more beneficial initiatives where the beneficiaries are the American people.
Yes. But not really relevant to the point I made.
That's why I made it.
My wife and I pay our taxes in France. Many years ago, we prepared a declaration, paid that amount, and waited to learn If it was accepted. For at least a decade, the "IRS" sends us a bill which we pay (and may contest if we wish, but never have because the amount is right).
There is no H&R Block.
Capitalism is useless, here.
It is amazing that you defend the actions of this moron no matter what. The last thing the American people want is higher prices.
It's pride and ego... Never admit you made a mistake... The trump credo.
So how has that worked out the last four years?
It might be the main reason we have a scoundrel as president-elect.
And whose fault is that?
It's the only reason
try to look at the bright side. at least we now have an accurate count of maga [deletd] [✘] in the US.
Only to the triggered
Those who voted for him.
The expected answer. Just not the correct one. The answer is, the folks who managed us into this for the last four years: see #8 below.
Take care of your own house before you start judging others.
Good advise for many of my friends on the left.
Anyone who voted for this scoundrel is responsible for what he does. The mindset and modus operandi of this arrogant buffoon has been obvious for years. The lack of concern for the nation and clear focus on what is 'good for Trump' has been crystal clear since he lost the 2020 election.
Trump is unfit for office. It is wrong for anyone to vote into office someone who is provably, obviously unfit.
That would include some self reflection on the part of the dems. While I admit I have seen some good analysis on their part for the most part they still want to blame someone else for their loss and not even look at themselves.
Lucky for me I continue to sleep like a baby in spite of your “opinions.”
If you can’t, I suggest a change of venue.
As we do leftist loons. What's your point? Another veiled threat that we know you have no means of carrying out?
C'mon man... The people that voted for him.
Nope, the people that screwed up the previous four years bad enough and coronated a candidate to run against him without one vote for her electorate.
There ya go.
No matter how many times it is explained. They don't quite grasp the correlation between raising taxes and raising product costs or who pays tariffs.
Nobody was discussing raising corporate taxes; that is Sean's strawman. We are focused on the subject which is tariffs and their effect on prices.
Do you understand that tariffs raise consumer prices?
Do you understand that tariffs trigger trade wars which hinder the supply chain and trigger inflation much the same way the pandemic did?
Do you want higher prices?
Lol. Progressives haven't been calling to repeal the Trump tax cuts ? That's a new one..
But of course, the point is the same people who support increasing business taxes are abhorred by tariffs even though tax increases are passed onto consumers.
I do look forward to you calling any proposal to increase business taxes insane though.
You continue to deflect and now with a new strawman.
The topic is tariffs.
I am not in favor of increasing business taxes. Never on this site have I ever suggested that. Take your dishonest strawman arguments elsewhere.
[✘]
The topic is tariffs.
Good for you. Nobody's talking about the pandemic either but here you are.
Thanks to Biden and the Democrats we already have them.
Your comments are all hypotheticals
Do you recognize that this seed is about Trump threatening to raise 25% tariffs on all goods from China, Canada, and Mexico?
That is what I am referring to you? What are you talking about ... is it your view that tariffs do not raise consumer prices?
[deleted][✘]
Old news therefore, the article is obsolete...............or mostly obsolete
Same concept.
Are you supportive of this nonsense?
Do you recognize that tariffs raise domestic prices and that these are affecting ALL imports from these nations?
Do you recognize that the whole thing is about something that hasn't happened? You're setting your hair on fire over a "what if" situations, hypotheticals.
Yeah, we know..........speaking of hypotheticals
This is a news site.
What HAS happened, Jeremy, is that Trump chose to announce this irrational nonsense to the entire world.
If you do not want to discuss this then don't. But this is news.
So another day ending in "Y".
Let me break this down for you with one question:
If you answered no to that question, you are going on about something that hasn't happened. You are doing exactly what 5.3.13 depicts.
I wonder if this means the "everything out of Trumps mouth is a lie" narrative is over. With Trump, and many politicians, it is best to wait to see what they do before screaming at the sky.
MAGAs "know" which announcements are real.
It won't stop. Neither will the hypocrisy of them making that claim then shrieking about "Trump said" and believing it.
That's hysterical.
I think that is one of the major issues in the United States started by the likes of Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. It seems more and more people don't know the difference between a news site and an opinion site. NT is far from what I would call a news site.
I have yet to hear anyone claim that. What they do claim is the you are best off if you don't hang on his every word as if it were gospel. If everyone learned that there would be fewer heads exploding and ulcers.
That will lead to alot of sleepless nights and Maalox sales going through the roof.
I think NT was once a "news and commentary" site. Over the years, the "news" part became more and more partisan propaganda, while the commentary became a fact-free food-fight.
To have a good democracy, the participants must want a good democracy.
To have a good ""news and commentary" site, the participants must want a good ""news and commentary" site.
When a majority of the members of a "news and commentary" site actually want to distribute propaganda, the site becomes a propaganda site.
When a majority of the members of a democracy want a fascist dictatorship, the country becomes a fascist dictatorship.
Like all the sites screaming a Trump win would be the end of democracy and are now bleeding viewers.
There is an asteroid the size of Rhode Island heading directly for Earth. Let's not talk about it until it hits us. Before his 2016 election Trump said he would move the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and move the US Embassy there, and as opposed to the broken promises about that by the other PotUSes in recent history, he did it. If I were you, I would not say Trump won't do what he says he will do.
Good thing Biden is leaving office. Fascist dictatorship averted.
Same basic ploy ... ignore the actual words of Trump, pretend they have no effect on trade partners and allies. What else can you possibly do, after all, to defend such irresponsible rhetoric?
You continue to defend a loose-cannon.
The audiences are different. Trump plays to MAGA. NT MAGAs play to other NTs.
Indeed.
I'm ignoring them
The name itself indicates that we discuss the news here. And, sure enough, the vast majority of the seeds and articles are dealing with the news.
We, like many other sites, take news that comes from original sources and from rehash upon rehash upon rehash sources and do our own rehash.
See how that works? NewsTalkers = a site where members talk about the news. We could be a site that talks about modern art, music, technology, celebrities, etc. But, as it turns out, we predominantly focus on news.
Of course you want to impose a narrow and stupidly wrong interpretation that my words meant that NT is an original news source. You know that is clearly NOT what I meant but of course instead of thoughtful commentary you chose to post obnoxious crap.
Actually, our inflation rate is among the lowest in the world. Look it up.
Fascism.....
Fascism ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / FASH -iz-əm ) is a far-right , authoritarian , and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy , militarism , forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy , subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race , and strong regimentation of society and the economy. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Opposed to anarchism , democracy , pluralism , egalitarianism , liberalism , socialism , and Marxism , [ 4 ] [ 5 ] fascism is at the far right of the traditional left–right spectrum . [ 6 ] [ 5 ] [ 7 ]
Fascism rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. [ 6 ] [ 8 ] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I , before spreading to other European countries , most notably Germany . [ 6 ] Fascism also had adherents outside of Europe. [ 9 ] Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the mass mobilization of society erased the distinction between civilians and combatants. A military citizenship arose, in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner. [ 10 ] The war resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines, providing logistics to support them, and having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens. [ 10 ]
Fascism rejects the view that violence is inherently negative or pointless but rather views imperialism , political violence , and war as means to national rejuvenation. [ 11 ] [ 12 ] Fascists often advocate for the establishment of a totalitarian one-party state , [ 13 ] [ 14 ] and for a dirigiste economy (a market economy in which the state plays a strong directive role through economic interventionist policies), with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency). [ 15 ] [ 16 ] Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism centres around the own group, but that can manifest as a belief in Manifest Destiny , revival of historical greatness (like Mussolini seeking to restore the Roman Empire) or in case of Nazism, racial purity or a master race which blended with some variant of racism or discrimination against a demonized " Other ", such as Jews , homosexuals , transgender people , ethnic minorities , or immigrants . These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit massacres , forced sterilizations , deportations , and genocides . [ 17 ] [ 18 ] During World War II , the genocidal and imperialist ambitions of the fascist Axis powers resulted in the murder of millions of people.
Since the end of World War II in 1945, fascism has been largely disgraced, and few parties have openly described themselves as fascist ; the term is often used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied to contemporary parties with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements. [ 6 ] [ 19 ] Some opposition groups have adopted the label anti-fascist (often shortened to antifa ) to signify their stance. [ 20 ]
Jeez, MrFrost! That's so straightforward. So clear. So limpid.
And our Usual Suspects will ignore it, as Usual.
I'll stick with the ACTUAL definition from a dictionary vs a site that can be edited by anybody:
Now. What administration censored the people? What administration prosecuted it's opposition?
I get you need to avoid anwering my questions but make sure you are quoting the right person to have an adult conversation.
No. I don't need anything concerning you. Your posts bore me.
Yet here you are. Contradicting yourself, misquoting people...
Unless the sole intention of these "threatened" tariffs on Mexico and Canada are meant to create leverage to get support for his border plans, high tariffs on Canada and Mexico don't seem be based on logic or reality of commerce
It's MAGA...
I think this is just ego now. He's bound and determined he's right and everything will be rosy so he can say he was right. Last time he had to bail out the farmers, He'll have to bail out the whole middle class next.
He'll let us wallow
Does anyone imagine that Trump gives a flying rat's ass about the middle class? Anyone with less than a million dollars is not worth noticing.
Of course he doesn't. And anyone who thinks he cares about us peasants is delusional. He has no stake in the working class
A stinking million? Hell, that is just a marginally okay retirement nest egg.
In reality, Trump has no use for anyone who does not kiss his ring.
Yeah.
I have trouble adjusting for inflation.
Hopefully. His actions telegraph a massive ego of "I am invincible" and "I can really do whatever I want". The latter has a lot of truth to it ... sadly.
Trump supporters have empowered a real monster.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Partisan blindness.
Not even close
I'd say that's what you are (and have been showing) for quite a while now.
His Treasury pick might slow Trump's roll on tariffs, anyway. He's a business insider and not prone to playing Trumpian games.
every one of those sycophants will have signed a loyalty oath, non-disclosure agreement, and resignation before they even go before the senate for confirmation ...
Funny how many here never talk about how much things have gone up since Biden took office. Or how much it is pounding the middle class all four years.
Trump hasn’t even taken office and they are already bitching up a storm. Fucking hypocrites.
Funny how you think this deflection will work.
Nope, it’s spot on to this topic. Take another swing.
... due to the inept mismanagement of the covid pandemic the first 7 months by the asswipe in the oval office in 2020.
You probably believe the twice as many COVID deaths under Biden are aaaaaaallllllllllll the fault of Trump. And this even with a vaccine that was being heavily used during the Biden admin.
Maybe you should ask Pelosi why she kept inviting people to China Town in San Francisco when it was well known COVID was running rampant there.
I have asked this multiple times without success, which one of Fauci's directives or advice suggestions did trump ignore? exactly what did he do that mismanaged the handling of Covid and be specific.
I honestly think someone forgot to give them the talking points to back up what they claim. That is why you ask multiple times and get only silence.
It seemed like the democrats in power were actively trying to make it worse or kill off as many as they could, from sending sick elderly patients back to nursing homes and telling people to gather in large groups.....but only if they were protesting trump, and other approved events but make no mistake about it, we are going to arrest grandma for holding thanksgiving for family and friends.
Then the geriatric skid mark took office in 2021 and really fucked everything else up. And ya'll celebrated the incompetence.
I'm sure that if they could have arrested grandma, they would have, especially if she was a Republican grandma.
What is also true in blue cities is that they did arrest many small business owners for opening their businesses, whose only income was what the business brought in. Many people lost their businesses and their livelihoods because of blue city/state policies.
trump ignored the CDC warnings about a pandemic in november and december of 2019. when it hit asia and europe before us, he then allowed americans and others to come to the US without a quarantine protocol in place. it became an exponential function of math at that point. he blew off the warnings and downplayed the pandemic until may/june of 2020, after state governors had already implemented their own state's pandemic protocols. big pharma began working independently on vaccines 4-5 months before trump admitted there was a problem. even when a republican is president, the buck stops at the resolute desk.
I have no interest in attempting to explain the exponential function of math to you. google it yourself ...
Well, if you don't have at least high school trig exponentials are hard to understand
You know they will never admit that trmp fucked up the pandemic response. That would be admitting that their hero is a big, fat, flawed, idiot.
I was horrified when he didn't insist on quarantine for Americans returning from overseas. That should have been the first thing he did
So no, no answer. You could have just said that.
Perhaps, George, you should listen to Bob Woodward's tape of Trump saying he delayed doing anything about the Covid pandemic for a month because he didn't want the people to panic. Did Fauci tell him to do that?
I'd like to address that list in order:
Everything Costs More: Which is a global post-pandemic issue, not just ours. The US economy is still the strongest in the world.
Americans Making Less: Wages have gone back and forward with inflation and right now outpace inflation:
Inflation Above Fed’s Target: That is true, which is why they had increased interest rates. Now they are reducing rates and are expected to reduce it more. Again, the inflation rate was a world wide event.
Inflation Higher Than Wages: Inflation outpaced wages for 26 straight months under the Biden-Harris Administration. That is true, but no longer. Please refer back to first link
Historic Interest Rates: True, but the Fed works independently from the rest of the gov. You can't blame that on Biden.
Mortgage Costs 89 Percent Higher: That is a combination of higher interest rates and real estate taking a huge jump because of supply.
$1 Trillion+ Credit Card Debt: Well, yeah, things got more expensive and credit card companies are allowed to charge usurious rates up to 35% for store cards. There needs to be regulation on credit card companies on how much interest they can charge.
Shrinking Savings: Yup.
Families Falling Behind on Bills: Yup.
Washington Has A Spending Problem: Washington always has a spending problem. It only goes up:
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/government-spending-in-historical-context
The pandemic saw a huge jump (Trump) and then more under Biden.
No one is "bitching". The discussion is "Tariffs" and tariffs do get passed on to the consumer. So if you are complaining about inflation, tariffs will only raise that. That is Economics 101.
trump will do to the american economy what he's done to his business endeavors ...
Excellent summary.
But was exacerbated by excessive federal spending.
Yes. But they had a tough 2+ years where that wasn't the case and many paycheck to paycheck families are still struggling. Kamala going on television telling everybody inflation was down when they still can't pay their bills was really out of touch.
Meh. Define historic. I remember them much higher during the Carter years. And yes, you can blame it partially on Biden. Government spending is a huge driver of inflation, which results in higher interest rates. The economy was already recovering from Covid, but the Biden team wanted their turn at spending shitloads of money.
It's still a point of pain to working families. We haven't talked about investment banking ownership. My kids are having to compete with Blackrock to buy a house.
If the study methodology is correct and its results accurate then it suggests the counterintuitive notion that the spike in inflation was predominantly due to federal spending rather than price increases through the supply chain. Okay, an interesting hypothesis. What is missing though is the lag time. Nowhere does the study indicate the time it takes after federal spending for the excessive inflation to occur. Is it immediate ... spending in March, 2021 triggers inflation in March, 2021 or is the lag something like six months, a year, multiple years? We do not know. What we do know is that changes in economic triggers typically take time to have their actual effect. Interest rate changes, for example, are intended to manifest 12 and 18 months. They are not immediate.
We also know that the pandemic triggered excessive federal spending in both administrations. We know that Trump authorized about $2.7 trillion and Biden authorized about $1.9 trillion. Although this is not to blame the Trump administration, logically the actual spending (actual cut checks) came mostly from the Trump authorizations. The reason this is not blame is because the pandemic was a worldwide challenge and everyone was dealing with multiple major problems from the seat of their pants. But it is important to mention this because your comment is implying that Biden's spending alone is what triggered the 2022 inflation and I believe that assumption is fundamentally flawed.
Totally false. She made it quite clear, repeatedly, as part of her campaign that prices were too high and she offered at least an honest approach that she would take to combat the prices (rather than lie and claim that electing her will solve all problems). She clearly understood that merely telling people facing high prices that the technical inflation rate is down would not be effective. She did state the good economic factors and noted, prices in particular, that more work needed to be done. It is truly unfortunate (for everyone) that the electorate does not understand the economy any better than this, but for as long as I can remember the electorate simply looks at their personal ability to purchase and then looks at who is in office and then casts blame or praise.
You cannot honestly or correctly blame Biden for interest rates.
Of course it is. But this is another area where the PotUS has little influence. The PotUS does not control the economy and does not establish the price points in the real-estate or mortgage markets.
Since we are talking Econ 101, let’s get into it.
An incomplete analysis at best. While the Pandemic did drive inflation it is nowhere near the biggest cause. By the governments own analysis the biggest driver has been volatile energy costs. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2023/beyond-bls/what-caused-inflation-to-spike-after-2020.htm#:~:text=So%2C%20from%20this%20research%2C%20the,in%20the%20auto%2Drelated%20industries.
Energy touches near every aspect of our economy, raising costs across the board as prices go up. Biden policy did little to contain energy cost and in fact did more to increase it. From overly aggressive alternate energy policy to a pause on LNG exports Bidens Executive Actions have helped raise energy costs across the board for all Americans. 25-35%. No link required, just look at your electric or gas bill in 2019 and again in 2023.
As to our economy. In history our economy has almost always been the strongest. It’s not really about how strong it is. It’s about how strong it could have been with better policy.
That’s an interesting chart. You ask many Americans today if that tracks with their pocketbook and they will disagree. See personal debt comment below. I’m retired so I don’t interact directly with wage much anymore. I do know how much costs have gone up on every day items though and 20-30% is pretty conservation in most cases.
And again, better policy could have contained it better. I’m not talking about the Fed. Powell’s policy did more to contain inflation than any other government action. Combined. Again, that’s Econ 101, maybe 102.
See wage comment above.
Thank God for that. Aggressive Fed policy is likely the only thing that kept us out of double digit inflation. Better Biden policy could have helped. See comment above on energy, etc.
Problem is, mortgage interest rates are largely influenced by the federal interest rate, which is in response to higher inflation. It’s a vicious circle that is tough to escape. No argument about the supply and demand component but that isn’t all of it. Again, in the end this circles back to higher energy costs and their effect on inflation.
This is a cause and effect thing. One could say this is because many American are just awful at managing their finances and lean on credit cards too much (I have a couple family members like that) or one could say people have to lean on their credit cards more because they are cash short. Lower wages, higher costs etc. Regardless, the effect is higher personal debt. You get no argument from me that credit card companies (banks really) are ripping people off with high rates but that is nothing new.
The fact remains folks don’t have to go into hock using credits. No one is forcing them but something might be.
Apparently you did not even read the report. The energy prices were deemed to be a consequence of the Ukraine war. So if the authors are correct, inflation in the US in 2021-2022 was predominantly a consequence of that. Now Jack @8.3.3 has offered other authors who claim that the predominant cause for this inflation was actually Federal spending. Seems we have two competing theories (and there are more than that out there). Both are sensible, IMO, but neither can be presented as THE reason until we can determine which is correct (assuming one IS correct). It would be nice to have the various authors debate each other.
You, however, apparently read a very brief summary of the report and did not even read the underlying report. Your declaration can be easily dismissed. Here is the underlying report:
One can always make such a statement. " Oh yeah, the economy is good, but it would have been so much better if .... or if .... ". That is the dishonest tactic of making an unfalsifiable claim rather than factual analysis. It is one of Trump's methods (e.g. " the wars would never have happened if I were PotUS "). Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless.
Of course there is always room for improvement; rarely do human beings achieve perfection. Our GDP could be twice as high as it is and you could claim ' better policy could have improved it more '. A fine (dishonest) tactic to criticize factors that are positive. Further, this also makes the unfalsifiable claim that better US policy could have better mitigated the spike in inflation (a worldwide phenomena).
( see above )
One of several factors on inflation ... not THE factor (certainty) unless you ignore other analysis.
I’m not the one who claimed there was only one cause. Perhaps you didn’t comprehend that from my comment.
My comment was clear as to Biden’s responsibility here. Can you dispute any of that or simply just regurgitate other potential obvious causes unrelated to Biden policy?
Neither did Perrie. She noted (factually @8.3) that inflation was a global post-pandemic issue.
That means, Sparty, that she was pointing out that merely blaming Biden does not cut it.
Understand that the pandemic not only directly harmed people and systems, but it had repercussions. The extra Federal spending to fight the pandemic and its direct consequences (e.g. loss of productive work results, supply chain disruptions, ...) contributed to inflation. That is also part of the reason for higher energy prices. The global economy is a very connected, complex mechanism. Catastrophic events like the pandemic ripple through the global economy for years and we see emergent problems in result.
Of course, the 'you did not rebut my comment' bullshit.
Yeah, Sparty, anyone can make an unfalsifiable claim and anyone can claim that things would be better if the policies were better. That is bullshit.
I refuted the facts that you offered and refuted the bogus tactics of the balance of your post.
Go read the report underlying your link. I gave you the link to the report in my rebuttal.
Well.... If Trump says it, that must mean it's definitely going to happen exactly like that. Trump always does exactly what he says he's going to do.
We should definitely start panicking.
Can i wait to WHEN he actually does it? i don't want to waste 2 months of perfectly good hair on fire screeching.
Sure George, if you do not want to talk about a threat from Trump you need not opine.
But this is largely a news site and this is news so some of us might want to discuss / debate what such a move might mean.
Okay with you?
Absolutely not. Commence panicking immediately. Hair on fire optional. Screeching mandatory.
That is a requirement for those that are only happy when they are miserable.
That is another thing that makes you wonder, Trump has the ability to do so many things and yet Biden couldn't get shit done, I have never heard a decent reason why.
I'm not panicking, I'm looking forward to the backlash.
In order for there to be backlash, something will have to actually happen.
When all is said and done, more will be said than done.
I have faith that the Trump haters will forget about Trump and his tariffs that may or may not happen as soon as they find a replacement issue to start their hair on fire.
Especially since it was just reported that Trump had a call with the Mexican president and she said there would be no more caravans coming into the US through Mexico and they had a very good discussion about avoiding any tariffs
Usually since words are easier than deeds. But again, this is you making obvious statements and ignoring the possibility of Trump acting in this way.
It is irrational to ignore what is said by a president-elect who has the power to effect action on his own until such action ensues. It is, however, rational to consider the source and develop likely scenarios and then prepare for those scenarios. I am pretty sure (in spite of the nonsense you are writing) that you do recognize that China, Mexico, and Canada have not dismissed Trump's rhetoric as 'mere words' and are instead taking actions to shore up diplomatic strategies and trade contingency plans pursuant to an aggressive potential trade action by the PotUS.
History suggests very strongly that you are correct.
Seems an entirely reasonable way to proceed.
It is irrational to take literally a serial liar whose native language is hyperbole and exaggeration.
In what fantasy universe have they not been doing that since long before the election?
You keep making these asinine projections onto world leaders like they're regular people who get their news from MSNBC and who can be "bullied" by some blowhard.
These people play 4 dimensional chess on a board where you are still trying to figure out how to count the squares. They are not reacting. They are executing pieces of plans they've been formulating for a while.
Do you really imagine that these people who are sophisticated world leaders in their own right have not been planning for the possibility of a Trump presidency for months? Do you think ANY of this is catching them by surprise? Do you think China didn't know well in advance Trump was probably going to win and what he would do if he did?
Claudia Sheinbaum is the first female president of one of the most patriarchal countries on the planet, which also happens to be home to some of the most violent organized criminal operations in world history. And you want us to believe that this woman is somehow either surprised or intimidated by a fat Yankee real estate developer??
Good grief.
Are you sure you read what she said?
Who claimed otherwise? So, logically, they are listening to Trump’s rhetoric and acting rationally given the possibility that some of his rhetoric will result in acts.
They do indeed consider possibilities and do not dismiss everything Trump says merely because he is a pathological liar.
You deemed this irrational behavior.
You could learn something from their rational responses to rhetoric.
Accordingly, news media, analysts, all the way to social media posters are quite rational to consider threats from a loose-cannon president-elect and not follow Jack Tx advice that no-one should believe anything Trump says could turn into action so everyone should just STFU until Trump acts.
I think it is all a matter of percentages.
If someone believes there is less than a 10 percent chance of the tariffs taking place it is perfectly logical they pretty much ignore it and continue on with their lives and forget all about it
If they believe there is a 50/50 chance it could happen they may want to still continue on with their lives in a wait and see attitude. That would be perfectly rational.
If someone believes there is greater than 90 percent chance Trump will go on a tariff spree they may want to prepare for that although I am not sure what that means other than make big purchases now because of a fear of raising prices. That would be perfectly rational.
I am sure the leaders of different countries that would be affected are looking at different contingencies. That is their job. They are smart enough to realize a tariff would not be good for their country and should be avoided and will work with the Donald to avoid it. Welcome to negotiations 101.
What is irrational is for people to run around with their hair on fire over something they have absolutely no control over.
It is also totally irrational for people to get all bent out of shape over it for no other reason than it is something Donald Trump said.
What exactly are those likely scenarios and how would you suggest people prepare for them?
You said they are taking actions based on his words. Now you want to agree that they were taking that action anyway, and have been for months.
They consider probabilities, just as they always do. There is a difference.
You keep trying to pretend I have said things I haven't.
Now that we've agreed Trump almost never means what he says, world leaders are not easily bullied and they don't react to clickbait, I supposes jousting windmills is what you have left.
So you distinguish between them acting on his words months ago from acting on his words now? Somehow it is okay by you for them to act on his words months ago but now it is irrational for them to act on Trump's recent threats?
Please stick with that level of nonsense.
On top of that, they acted on campaign rhetoric by the then nominee. Now that same person is the president-elect. So it makes sense to you that they acted on campaign rhetoric but you deem it irrational for them to act on rhetoric from the president elect?
What nonsense.
Oh here we go. The escape hatch: "I did not say that (or I did not mean that)".
Does not matter, you are clearly not trying to be serious (or honest).
Given you tacitly admit that it is indeed rational for national leaders to factor in rhetoric from Trump then you tacitly (logically) agree that it is not a smart move to simply ignore everything Trump says and wait until he acts.
Therefore I would expect to no longer read you criticizing new media, analysts, ... , down to social media posters for analyzing and opining on threats made by Trump and not holding their opinions until Trump actually acts.
Follow the context of what I wrote. One group (the obvious one) to consider likely scenarios are Canada, Mexico, and China. Do you really need me to explain to you the various diplomatic strategies and operational plans they are likely devising to be prepared to deal with potential scenarios?
They will of course consider the possibility that Trump is bluffing so that he can claim that he forced a reduction in drug traffic, that he really would do this, and various levels in-between. Their strategies could include everything from providing some token gestures sufficient to satisfy Trump enough so he can boast (even if the end result is little to negligible change) to a serious crack-down effort. Their analysis would consider the cost of various levels of crack-downs weighed against the costs of dealing with Trump's tariffs. They also will be considering the negative effects on the USA of imposed tariffs and how long they could whether the storm vs. us. Seems very likely that they will attempt to calculate the advantage of largely bypassing the USA while Trump is in office.
I would expect that you can use a little extrapolation and common sense to see that there are many ways this can go and that smart leaders will know their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and will know the same of the USA and the other trade partners.
And I would expect that China, Mexico, and Canada likely are (or will) have discussions with each other on this matter.
Now, are you going to ask me why these folks might do this work simply because the president-elect of the USA made a threat? Or is it clear to you?
You're the one trying to micro analyze this week's Trump tale.
Not what I said. Read it again, and try a little harder not to misrepresent.
Sure. Right. That must be it.
Because it's not like he's been president before or anything. If only he had some sort of track record to study.
It's also not like these places have small armies of government officials whose sole job is to get accurate, non-public information. No no... the Chinese get all their information from Reuters.
OK, well cite me. Let's see it.
No. Oh FFS.
Let me simplify this for you.
World leaders do not pay attention to soundbites given by other world leaders. They all lie, and they all know that about each other. They're smart enough not to believe bluster, which is why they are world leaders and you are pretending people said shit they didn't on an obscure internet forum trying to avoid having to admit your wrong.
Yep, world leaders ignore all rhetoric from other leaders as non-information.
So when you argued that world leaders have been reacting to Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail while merely the nominee, you misspoke?:
They either did indeed plan based on rhetoric of a potential president-elect's words (since he had no way to act) or they did not. Obviously they did not simply ignore his rhetoric . And now that he is president-elect they have applied that and his newly articulated threat in their Bayesian analysis.
Because that, Jack, is what rational adults do.
If you're going to attempt to cite someone, do it correctly. Don't insert your own erroneous interpretation into the middle of it.
Planning on rhetoric is your own invention. Try again.
Or don't. I'm getting bored.
We started this with a naive and emotional statement about the US behaving like an "irrational bully". So at least we've cleared up the idea that the first female president to face the Sinoloa cartel isn't going to be intimidated by a fat orange septuagenarian.
That's a good start.
When Trump made his specific threat to Canada, Mexico, and China, do you believe these nations took any actions in response such as?:
Did his threat trigger any analytical or planning activities in these nations?
Press releases. Trump got to look strong in front of his constituency and each of those leaders now gets to look strong in front of theirs. It's a win, win, win, win.
It may have triggered a phone call or two. Maybe. Assuming they weren't scheduled before. Which is probably more likely.
She doesn't seem bullied, BTW.
Sheinbaum illustrated how foolish Trump is being in her response letter. Big win for Trump on the world stage.
The point is that of course world leaders (and the media ... and private citizens) will indeed react to a public threat made by the president-elect. It is not irrational to do so, it is exactly what a rational person would do. And reacting does not mean freaking out, it means taking the latest public threat as information and factoring that into extant plans, performing analysis (as the media has done), formulating new actions (if needed) and discussing it (as we have done). And none of this activity requires that anyone believe that Trump will actually do any of this; only that he might given he announced this to the world not as mere campaign rhetoric but as a threat as the president-elect.
You claim that reacting to this threat is irrational. You claim that the world leaders, the media, etc. are all being irrational if they react to this threat because Trump has not yet 'acted' ... that everyone should wait until he acts (i.e. signs an executive order). That is the ridiculous notion from you that I have countered.
Is it your understanding that to be a bully the intended victim(s) must be intimidated?
Trump is showing himself, yet again, as an irrational bully by putting forth (out of the blue) — in the form of a public threat — new and outrageous, irresponsible demands that clearly he never even raised with these three trade partners. That is irrational. (Do you need someone to explain why?). The bully part comes from Trump making gratuitous threats rather than engaging in diplomacy. Bully = someone who seeks to intimidate others. It is defined by the action of the bully, not by the response(s) of his target(s).
So we agree she wasn't "bullied" and all these "threats" were overblown. Excellent.
I never claimed that anyone was bullied. (That remains to be seen.) So is this confusion on your part or more deflection?
I claimed that Trump was being an irrational bully. I even explained that being a bully does not require that the bully actually intimidates anyone. Bully = someone who seeks to intimidate others. It is defined by the action of the bully, not by the response(s) of his target(s).
Hard to say how you could even think to write such bullshit since I made no suggestion that Trump's threats were overblown (implicitly: by others). I have stated, clearly, that Trump made an irrational threat as the president-elect (not just campaign rhetoric) and that it is perfectly rational for adults to factor that threat into their plans, to analyze the threat, to revise priorities, and to determine short-term (if any) and longer term potential actions.
This is in response to you insisting that, because Trump is a pathological liar, it is irrational to consider or act on his words and that everyone should just wait until he acts (e.g. signs an EO). Your assessment of 'irrational' is of course ridiculous (and, as if even needed, immediate evidence of how wrong you are is the letter from Sheinbaum which likely will be followed by a rebuke of Trump from Canada).
Looks to me that you are employing Trump's tactics of never taking anything back and casting reality as you wish it to be regardless of the facts.
You're going to an awful lot of effort trying to pretend you didn't miss yet another obvious case of political grandstanding.
That's all this ever was.
Get ready, because we're probably going to have a lot more of it over the next few years.
Long-term relationships, between individuals and between nations, are built on confidence. Grandstanding doesn't build confidence.
I don't know whether Trump's threats are genuine or grandstanding, but they are not the way to behave with allies.
Of course, Trump wants to be Russia‘s ally, so....
You stated that it is irrational for people to react to Trump, as president-elect, making an extemporaneous and gratuitous public threat to Mexico, Canada, and China with specific terms and conditions. That everyone should wait until Trump actually does something (e.g. sign an EO).
That has been what I have addressed throughout.
It is entirely rational for people to consider this threat. It is not mere campaign rhetoric since Trump is no longer running for office and is now speaking as the president-elect. It is a specific threat. Trade partners (not just those mentioned) will factor this specific threat into their plans and likely have already initiated some preliminary steps (that they very likely had already gamed out) to best respond to this threat and to best respond if Trump carries out this threat. And since this is a publicly made threat by the president-elect, of course the media will analyze/discuss the threat and provide critique (e.g. why this was such a bone-headed move by Trump).
Finally, folks on a news-oriented social media site will also discuss this since this provides further evidence of the manner in which the buffoon who will be leading our nation for the next four years is going to operate. Entirely rational.
And nobody must believe that Trump will actually do this to have these discussions. We can even assume this is 100% bluster and discuss the stupidity of this move on those terms alone. The mere fact that this idiot chose to threaten our key trade partners without even first engaging them in private discussion indicates the kind of irrational bullying that Trump will likely try during his term. Entirely rational for us to discuss.
Of course. And we will be discussing this kind of crap over that time period too.
I am confident most who understand how bad Trump is for this nation have been 'ready' well prior to his election. This is exactly the kind of crap we expected and is a case where one wishes one were incorrect.
It is Trump supporters who will have the rude awakening ... if they can ever get past their cultish support for this scoundrel.
Nations are run by politicians, and one can always count on a politician to act in its own self interest. Which is why all politicians love a good grandstand. It gives them a chance to do some of their own.
Trump grandstands, so Xi, Scheinbaum, and Trudeau all now have a reason to grandstand.
Then a year from now when new trade deals are signed, they all get to brag about their heroism in securing lasting prosperity for their country.
Cite. Me.
Correctly this time.
It is interesting that you take things so literally when it suits you, yet you have no problem fabricating my supposed views out of thin air.
There is still nothing rational about taking literally the words a man whose first language is hyperbole.
You have had plenty of opportunity to just set the record straight. So do so:
Do you consider it irrational for people to consider, analyze, discuss, plan, and possibly act in response to this specific threat made by Trump as president-elect even though he is a pathological liar?
Or do you insist we hold our tongues (and minds) until Trump acts with an EO (or equivalent)?
If you agree that "consider, analyze, discuss, plan, and possibly act in response" is indeed rational (and normal) given a specific threat from the president-elect then I suggest you not portray mere discussion of Trump's latest threat as people freaking out and necessarily believing Trump.
Let me summarize it for you.
You: He's behaving like an irrational bully
Me: It's irrational to take him literally
You: So we should just never pay attention to anything he says???
Me: Not what I said
You: Escape hatch.
Me: Cite me.
You: Here is something else you said, with my silly misinterpretation added.
Me: No, still not what I said. There is nothing rational about taking him literally.
You: Set the record straight. Do you demand we stop speaking??
Me: Oh for fuck's sake.
You cherrypick-spin a fantasy exchange instead of simply setting the record straight.
Do you consider it irrational for people to consider, analyze, discuss, plan, and possibly act in response to this specific threat made by Trump as president-elect even though he is a pathological liar?
Or do you insist we hold our tongues (and minds) until Trump acts with an EO (or equivalent)?
If you agree that "consider, analyze, discuss, plan, and possibly act in response" is indeed rational (and normal) given a specific threat from the president-elect then I suggest you not portray mere discussion of Trump's latest threat as people freaking out and necessarily believing Trump.
*eyeroll*
I have set it straight. You just don't want to acknowledge.
You continue with theatrics rather than answer my question:
Do you consider it irrational for people to consider, analyze, discuss, plan, and possibly act in response to this specific threat made by Trump as president-elect even though he is a pathological liar?
This question simply asks for your opinion. It was designed for you to set the record straight since you have spent countless posts whining about being misrepresented.
My point is and has always been that it is quite normal and rational for people (e.g. trade partners, media analysts, social media posters, etc.) to analyze, etc. a specific threat made by a president-elect. It is a rational response even when the president-elect is a pathological liar. It would be both strange and irresponsible to dismiss a specific threat like this merely because the source is a lying sack of shit because that source will be empowered to act on this threat and could easily do substantial harm to the USA and other nations.
To wit, the mere act of discussing / analyzing this specific threat does not translate into people freaking out. Your criticism of people reacting to this threat rather than ignoring it until Trump actual acts (e.g. issues an EO) is unfounded.
You continue with nonsense rather than read accurately.
For the fifth time.
It is irrational to take Trump literally.
That was never the issue.
Do you consider it irrational for people to consider, analyze, discuss, plan, and possibly act in response to this specific threat made by Trump as president-elect even though he is a pathological liar?
Personally I think it is a little over the top to pretty much quote everything he says all the time. Most sane people want to live their life without stalking a politician, even the president or soon to be president. There should be a name for people like that.
Nice way to avoid dealing with the situation. Presume he is just bluffing. Okay, if he is bluffing then he is yet again harming international relationships with mere words. That in itself is irresponsible. It is not a good thing for the USA to appear as an irrational bully.
Now, let's consider the possibility that he would actually do this. What is your opinion on Trump literally raising tariffs 25% on these nations for ALL products? Is this, in your opinion, a good move? Why?
There isn't actually a situation.
Tell me exactly why you think any international relationships have been harmed. Do you not imagine that every world leader plays this game?
Why? Have you suddenly started believing him? When did that happen?
not unless they are the chicken little types who believe in "ifs" and "going to"
This is in response to your question about what international relationships have been harmed
Yep. Simple negotiation is apparently enough to freak people out at this point.
Meh. I don't think that's relationship damage. Those are just the opening salvos in a negotiation.
A year from now those two will be hugging it up on some stage somewhere claiming they've signed the grandest most glorious bestest trade deal in the history of the Milky Way and declaring themselves the saviours of their respective countries.
Over/under on how many times Trump will say "no other president has ever signed a trade deal like this" is probably 7, and I would put money on the over. Sheinbaum will be posing for her bronze statue to sit next to Benito Juarez.
I included the answer in my comment:
Do you think it is healthy, especially in terms of international relationships with allies and trading partners, for the USA to appear as an irrational bully?
Are you too going to play this stupid fucking game of deflecting from whatever Trump says with the 'do you now believe him' nonsense? Trump is going to be the PotUS. His words have an impact. Even when he does not intend to do something, his words have an impact. And if he does actually go through with something he claims (e.g. imposing absurd tariffs) you et. al. would want all critics to bite their tongues until he actually signs the executive order.
This is a news site. If Trump says something (especially now), it is news. We cannot determine what he might actually do. All we can do is factor in what we know of the scoundrel and opine on the likely possibilities.
We know he l-o-o-o-v-e-s tariffs, so....
Do these people expect the news media to NOT opine on Trump's rhetoric unless they know he is being truthful? Does opining on his rhetoric mean that all of a sudden they believe what he says?
Should CBS, for example, not offer this report because Trump merely said it ... did not yet actually do it?:
Crazy times, Bob.
I think "irrational bully" is an irrational assessment, based on emotion and naivete.
Do you really think these people became world leaders because they were so easily intimidated and that blathering from your president is enough to scare them? How arrogantly American is that?
We'll either he's a pathological liar who is constantly full of shit or he isn't. Make up your mind.
If he does, we'll worry about it then. You'll have exactly as much control over it then as you do now.
We have an old saying in Texas: when all is said and done, more will be said than done.
That's 10 times as true for New Yorkers generally, and 100 times as true if Trump is involved.
Now, you go right ahead and keep spinning your wheels chasing everything that comes out of Trump's mouth, or put the Kool aid down long enough to figure out which 2 of his 8 thousand comments are actually likely. Like you said, we won't know that for quite a while.
Right off the bat you make it personal. Nice indication of the balance of your post.
The fact that world leaders will NOT simply submit illustrates how bad it is for the USA to be seen as an irrational bully.
Amazing that this needs to even be written. His words make a difference. Words matter. Coverage and analysis of Trump is never going to ignore what he says.
For example:
On top of that, it is stupid for someone to believe that his actions will never correlate in any degree with his rhetoric. You do understand that a pathological liar does not lie 100% of the time.
The world's media disagrees with you. As should anyone with a hint of basic sense. Smart people use the information available to them. They do not categorically dismiss it until a 100% threshold is achieved.
The thinking world will indeed go right ahead and analyze / opine / plan based on what Trump says. That is what rational adults do.
They're spraying indeterminate nonsense in all directions. They have instructions from MAGA-central to keep the soup bubbling, and to avoid any serious examination of what Trump intends to do.
They want their cops and judges in position, before the general public understands what is happening.
I think it ultimately is the team sport thing.
The problem of course is that this affects everyone. This is not the Superbowl where life returns to normal when the winner is determined. We have to all live with the results for four years and lingering for decades thereafter.
In short, I figure it is mostly childish glee. IMO, the binary 'us' vs 'them' is thrilling to them and they want to bask in the glory of an R PotUS, even if they had to elect a scoundrel to gain that distinction.
In the meantime, any serious criticism of Trump will be dismissed. We all should pay no attention to what Trump says. This is the guy the elected PotUS! SMH
Could be.
I go kinda crazy, trying to figure out what they actually know/understand about even simple subjects, since they spend so much time blowing smoke. Not much, probably. They hear a random datum, and then construct a "theory". They end up with a lot of nonsense, but they don't care because "truth" is whatever MAGA declares it to be.
I think that tying up libruls in semantic knots is a big win.
Do you understand how bullying works? Repeating your irrational assessment does not make it less irrational.
Anyone with any familiarity whatsoever with Donald Trump knows better than to take him at his word.
Words distract. Actions matter more.
Coverage and analysis is going to create a constant stream of things for you to click on while you obsess over his every proclamation. It's how they get paid.
Yet you just said "we cannot determine what he will actually do". The most accurate thing you've posted so far.
You disagree with me, and they get paid to give you things to click on.
How do you intend to "use" this information? Do tell.
The thinking world will wait until we get closer to something becoming reality. Thinking people don't borrow worry from future events that will probably never happen.
Rational adults concentrate on things they can control. Obsessing about things you can't influence is the opposite of rational.
In short, pay no attention to what Trump says. It does not matter that much when he threatens allies and trade partners. You should just sit quietly and keep your mouths shut until Trump actually does something bad. Then you can watch Trump apologists lie it all away because Trump has taught us all that lying is the best way to get what you want.
And remember, if you use your intelligence to analyze the words and deeds of the PotUS you are irrational because you cannot control what the PotUS does. Rational adults concentrate ONLY on things they can control. So just do your job and support your family and STFU. Further, if you do any form of analysis on that which you cannot control you are obsessing on it.
What a crock of shit.
Assume everything he says is a wild exaggeration. I'm not sure how that's still up for debate at this point.
I assure you they don't feel threatened. They're not naive.
No. Absolutely not. You should run around panicking with your hair on fire.
What deeds? He hasn't done anything. He's not even the president yet. Are you having difficulty differentiating between words and deeds? When you learn that difference, your life gets instantly better.
When all is said and done more will be said than done.
What a tantrum. FFS.
If it helps you cope with whatever to misrepresent people so you can sidestep common sense, have at it.
If you really want to put some of that "intelligence" to use, maybe you might start with counting the number of days Hillary spent locked up, or the number of pesos Mexico has paid toward the wall, or the number of missing votes in Georgia, or the number of days since the ACA was repealed and replaced.
But no no no .... this time it's real. This time he's not full of shit.... Of course. Riiiiiight. That MUST be it.
Oh... BTW... I have 100 acres of oceanfront property in Wyoming for sale.
I'm putting it at 42
The President of Mexico has already hinted at retaliatory tariffs. We get as much stuff made in Mexico these days as we get from China. The costs of everything have no alternative but go up if Trump carries through on his threats.
😂
Now that you mention it, he'll probably go on for several hours telling us all how great he is, so you're probably closer.
I still wouldn't take the under.
It is not, you are simply pretending it is so that you can pretend to school others on the obvious and then ignore the actual points raise.
If we use as a standard your belief that the only thing about the president that matters at all is what he has done, Joe Biden is perfectly fit for office, today. Perfectly fit for four more years. After all, he hasnt done anything out of the ordinary, or beyond belief that any other president might have done it.
Your claim , obviously, is that character issues mean nothing for the president of the United States. That is certainly a viewpoint, but is one that at least half the country doesnt agree with.
That's exactly what the Democrats and yourself tried to sell the voters on. Then the debate happened and the world saw the pile of steaming excrement you've been pushing.
You feel Trump is an asshole. That is EXACTLY what we need in the WH. An asshole will not permit the world to walk all over the US as Biden has allowed.
The results of November 5th kind of prove that statement wrong.
No one was talking to you. Jack said it isnt the person who is president that is the issue, it is what they do. Biden hasnt done anything that many other presidents would not have done. Therefore he is qualified and fit for four more years.
Qualified? Sure. Fit, HAYULL no and you know it.
You are one of the few people still drinking that Kool-Aid.
You are in an open forum. Deal with it.
I didn't respond it Jack did I?
Other Presidents didn't do A LOT of the BS Biden did.
If he is so qualified then why did the Democrats kick him to the side and run the cackling candidate? The answer is right there in front of you and somehow you refuse to acknowledge it.
Please cite that assertion.
98% of you voted for one of two obvious liars, so "character" clearly takes a back seat to tribal politics, rationalizations, or whatever else drove your votes. That's the country I live in. Unlike you, I'm a realist.
Bullshit. His overly aggressive green energy policy and anti fossil fuel stances were extremes not even many Democrats would have done
Apparently you think it is. Otherwise you wouldn't say things like "Now, let's consider the possibility that he would actually do this.".
Everyone can read your comments . It is a form of nihilism.
If I had to like who I voted for I’d never vote again. I usually vote for policy not the person. Pretty rare when you get both
The word you're looking for is "stoicism".
Apparently you think that rhetoric from a pathological liar will never align with reality. That literally everything he says is false and will never happen. Who could take seriously someone who uses this as a foundation for their 'argument'? I certainly do not take your comments seriously anymore.
Trump's rhetoric regarding tariffs preceded the election. He now repeats it after he has been elected; when he no longer has to 'buy' votes. You think the world should just ignore Trump until he signs an executive order. Well the rest of the planet disagrees with you. World leaders are responding to the rhetoric. Analysts are considering the impact of 25% / 10% tariffs on the US economy. Trading partners are making contingency plans. That, Jack, is what rational adults do when they hear a loose-cannon PotUS-elect —who likely believes himself invincible— spew threatening rhetoric.
When a PotUS-elect makes a threat he can effect on his own, it is irrational to presume it will NEVER come to pass. Especially if said person is demonstrably irresponsible.
You genuinely do NOT consider it possible that Trump would impose such tariffs?? Again, barring a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump, lying and probability, you are not being serious ... at all.
Do you approve of a policy such as imposing an across-the-board 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China? Is this what you want?
THE most important thing to MAGAs is that "libs" be taught a lesson or made to look weak and foolish. Thats all they care about.
Not be taught a lesson as much as learn from their mistakes. As for looking foolish or weak the libs have done that without any help from anyone else.
Holy shit, well said
Depends on the criteria. Please explain to me your understanding what the criteria is for such an action.
A non-answer followed by deflection.
A legit answer to this question:
Can certainly be yes, based on the criteria. But leaving out the criteria you have in mind turns it into a non-answer.
Nope, it was an answer. That you don’t agree is not my problem. Now your lack of an answer to my question is telling. Very telling.
Lol …. Keep running ….
The same old predictable pattern. Now the 'not my problem if you do not agree' bullshit.
[deleted][✘]
Yep, there always LOTS of them but as soon as the election is over, they suddenly evaporate like a fart in the wind. Right wing fear tactics, it's all they have to sell.
[✘]
I believe the criteria is if Mexico and Canada keep illegals from crossing (not exactly sure what that means with Canada) and China keeping fentanyl out of the US. I'm sure it will mean if the levels are at a certain position acceptable to the US, then the tariffs could be dropped.
I think by "non answer", it would be interpreted as "I have no rebuttal".
You provided criteria whereas Sparty refused to. What compelled you to try to answer for him if you disagree that what he provided was a non-answer?
What level of illegal immigration attempts from Mexico must Mexico achieve and what level of tariffs would you think good to force them to achieve this level? (Considering the negative impact of tariffs on the price of goods in the USA).
If Trump actually were to impose a 25% across-the-board tariff on Mexico if they failed to reduce illegals to some stated goal, would you find that to be a sensible move, all things considered?
Exactly.
I refused nothing. You didn’t answer my question. Nothing new. Standard avoidance, redirect and project gambit we are used to with your work here.
And it gets weaker every time …..
What criteria would cause this to meet your approval? Under what circumstances would you approve of such tariffs?
[deleted][✘]
You were politely asked a question in 9.2.43, that you continued to rudely ignore. Nothing more need be said.
I learned the hard way not to gamble. Read my post 8.2.12
Consumers are the casualties of trade wars and tariffs. I thought Trump supporters said Trump would bring peace? His idea of "peace" is antagonizing a world wide trade war that all Americans will pay for, just so he can play strongman dictator on day one. No winners here except Trump's blind ego.
It is a mystery how someone can attract votes with words that outright contradict themselves. He may as well have said he’s going to reduce inflation by increasing inflation. His supporters would just shrug their shoulders and cheer.
Kinda like the "Inflation Reduction Act"?
It is a universally known, axiomatic reality that tariffs directly cause inflation and trade wars. The Inflation Reduction Act does not share that trait. What does that say about the majority of of folks who took the time to cast a vote?
The golden era of US tariffs, when McKinley held sway, did not have high inflation. In fact, there were periods of deflation.
The Inflation Reduction Act does not share that trai
The inflation reduction act had nothing to do with inflation. the name was a branding exercise designed to fool gullible voters. Ask Biden.
That is also known about government overspending.
Of course it does.
The Inflation Reduction Act is a product of intensely focused objectives with a fine tuned economic basis. It is a precise surgical instrument, whereas tariffs are a dull hatchet gleefully swung by a blindfolded child. Trump and tariffs just makes sense.
I said in an earlier post that Trump might be bluffing, but he may not be and that would be based on his first term when he did institute tariffs that were quite detrimental to the US. We, the US taxpayer had to bail out our farmers to the tune of $12 billion dollars or they were going under for good and it raised the prices of some of the products that were imported into the US.
Tariffs work both ways so once you start the program it will have adverse effects on the US consumer and of course on our export market of which the US is the second largest exporter in the world.
One thing that it was shown to be an Achilles heal for the US was when the tariffs went into effect, China began looking for an alternate supplier of soy and other farm products and Banda bing China started importing those products from Brazil, you know the country that they just signed a number of trade deals with. There is always someone to take your spot when you fail for one reason or another.
So my advice would be to tread softly you can accomplish more with honey than vinegar.
Wrong president-elect for that.
I’m sure that it is, TG, but gotta give it a try.
The history of tariffs in the US is long and interesting, We had the highest tariffs rates in the world from around the mid 1800 to the about 1930 but that was a much different time but there are lessons to be learned if one takes the time to do some research,
That was certainly one example of the damage that tariffs can cause and they also can protect fledging manufactoring as they did in the 1800 and early 1900ers.
"Trump vows new Canada, Mexico, China tariffs that threaten global trade"
So the loons on the left have gone from "end of democracy" to "threatening global trade". Someone should tell them scare tactics are no longer needed, the election is over and they got trounced.
If you actually look at his record of tariffs on other countries in his first term you’ll see that it did not do the US much good at all. In fact the tax payers had to bail out the farmers to the tune of $23 billion dollars because of China hitting back at the tariffs we imposed, that is a fact. What makes you think that he won’t do the same thing again?
You may want to look at what happened the last time the US added 20% to the existing tariffs…We lost our export market and if was devastating to the US economy.
You can bet that senior Chinese officials are making all sorts of contingency plans. Where to buy whatever... Where to sell whatever...
Chinese car companies are building plants in Europe and Mexico. They know what they're doing.
I'm planning to stock up on maple syrup and horse meat.
He is foolishly targeting American allies totally ignoring that our land masses connect which happens to be the means for the entire North American commerce system on the ground. All American businesses will suffer.
Brings new meaning to the notion that elections have consequences.
To all those who did not vote ... it does indeed matter who is elected PotUS.
The first hint should have registered given some of his nominations and appointments.
This second hint is this; how he is going to operate as a loose-cannon internationally.
Unfortunately, Trump is operating at least as poorly as one would expect.
If Trumps threats are a negotiating tactic he didn’t learn from the first time around. He threatened then and got his bluff called and the end result everyone hit back and in particular, China when they quit buying US farm products and the farmers collapsed and the American taxpayer had to bail them out to the tune of $23 billion and then we had to pay more for some imported products.
That is the way to stick it to China, well done and now let’s follow that up with another BS trade war, talk about the ‘’Art of the Deal’’….