Trump threatens to impose tariffs on Russia if they don't end Ukraine war within 50 days
By: PBS News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
World Jul 14, 2025 11:54 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Monday he would punish Russia with tariffs if there isn't a deal to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days, the latest example of his growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump made the announcement during an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.
"We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days," the Republican president said. He said they would be "secondary tariffs," meaning they would target Russia's trading partners in an effort to isolate Moscow in the global economy. "I use trade for a lot of things," Trump added. "But it's great for settling wars." Besides the tariff threat, Trump and Rutte discussed a rejuvenated pipeline for U.S. weapons. European allies plan to buy military equipment and then transfer them to Ukraine. Trump said there would be "billions and billions" of dollars purchased.
Rutte said Germany, Finland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Denmark would be among the buyers to supply Ukraine. He said "speed is of the essence here," and he said the shipments should make Putin "reconsider" peace negotiations.
Trump has grown frustrated with Putin
Trump has long boasted of his friendly relationship with Putin, and after taking office in January repeatedly said that Russia was more willing than Ukraine to reach a peace deal. At the same time, Trump accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of prolonging the war and called him a "dictator without elections."
But Russia's relentless onslaught against civilian areas of Ukraine wore down Trump's patience. In April, Trump urged Putin to "STOP!" launching deadly barrages on Kyiv, and the following month said in a social media post that the Russian leader "has gone absolutely CRAZY!" as the bombardments continued.
"It just keeps going on and on and on," Trump said on Monday. "Every night, people are dying."
Meanwhile, Trump's special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv on Monday.
Zelenskyy said he had "a productive conversation" with Kellogg about strengthening Ukrainian air defenses, joint arms production and purchasing U.S. weapons in conjunction with European countries, as well as the possibility of tighter international sanctions on the Kremlin.
"We hope for the leadership of the United States, because it is clear that Moscow will not stop unless its … ambitions are stopped by force," Zelenskyy said on Telegram.
Talks on sending Patriot missiles
Russia has pounded Ukrainian cities, including the capital, Kyiv, with hundreds of drones and cruise and ballistic missiles that Ukraine's air defenses are struggling to counter. June brought the highest monthly civilian casualties of the past three years, with 232 people killed and 1,343 wounded, the U.N. human rights mission in Ukraine said. Russia launched 10 times more drones and missiles in June than in the same month last year, it said.
At the same time, Russia's bigger army is making a new effort to drive back Ukrainian defenders on parts of the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line.
Trump confirmed the U.S. is sending Ukraine more badly needed Patriot air defense missiles and that the European Union will pay the U.S. for the "various pieces of very sophisticated" weaponry.
While the EU is not allowed under its treaties to buy weapons, individual EU member countries can and are, just as NATO member countries are buying and sending weapons.
Germany has offered to finance two Patriot systems, government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said Monday in Berlin. As far as other European countries financing more systems is concerned, that would have to be seen in talks, he said.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius was traveling to Washington on Monday to meet with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Germany has already given three of its own Patriot systems to Ukraine, and Pistorius was quoted as saying in an interview with the Financial Times that it now has only six.
'Weapons flowing at a record level'
A top ally of Trump, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said Sunday that the conflict is nearing an inflection point as Trump shows growing interest in helping Ukraine fight back against Russia's full-scale invasion. It's a cause that Trump had previously dismissed as being a waste of U.S. taxpayer money.
"In the coming days, you'll see weapons flowing at a record level to help Ukraine defend themselves," Graham said on CBS' "Face the Nation." He added: "One of the biggest miscalculations Putin has made is to play Trump. And you just watch, in the coming days and weeks, there's going to be a massive effort to get Putin to the table."
Kirill Dmitriev, Putin's envoy for international investment who took part in talks with U.S. officials in Saudi Arabia in February, dismissed what he said were efforts to drive a wedge between Moscow and Washington.
"Constructive dialogue between Russia and the United States is more effective than doomed-to-fail attempts at pressure," Dmitriev said in a post on Telegram. "This dialogue will continue, despite titanic efforts to disrupt it by all possible means."
___
Associated Press writers Lorne Cook in Brussels and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
234 visitors
The administration promised "90 peace deals in 90 days " /s
False:
That was 90 tariff deals.
/S
Cant help the squares.
How is that progressing?
50 days from now .........
Trump - "Putin is a good man who loves his family and loves Trump. Because he has agreed to come to the table, I am giving him 50 more days to reach a peace deal. When its finished it will be something like no one's ever seen before."
It will be walked back at Day 51
Don, WTF ARE YOU AGAIN TALKING ABOUT...? Don, U r like No One elected potUS has acted befrore, or that The US or the world, has seen before!
"like no one has ever seen before" is one of the stupidest overused sayings ever heard.
Try this:
“We get a lot of bullsh-t thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,”
Trump Says Putin Throws 'a Lot of Bullsh-t' | TIME
A conman has to con.
He conned his way in and hasn't stopped.
At some point, people have to realize they are being played.
Even Donald.
Progressives about to start backing Russia again.
Wanna bet?
I never did and I never will. I joined the military to fight the Red Menace
I see.
Trump and the GOP pussies grabbed by Trump are the only ones who have changed their tune about Putins' Russia.
Dream on.
Not a chance. This is perhaps the first truly worthy use of the Trump tariffs if it works, which I hope it does. I'm not that confident that it will because we've all watched Trump fold like a napkin, but I do hope it either successfully stops Putin's aggression into Ukraine or goes into effect and fucks Putin's economy so bad his own people overthrow him and feed him to wild dogs.
"We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days,"
50 days is too long to wait. July 15th sounds much better.
It was time to shit or get off the pot 3 years ago. Either give Ukraine what they need to win immediately (including tariffs) or get off the pot. This is more than just upping sales of arms for the US.
wow
A pointless gesture. Putin does not give a shit about tariffs. The only way to stop Putin is to defeat his military to the point where he is willing to negotiate a peace.
Trump keeps saying this war would have never happened if he were PotUS. Now that he is PotUS, he cannot even get Putin to abide by a ceasefire. And his supporters do not even recognize the bullshit.
Trump just gave Russia 49 more days (at least) to keep bombing Ukraine.
They are immune to Trumps bullshit.50 daze??? How about IMMIDIATELY! Youve held up aid since before you were elected! You claimed the war would have never started if he had been successful in overthrowing our peaceful transfer of power! ' You claimed you could stop the war in just 24 hours after elected, WTF People, are your minds like Dons, defective, cause that is what so many can now see, from their perspective, Trump and his supporters minds, are defective, to Putin, Trump ineffective, try facing the truth, try collective...
He can't.
He sacrificed a million soldiers and countless wounded to gain about 50 miles of territory. He cannot explain that to his people. He must keep going.
When faced with two (or more) ugly scenarios, one can choose the least painful. Losing the war is more painful than negotiating a peace with modest results. Putin can (and certainly will) spin whatever happens, and he has a willing owned media to help him do it.
Hell, look at the absolute bullshit that Trump gets away with here. You think Putin would be less effective with the Russian masses than Trump in the USA?
That may cost Putin his life.
He is all in and he must win sooner rather than later.
How did Gorbachev explain the withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Declare victory and objectives achieved, then slink back home, again.
Trump is threatening punitive tariffs against Russia's trading partners. That includes European countries who are still buying Russian oil and gas.
European duplicity really is making it more difficult to threaten Putin and Russia.
So, what should Trump do? Invade Russia? Bomb Moscow? Russia won the war when Joe Biden promised the US would not fight.
If Russia invaded to annex Ukrainian territory then Putin has already won. If Russia invaded to weaken NATO the Putin needs the war to continue. Maybe depleting our stockpiles and convincing us to spend more money on an unwinnable war is what Putin wants.
Putin is the one that was spending more money on an unwinnable war until Trump got reelected. Depleting our stockpiles ? Of Patriot Missile batteries ?? Trump has been depleting our stockpiles of NATO Allies with his ALL LIES
Fully support the EU efforts. Make it clear that the USA is behind defeating the aggression on Ukraine. Continue to supply weapons and work as an ally.
Has that materially changed the course of the war in 3 1/2 years of fighting? Are we to believe that continuing on the same path will alter the outcome 7 years from now?
Ukraine has not dislodged the aggressor. Ukraine could not capture and hold Russian territory as a bargaining chip. Ukraine destroyed a large portion of Russia's strategic air assets and Russia has increased its air attacks deep inside Ukraine. Ukraine destroys ships of the Black Sea fleet but does not open shipping lanes for resupply.
How will increasing supplies of defensive weapons drive Russia out of Ukraine? How will protecting Kiev reclaim Donbas? Claiming that the weapon shipments are preventing Russia from overrunning Kiev and annexing all of Ukraine is about staving off defeat; not about winning the war.
The EU continues to buy Russian oil and gas. I haven't seen recent numbers but throughout the 2nd year of the war, the EU remained one of Russia's biggest trading partners. If the United States supported EU efforts then we would begin trading with Russia. Where is the EU allegiance?
Now Russia is deploying weapons that Patriot missiles aren't very good at intercepting. The Patriot system wasn't designed to defend against slow moving, low altitude drone attacks. At this point in the war, the Patriot system makes great PR for Ukraine but may not be the most effective weapon for Ukrainian needs.
The war started on Joe Biden's watch, not Trump's. Joe Biden wanted Russia to invade Ukraine and scare Europe into running to the US for protection. Russia quickly overrunning Ukraine would mean Russia was an existential threat to NATO. Russia annexing all of Ukraine would have proven Biden's Cold War fearmonger was correct. Biden wanted Europe to be very afraid and for the United States to be Europe's first line of defense. Biden wanted Europe to return to the Cold War status quo of US dominance.
Joe Biden could have prevented all of this by deploying a show-the-flag force to Ukraine. Biden could have correctly stated that the United States had provided security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for nuclear disarmament. Biden could have warned Putin that an invasion of Ukraine would have been a act of war against the US. But that's not what happened, is it?
Yes, I believe strong, unified, unwavering commitment by the USA and EU will persuade Putin to recognize that an end to the war coupled with his propaganda is his best option.
The world can and will gradually bankrupt Russia and Putin economically ala Afghanistan. That you twist it all up to blame Biden for Putin's Criminal Folly in The Ukraine is ridiculous...
Talk about "Blame America First". Putin will totally approve!
So you advocate continuing Biden's approach that has proven ineffectual and Putin seems to be encouraging?
I'm placing blame on Biden's shoulders where it belongs. Putin is driving Trump into returning to Biden's strategy for fighting the war in Ukraine. Why is that?
If Putin wanted Ukraine, he could have graciously accepted Trump's generous offer. But that is not what has happened. Putin has become more aggressive as Trump has pulled back from the fighting. Why is that? Does Putin want the US to commit to supplying more weapons? Does Putin want the EU and NATO to strip money away from their domestic economies to build defenses and supply weapons to Ukraine?
Putin emptied the Russian prisons for canon fodder. Why would the Russian people be upset over the number of casualties?
Yet, none of that has beans to do with Russia's economy and industrial base steadily deteriorating. The $ will win...
So, why isn't it working?
Russia is using the war to spend on infrastructure and the military. The same sorts of stimulus spending the US has relied on to counter economic downturns in the past. Russia is experiencing about 3 percent GDP growth. Peace in Ukraine might stop the Russian government's gravy train.
Don't people get tired of this? Demeaning every single thing a person does, I mean? I seriously worry about minds that, no matter what a person does, some people work to turn that person or their action into something to be derided. It's like being back in grade school where every last thing about the unpopular kid or what that kid did was mocked. Not because who he was or what he did was necessarily bad, but simply because the unpopularity was the lens through which the kid was judged. The kid was unpopular, ergo, nothing the kid did or who he was could possibly be acceptable.
People can and do have legitimate complaints about Trump, but it is simply ridiculous to attempt to cast every single thing he does as evil, stupid or misguided. That's a statistically impossible argument to make, yet we have so many people who attempt that very thing and, sadly, so many eagerly join in for no other reason than it is emotionally satisfying.
I find it worrying that some people's mental capacity has not progressed past this sort of thing and that narratives such as this actually works on a significant number of people.
There has been a package percolating in the Senate for weeks that will place new sanctions on Russia. It has both Republican and Democratic support.
What is Trump waiting for? Is it because it was someone elses idea? With this 50 days nonsense he will position himself to claim the credit for "ending the war" if something happens in 50 days. If it doesnt he will probably blame Zelenski. You act as if we are not being fair to Trump when it is he who is not fair to everyone else.
If it is so outlandish why is it so easy to mock Trump on his never ending "deadlines" ?
Oh please. I question the mental advancement of anyone who sincerely supports this fool.
It is perplexing how dislike for one person can erode a persons ability to be unbiased or think critically instead of just rationalizing how everything a person does is just more confirmation bias of their preconceived feelings.
Please stop with the bla bla bla.
It’s like AI is talking to AI.
[✘]
Trump said he is 7 2, and still growing....
Forget about Trump.
You tell me what you think is the right move. Does it make any sense, at this point, to threaten Putin with tariffs? Do you think Putin is going to suddenly buckle at the threat of US citizens having to pay more for products we buy from Russia (and thus reduce the demand)?
What, in your opinion, will cause Putin to find value in ending this war? The only realistic approach that I see, based on what we have observed thus far, is to defeat his military to the point where he recognizes that his best option is to secure a peace with Ukraine.
To that end, arming Ukraine is good! About time. Working closely with our allies so that Putin is convinced that the USA is resolved to support Ukraine and our allies against Putin would be better. And of course, keep the side pressure with sanctions and keep the channels open with diplomacy.
Trump is the current PotUS. Thus his actions will (appropriately) be scrutinized. Most of what he does is irrational/stupid so you should not be surprised by the constant criticism. Rather, you should wonder why so many try to defend his actions.
Right here, in a nut shell !
Curious. You tell me to forget about Trump but spend the rest of your post speaking of him. I'm not sure how to process that.
Well, first, I thought Trump made an avoidable error concerning his handling of the situation in Ukraine from the outset. It seems to me that he has changed his mind on that, be it from a bruised ego or from some realization that Russia isn't going to make a deal without pressure that Putin will take seriously makes no difference to me. I care only about the final product.
That said, I think Trump is currently making the right move or, perhaps more accurately, moves that head in the right direction. He isn't relying on tariffs alone. As I understand it, he has decided to resume arms to Ukraine and is threatening sanctions against countries that buy Russian oil. I'll take it for granted that he is providing American intelligence as well. Other options may be forthcoming. I do not see any problem with this. Whether or not that answers your question is for you to decide. By what else you said in your post you presumably approve of what Trump is currently attempting. My question would be, what's the point of deriding what you approve of?
That is a matter of opinion. I do not think that most of what he does is irrational/stupid. I think that the way he goes about it is less than ideal, but that doesn't make what he's trying to do irrational or stupid. I suppose that is because we have fundamentally different views about life and humanity. For instance, I am often tempted to think what Dem's try to accomplish is both irrational and stupid, but I also understand that I only think so because of my views concerning reality are very different from theirs. If I place my mindset in theirs, what they are doing is perfectly rational. Of course, if I place my mindset in the same place as Nazi Germany, Hitler seems perfectly rational as well.
Getting back to the point I made in my original post, what useful purpose is served when someone who you (general you) thought was doing something wrong suddenly does what you think is right but still continue to deride that person for doing so? In what way is that helpful?
No, Drakk, I started with a Trump-free explanation right after I announced that this can be viewed without Trump. Read what I wrote again ... it was generic.
After that, and at the end, I commented on Trump.
Yeah, siding with Putin against Ukraine was pure stupidity. That is, unless Trump planned to simply throw Ukraine under the bus (and I think that is what he had in mind).
The tariffs are irrelevant. The military and diplomatic actions are indeed what is needed. The USA should be all in on supporting Ukraine and the EU against Putin (short of us taking direct military action).
He is a buffoon. His tariffs accomplish nothing other than to harm long-term relationships and (as long as they continue) increase domestic prices. The bombing of Iran's nuclear capabilities might be a good move ... we still do not know. I am not listing everything. But he is a horrendous embarrassment for our nation and is causing chaos domestically. Trump is unfit for any public office, much less the presidency.
Trump operates as though he gets an idea (based on a superficial understanding rather than deep thinking) and just (stubbornly) runs with it. Looks like the presidency is, to him, a great tool (a big stick) with which he can amuse himself and get even with his opponents. Seems to me, Trump uses the presidency for self-aggrandizement and self-gratification, not for the good of the nation.
I agree, it is not helpful to criticize Trump for things he has done right — especially if one believes what he did was correct. So, for example, I give Trump credit for better securing the border. That is something we needed. I give him credit for promoting AI strategically (if he does this). I give him credit for taking the position that wars need to stop. But for those things he has done wrong (which is considerable and seemingly weekly), I will criticize him. In all, Trump is a disaster and it does not surprise me one bit that he is routinely criticized.
No, it wasn't generic. This conversation would not exist without Trump. Put differently, without Trump you'd just be postulating a scenario out of thin air.
Illogical as stated. If Trump intends to throw Ukraine under the bus you necessarily have to explain his current reversal.
Nice and all, but this discussion is centered on what Trump is doing right now concerning Ukraine. Do you support or not what he is currently doing and, if you do, what point is there in where JR is trying to steer how Trump's actions should be viewed? In my view, it wouldn't matter for some if Trump personally cured cancer. For them, Trump himself is the issue so it literally doesn't matter what he does. Trump = bad, no matter what.
In my opinion, Trump started off on the wrong foot concerning Ukraine. I did not support what he was doing. Now he seems to have changed his position and I support that. That is an unemotional assessment of the issue. Contrast that with JR's assessment. Presumably, he thought we should have never stopped supporting Ukraine. Now that Trump is supporting Ukraine, JR one would reasonably expect that JR would be pleased but he's not. He continues to tear down Trump, just as before. Does that not seem irrational to you? Does that not seem to be emotionally based to you? Does that not suggest to you that the issue, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and that the person, Trump, is? That is, that my original post is accurate and that it doesn't matter whether Trump makes a correct judgement or not? That it is just an emotional reaction to Trump himself?
Instead of just being disagreeable for the sake of it, try to objectively read what I wrote. The first three paragraphs are not about Trump in any way:
There is not even a mention of Trump in this entire narrative. ⇡ It was solely about what we can do to deal with Putin.
My scenario assumed a nameless, faceless PotUS and posited how the USA might deal with Putin.
My last paragraph was on a different note. Here I was addressing your concern about criticism for Trump:
I should not need to break down something this obvious.
Would those paragraphs exist without Trump? No. So, please, don't treat me as if I am a fool.
Well I don't give him credit for "Securing" our border. He has used arguably (and in my view, definitely) unconstitutional methods to achieve this border "security." Quite frankly, I feel the only immigrant problem that we have is the lack of ability to screen and process them. Border security is not the same thing as "keeping the immigrants out."
Why do we have borders? Because they have proven to be a good way to define where a country is and is not from a legal and financial perspective. I do realize that they give everybody something to fight about. That is chief among my reasons for not liking borders. I am not saying this thinking that I am going to magically wake up one day and see that people have suddenly agreed and have all come together in a Kumbia moment, but I do think that humanity can do so much better than all of these little groups of people camping out, raising a flag and saying "Mine!" and treating the other people who try to come to the country as if they were less than human. We can't even assure the rights of everybody in one little sequestered part of the world because humans like to fight, I guess. That is what we had ought to be working on: People not trying to force ideas onto others.
Yes. How is it that you cannot see that this is talking about what the USA could/should do given Putin?
Again, when a scenario talks about what is within the power of the USA to deal with Putin and does not mention a PotUS (intentionally), and the scenario is noted upfront to ignore Trump entirely, to argue that the narrative is about Trump is obnoxious and intentional.
I give him credit for funding and authorizations (myriad) and enabling the border patrol to better prevent illegals from entering our nation. Of course with Trump there is rarely a negative without a positive. Trump killed the border bill during the campaign because he wanted to take credit for these actions.
We should enforce our border to ensure a) we properly vet immigrants to get those who will likely contribute positive to our nation and b) to manage the rate of immigration commensurate with our ability to absorb the population.
What 'this'? Are you not aware of the seed and JR's response to it? Or do you think I'm missing the fact that you are doing what you usually do? That is, change the subject? Problem is, even if you're trying to change the subject it is still based on the seed. You want us to accept your argument as the product of a hypothetical but ignore the fact that it is based on what an actual president is doing. None of us are that stupid, Tig, even those who vote you up.
Oh. I see now. You're not addressing the subject. You're trying to chang it. Sorry. Not going to play that game. As far as I'm concerned, the subject is whether or not Trump should be derided/castigated/excoriated for doing the right thing.
You took a calm, adult discussion and have successfully turned it into an obnoxious attack based on nothing other than your imagination. Again.
Get a grip, Drakk.
People have always performed up and down the scale. I see no cogent reason for maintaining the pool of immigration of human beings into "those who will likely contribute" and "manage the rate of immigration commensurate with our ability to absorb the population."
What does that even mean? It sounds a little bit like Ebenezer Scrooge when he says "Decrease the surplus population". To follow the path that is outlined above, one has to first enact a framework around two vague and highly disputable terms. Who defines what contributing to our nation is? Who defines the actions that are attributable to such a statement? Who defines what "our ability to absorb" is? I would posit that when we try to lay down these types of definitions, we start to act prejudicially towards people. Can you show me a time when the amount of immigration actually swamped the country beyond its capacity to support the immigrants?
As an example, we would deny immigration for someone with a criminal record, someone with known association with terrorist organizations, someone with serious substance abuse history, etc. I cited normal policy that has been in effect for decades.
Then you are reading a highly negative connotation into a profile of sensible policy for any nation (and, in fact, quite normal).
We have had immigration quotas for over a century now. What I noted is nothing new, just normal prudent policy.
How is it that you cannot see that what you're talking about concerning what the USA could/should do given Putin is relative to what Trump is doing? Are you ignoring what the seed is about? Do you actually think a critical thinker is going to ignore the fact that your opinion is relevant to what Trump is doing?
Uh, right. It's obnoxious and intentional to stick with the seed. Got it.
You continue to try to pick fights on absolutely nothing. If you cannot understand how talking about how the USA could deal with Putin regardless of who is PotUS then just move on rather than, as usual, make things personal.
I responded to your post. If you feel your post was off topic then that is on you. You complaining about this is a dishonest tactic.
You cited "normal" policy. The normal policy does not work. Normal policy is what has contributed to the tremendous backlog of asylum cases.
You want to see some happy and faithful American citizens? Naturalize them. Let them work.
In my opinion, the reason that Americans don't want immigrants in our country is because they believe the bullshit that Trump sells (rapist, murderer, psycho, eat the pets), and they also believe that all immigrants get everything for free and they're pissed 'cause they didn't get any.
I am truly sorry. I thought that you would recognize my sense of humor. My bad.
Do you not see that position in my words?
I see an attempt to reconcile the policies of the past with a conservative mindset, which is what I would expect from a normal, fiscally and economically conservative capitalist person such as you. I don't necessarily have any problems with the outline of your position, except that in my opinion what the country has been doing historically has not provided the infrastructure to accommodate the demand.
That is why the problem (immigration) has arisen. (As an aside, I will note that I do not feel that immigration is a problem, but rather used as a foil to point to when economic factors do not look promising for the people looking for traction. That is, it is not the problem. It is what the politicians point to as the problem. The border and security and immigration are a common source of conflation for those with a desire for power. Delving into the disambiguation of the three would make everyone drool on their keyboards, so I will not go there.
)
Blowhards from both parties have noticed this lack of infrastructure and utilized it to their advantage, gaining traction (votes) from the issue in a myriad of ways. So, it benefits neither of the two parties to have a resolution to the underlying problem (lack of infrastructure), and therefore, all that the voters get is a continual kicking the can down the road and the "normal" quotas continue, even with the evidence of malpractice by politicians piling up in the number of court cases outstanding.
So, coming back around to the question, I see in your words a desire for the policies of the past, the "normal" policies, to work as designed. I do not see the path that would end the number of people wanting to immigrate to our country being controlled by such policies.
One might say that Donald Trump is reducing the problem (as defined by him) by his unconstitutional and extralegal deportations and confinements. He may be lowering the rate that people are crossing the border temporarily, but as long as America is seen as the best place to make money, people will keep trying to enter. It is my concern that, given the time and propensity to complete his brain-dead and malicious schemes, he will drag America down to the point that there is no longer a desire to come here. It takes a pretty large impetus to move a person to leave their homeland in the first place. I don't mind their choosing to come to the United States of America, so long as they are here in good faith.
Narratives such as what?
Narratives such as the seeder is promoting.
I’ll ask again. What narrative? [deleted][✘]
[✘]
Sorry. I'm not allowed to respond, apparently.
What are the narratives that John (the seeder) is promoting?
I tried answering that when Tacos! asked the same thing. I was censured. My appeal to Perrie was denied. At risk of having his post deleted, I can only suggest you read my original post ( 6 ) to get your answer.
You just cast criticism of Trump as a mental deficiency of the critic. I would argue that defending wrongful and stupid acts by Trump (the majority of what he has done) is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic.
Of course there is a lot of criticism of Trump. That is exactly what should take place when we have a PotUS who, for example, pisses all over an ally prior to (ostensibly) brokering peace between the ally and the invader.
When Trump does good, I will give him credit. But good grief man, pay attention to what this buffoon has been doing. It is as if he is trying to create chaos in our nation (and the planet). His tariff insanity is the prime example here.
No, I didn't. I cast the practice of casting every single thing Trump does as negative as a deficiency of the critic. For instance, criticizing Trump for abandoning Ukraine and then criticizing Trump for supporting Ukraine. Obviously, Ukraine is not really the issue for them. Trump is.
Great. Not because it is Trump, but because it is rational to give credit where credit is due.
Please note that I'm not saying you're wrong. Nor am I agreeing with you. But Trump may be exactly what the world needs right now. For instance, the American taxpayer has been hauling water for Europe since the end of WWII. Trump is rightly putting an end to that, or trying to. I'm not putting that forth as a justification for Trump. Rather, even if Trump is a complete idiot, (hypothetically. Not suggesting he is) maybe he's exactly what is necessary to break the world out of the 'business as usual' rut the world is in.
As far as the tariffs go, I haven't noticed anything that disrupts my life because of it. As far as I can tell, everything costs what it has before the tariffs. Further, I've seen articles that indicate that the tariffs are actually having a positive effect. As I have told you before, I do not feel I'm qualified to comment on the effectiveness of tariffs, so I give the same weight to those articles as I do your opinions of them. My uneducated opinion, however, is that the tariffs would be far more effective if they were combined with Congress making an effort to use tariffs as a means to bring back manufacturing to the US. As it is, we're far too reliant on foreign supply chains. I literally don't care if we enacted zero tax on corporations to correct that.
You seem to have some sort of obsession about Trump getting credit.
I will be for whatever happens there that allows Ukraine to retain its territorial integrity and gets some sort of framework of security from the international community that assures this wont happen again in 5 or 10 years.
How many innocent people have died in the last six months as Trump tried to be Putins pal? The rest of the world has not imagined that Trump has sucked up to Putin over the years, and the current culmination of that was when he tried to humiliate Zelensky in the oval office meeting. In my opinion Trump was perfectly willing to agree to Russia being given Ukrainian territory, at that time, and may still be for that matter. But Putin has "snubbed" him in recent weeks so Putin committed the cardinal sin of disrespecting Trump. Now Trump will make a grand gesture (supplying Ukraine with weapons). How do we know this will last. What if tomorrow Putin praises Trump , lets say he calls Trump "the greatest American president of all time" and says Trump is "the worlds greatest businessman"?
Will Trumps support for Zelensky backslide? Who knows , it certainly wouldnt be a shock. What if Trump gets bored with helping Ukraine?
Trump is the most mentally erratic US president any of us have ever seen , and really, the most mentally erratic president in our 250 years as a nation. Sorry, thats not praiseworthy.
Contrast that with someone who is obsessed with Trump getting chastised for even the most minute of anything; consequential or not..........and wins are "Just wait and see, he will fuck this up" bullshit.
Some might say it is blatantly unpatriotic to bet against their own country. But, here we are.
Show me exactly where I have "bet against my country" or shut the fuck up.
You delusional MAGAs may think that not praising Trump is betting against the country , but I am quite sure Trump will be criticized , forever. Its a done deal, for endless reasons.
Trump is the blatantly unpatriotic Trojan Whorse who violates our country and its Constitution on a consistent basis, and since so many choose not to face this, it is required they be reminded of what their ignorance and denial has d to, say like crocodile tears for alligator alleys armed to the teeth wit a hell of a lot more evidence than is needed for belief, cause good grief, Charlie isnt always brown and in the perimeter, cause how many times is the wrong 'right', can play Lucy loosey with the football that they want shrunken down now, for it iz so large, it know longer fits through the can't be found cause moving so fast Gold posts, cause now they're Arches, like enimies, that Trump supported, got played over and overtly by Putin him in office, you know, the guy who wants to Off US.
And this simply exposes your problem. You think I'm concerned with Trump. I'm not. I'm only concerned with his actions. If I give credit, it will be credit toward the action, not the man. This is because I don't assume but, rather, know that every single one of us is flawed in one way or another. That is, just because a person may take an action I approve of doesn't necessarily translate to that person being good. Or bad.
Your posts indicate otherwise. Trump is moving in the direction you want him to, yet you still deride him for it. Because "Trump".
What if an alien civilization shows up in the next hour and solves all our problems?
I can't agree. To my mind, Trump has tried to do everything he's said he would do, more or less. Moreso than any other president. Not that I personally agree with everything he said he would do, but I can't say he's erratic. No honest person can, in my opinion. That's one of the things people who like him like him for. He really says what's on his mind and actually tries to do it. There's little slight of hand with the man.
LOL. He is widely considered to be a con man, and has been for decades.
Um. Most people have learned to interpret what comes out of his mouth. Or, perhaps that's just me. I learned that from listening to most politicians.
Again with the "most politicians" bs. No one in the history of US politics has lied as much as Trump does.
This is sad to read.
The effects of tariffs on prices take time. Current inventory needs to be depleted, and some companies are trying to absorb some of the tariffs with the hope that they are temporary. However, the cold, hard reality is that higher prices are inevitable when a consumption tax is imposed (and that is what tariffs are from the consumer's perspective).
As for your knowledge of the topic, it takes minimal effort to understand the basics and with a high level of corroboration among sources. You have claimed that you do not understand this topic very well for months. Time to invest just a tiny bit of effort.
We shouldn't have to do that. He should be able to not mince words CONSTANTLY.
Those who still support him likely are not properly interpreting what he says (or writes).
So, he’s threatening tariffs against Russia. Not imposing. Threatening. Everyone else in the world, who isn’t invading other countries, trying to spy on us all the time, disrupt elections, and so on - many of them, allies for generations, even centuries….those countries just got tariffs slapped on them right away for no good fucking reason.
But Russia - our oldest and most consistent adversary - gets a threat of tariffs six months into the administration.
I mean, fuck Trump and his whole klan. What the fuck is wrong with those people? If you support this bullshit, why?
Damn good question that far too many choose to lie about, or just not answer
Did you ever consider they don't have an answer?
I possibly consider more answers for they who have questions, than they who do not answer. I've seen some of their workings from the inside now...
The answer is there, but recognizing it requires admitting very unflattering things about oneself, so they remain calm and order another round of kool-aide.
So, he’s threatening tariffs against Russia.
Yes. But it's really not much of a threat. It's more a political move than an economic one. We imported less than four billion worth of goods from Russia in 2024. That's nothing. We imported almost 136 billion from Vietnam in 2024. His threat to impose sanctions against countries who buy Russian oil is far more serious.
A political move to what purpose. Is Putin supposed to care about American politics? Trump has been trying to get Putin to negotiate for six months based on something other than battlefield developments, no luck.
On that, the tariff would be good. When Trump issues a tariff on a nation that is akin to Trump deeming the nation to be engaging in bad behavior.
But economically, Putin dismissively waves his hand.
Examine TiG's response to me for the answer.
Well, only a complete idiot wouldn't.
Agreed. Now Trump is changing the battlefield. Supplying weapons, threatening tariffs and proposing sanctions against countries that buy Russian oil and, presumably, natural gas. What, exactly, is your problem with that? And don't bore me with what you think he will do. I'm only interested in what you think of the current proposals. Are they good or bad? We can deal with the 'what if's' once they actually occur.
They are finally on the right path. Trying to diminish Zelensky, produce propaganda for the Russian population (e.g. 'Ukraine never should have started the war'), leaving Ukraine high and dry in terms of weapons and information, etc. was both wrong and utterly stupid. What kind of master negotiator upfront degrades one of the parties (the victim even) as a preliminary step to achieving a peaceful, long-lasting compromise? Just too stupid for words.
The right path is to be a strong, unwavering ally for Ukraine and the EU, continue to support the effort with weapons and information, continue to require the EU be front and center in terms of operations, funding, and weaponry, continue with punitive measures such as sanctions, and heavily work the diplomacy channel.
Underlying all of this, a smart negotiator would find several graceful (as much as can be done) exits for Putin. The idea is to present Putin with a choice of a lengthy stalemate (or worse for him) and a less-than-spectacular but tolerable end.
That is my opinion as well.
Somewhat agree. The EU, and what proceeded it, took advantage of 'Uncle Sam'. I'm totally on board with Trump forcing the UK and the EU with ponying up more for their own defense. Heck, the UK isn't even considered a near peer as a defensive partner anymore. We shouldn't simply support Ukraine and ignore that...
... which you apparently agree with. The EU should be a freaking fortress, but they're not, with the exception of Poland. They've been relying on US tax dollars for decades. That needs to stop and I'm totally on board with Trump's efforts in this regard.
Um, okay? Then why hasn't anyone stepped up, then? Do you think Trump is the only person who exists on the world stage? Perhaps because they all know that Putin doesn't give a crap? If he did, if he cared about the people he rules over, he would have sought an exit a long time ago. He doesn't care. He is some form of psychopath. He doesn't care if humanity as a whole perishes, as long as he gets what he wants.
I would agree, if not for the fact that Putin already has a lengthy stalemate and that I think Putin is a psychopath. In my opinion, he doesn't care about what you and I think would be rational. This is evident by his willingness to just keep throwing human waves at his enemies. He simply doesn't care about human life. I think the main reason why there aren't NATO troops in Ukraine right now is that NATO can't be sure that there aren't enough rational people in Russia to ensure that Putin's order to launch nukes would be negated.
Put another way, I think Putin and his supporters know that someday, whether by action or natural courses, they're all going to die eventually. They don't give a tinker's damn whether the world continues after them. They are true atheists. There's no purpose or reason for our existence so it doesn't ultimately matter to them what they do, beyond satisfying their desires. The question then becomes, are there enough people who think as Putin does in control of Russia's nukes?
Of course, that is merely my opinion. I think it is relatively sound, though. Putin should have sought an exit soon after it became clear that his invasion was not popularly supported in Ukraine, as he apparently thought it would be. Instead, he seems perfectly willing to keep feeding Russian blood into the meat grinder beyond what is rational. It doesn't seem to bother him at all.
No. Trump is threatening punitive tariffs against Russia's trading partners. What Trump actually said is quoted at the top of the seed. Those trading partners include the EU countries that are still buying Russian oil and gas.
Sure, that'll work. He's been skating around the rink on Russia for years. It didn't work before, less of a chance now.
From the first week in office meeting Russians in the oval office during his first term (with photo ops no less), nothing he does or will ever do will be "tough" on Russia.