Good morning and welcome to the news.



Always remember: When someone who has sworn to ignore you, writes an entire article about you take it as the highest compliment that you can get. A clear confirmation that you are doing what is right.

One more reminder: Those who have to tell us how "intelligent" they are, can't really be all that intelligent.

I have you on ignore, as I said.  Unfortunately that possibility does not extend to articles written by the ignored person.  I think TPTB should fix that glitch. 

I have you on ignore

Evidently not.

I have you on ignore, as I said.  Unfortunately that possibility does not extend to articles written by the ignored person.

Just because you can see the article does not mean you have to read it or respond to it.  Have some  will power.

Yup. Simple logic.

Unfortunately that possibility does not extend to articles written by the ignored person.

Having somebody on ignore or not does not take away the option to keep scrolling.  Seems the ability to keep scrolling is what escapes some.

Evidently not.

Ask Perrie. 

I've spoken to her, but not on that. 

Those who have to tell us how "intelligent" they are, can't really be all that intelligent.

I have found that those that constantly try to prove they are the smartest person in the room are usually the most ignorant.  I tend to not take them seriously.  And that really pisses them off.

I have found that those that constantly try to prove they are the smartest person in the room are usually the most ignorant. 

Believe it or not, I've had the same experience.


 I tend to not take them seriously. 

I'm trying not to.


  And that really pisses them off.

That seems to be a constant state for many of them.

[deleted][✘]

Sometimes it is necessary.

Remember my friend, we need to be at our best just to survive.

[deleted][✘]

"A disturbing new report reveals that violent political rhetoric online, including calls for the murder of public figures like President Donald Trump  and Elon Musk, is being increasingly normalized, particularly on the left. The report, from Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), found that a growing number of people are willing to justify and even applaud killing in the name of politics and a warped sense of social justice. The chilling change appears to have accelerated in recent months."

... absolutely shocking.

Marnie Le Pen's father was a Fasist and a Nazi lover and so was she. My memory of her comments of just 10 years ago have not faded. Supporting her now is disgusting.  Here is one:

Le Pen suggested France was not responsible for the wartime round-up of Jews who were sent to Nazi death camps....

“I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv,” Le Pen told French broadcaster LCI on Sunday, arguing that the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime “was not France.”

“I think that generally speaking if there are people responsible, it’s those who were in power at the time. It’s not France,” she added.

cnn

I don't believe a thing that comes out of her mouth

She doesn't believe the Vichy regime was aligned with Nazi ideology. I'm not sure if that makes her a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer, but I am certain that it has nothing to do with her current support which comes from French people fed up with open borders and radical green climate policies.

China tried using the TikTok deal to avoid tariffs:

"The agreement fell apart on Thursday, the day after Trump announced a massive package of reciprocal tariffs, including new measures targeting China.

The source, who spoke to AP on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the talks, said that following the announcement, ByteDance representatives contacted the White House to relay that the Chinese government would no longer approve the deal unless broader discussions around trade and tariffs were initiated."

China Halted TikTok Deal in Response to Trump's Tariffs - Newsweek

Trump said he won't make a deal with China unless trade deficit gets fixed



NEXT

They spent a lot of money to stage it.

Proof?

Phil Holoway just gave you his experience with a protestor.

I do believe Le Pen has larger balls than her dire old dad and not in need shallow articles such as this.

For a saner take on her woes:

thenewstalkers

Already read it.

So, they are now going to grant an appeal before the election. Le Pen should pass the baton now. I think the party wins in 2027.

I think the party wins in 2027.

I believe making predictions to be a fool's game that the Moirai will punish one for.

I tend to agree with that, though as I noted, the west appears to be moving to the right.

The  stock market  began the first day of the trading week down again as President  Donald Trump 's sweeping  tariff  policies have panicked worldwide markets.

Monday morning, the Dow Jones opened down more than 1,200 points or roughly 3%, the S&P 500 opened down 3.4%, and the Nasdaq Composite was down roughly 4%.



Dow opens down 1,200 points as Trump tariff fallout continues

OMG! Does this mean stock values will finally start to resemble company earnings?

OMG! Does this mean stock values will finally start to resemble company earnings?

Now this is sad.   You are actually trying to spin Trump's crashing the stock market as a good thing.

I cannot seem to find Trump's campaign promise to force a correction in the stock market.   Where does he complain that stock prices are too high and that he is going to fix this?

By what twisting thinking do you believe that damaging investor confidence in US stocks is a good thing?

It is too soon to tell.

I am saying that stocks are overvalued.

It is too soon to tell.

The standard bullshit line now used to defend Trump.

I am saying that stocks are overvalued.

We know what you are saying Vic.   You are trying to justify Trump's damaging of the stock market (investor confidence) by stating that many stocks were overvalued in the first place.   As if correcting valuation was the intent of Trump's tariffs or that an artificial correction induced by Trump is a good thing.

It is a sickening illustration of defending Trump no matter what he does.

The standard bullshit line now used to defend Trump.

Dozens of countries are trying to negotiate. Doesn't Trump get more than a few days?


We know what you are saying Vic.   You are trying to justify Trump's damaging of the stock market (investor confidence) by stating that many stocks were overvalued in the first place.   As if correcting valuation was the intent of Trump's tariffs or that an artificial correction induced by Trump is a good thing.

I'm only saying that it is not the end of the world, especially if he is successful. Give it a chance.

Dozens of countries are trying to negotiate. Doesn't Trump get more than a few days?

His method was irresponsible.   He has already damaged international relationships and our stock market.   You are pretending that the only way to establish negotiations with nations is to engage in a public belligerent threat and then execution of tariffs.   Other presidents, including Trump himself, negotiated trade deals without all this carnage.

The problem, Vic, is with what Trump has already done.   The fact that nations are willing to negotiate does not change reality.

I'm only saying that it is not the end of the world, especially if he is successful. Give it a chance.

See above.   The damage is already done.   New trade deals does not justify the carnage.   Your attempt to defend the indefensible is disgusting.

Why is it that you think the victim of tariffs is wrong for retaliating?

Why is it that you think the victim of tariffs is wrong for retaliating?

I doubt I could have been clearer in my posts when I note that the problem is Trump's method and the unnecessary carnage that resulted.

I did not criticize Trump's negotiation of USMCA.   I do criticize his belligerent attempts to bully trading partners via tariffs.   Do the math.

It is too soon to tell.

The standard bullshit line now used to defend Trump.

And yet that "standard bullshit line" is fact.

European Union offers to remove industrial tariffs on US goods: ‘Ready for a good deal’

The European Union has floated a “zero-for-zero” tariff resolution with the Trump administration after 20% import levies were imposed by Washington last week.

“We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods as we have successfully done with many other trading partners,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Monday.

“Because Europe is always ready for a good deal. So we keep it on the table,” she said at a press conference alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

nypost

I did not criticize Trump's negotiation of USMCA. 

I know you didn't and that was a pretty good deal, except that China used it to get around tariffs.


 I do criticize his belligerent attempts to bully trading partners via tariffs. 

He will never be confused with Emily Post, but he did say that he believed they would never do it voluntarily.


Do the math.

Did you catch "this Week" yesterday? (Try and ignore Stephanopoulos nastiness)

He will never be confused with Emily Post, but he did say that he believed they would never do it voluntarily.

It does not matter that Trump made a claim.   Good idea to not just believe what Trump says.   It is entirely bullshit to claim that he could not have engaged in private negotiation and achieved the same results (if not better) without all the carnage.   Trump is full of shit, do not believe him.

Trump's economic advisor said they have about 50 countries that have reached out and are willing to negotiate

Yet again, Vic, you are not reading what I am writing.   Of course nations want to negotiate.   I would bet that every one of them have more responsible leadership than ours.   But my point is that Trump's method was irresponsible and has damaged international relationships, damaged investor confidence in the US stock market, and is based on a very stupid premise that a trade imbalance with a nation is necessarily a bad thing.

Trump could have achieved good results without all this carnage.   But now it is too late.   He has already fucked things up.    Now we have to engage in the long process of repairing the damage, some of which will take decades.

And yet that "standard bullshit line" is fact.

'Give him time' is not a fact.   The fact that nations want to negotiate (big surprise) does not justify the carnage.  That is my point.

Why the hell do you think they are clamoring to get to the table? Trump knew and knows what he is doing. Sorry you feel like it was waste of time. And "no pain, no gain".

The fact that nations want to negotiate (big surprise) does not justify the carnage.

That fact is what you called:

The standard bullshit line now used to defend Trump.

Did you not think somebody would prove your partisan comment wrong?  

Given what I linked, the "carnage" you are throwing a tantrum about is temporary.   

Of course you miss the point.   They are obviously trying to stop the tariffs.   You are assuming that they ONLY way to negotiate is to engage in the tariffs, trade wars and resulting carnage.

My point is that this was all unnecessary and has caused damage that will not be merely erased by deals.   That other presidents, including Trump himself, have successfully negotiated trade deals without damaging international relationships, tanking the stock market, etc.

Real simple:  Trump has irresponsibly caused damage.   There was no need for it.

Dozens of countries are trying to negotiate. Doesn't Trump get more than a few days?

He's had a few days.  We're all 20% poorer.  How many more does he need?

Given what I linked, the "carnage" you are throwing a tantrum about is temporary.   

Wrong, it will take years, if not decades, for nations to restore their trust in the USA.   And the stock market is not going to just rebound even if all the tariffs are dropped.   While Trump is PotUS there will always be an unhealthy uncertainty given he has proven that he is irresponsible and irrational.

Trump has unnecessarily caused substantial damage and that is true even if we assume these negotiations are fruitful.

Wrong, it will take years, if not decades, for nations to restore their trust in the USA.

All speculation.  

We're all 20% poorer. 

Which is a lot of money for a lot of people. 

It is obvious to those who understand even the basics of our global economy.

That other presidents, including Trump himself, have successfully negotiated trade deals

Is that how we pay at least ten percent tariffs to all those countries? Because of former trade deals? Well that shit is about to change. Enjoy it.

And which is bullshit for a lot of people without proof that claim is true.

Is that how we pay at least ten percent tariffs to all those countries? Because of former trade deals? Well that shit is about to change. Enjoy it.

Apparently you still do not understand what tariffs are.   We do not pay tariffs to countries.

By the way, do you even remember Trump's campaign plan regarding tariffs?   He claimed that tariffs would bring in so much revenue that he would be able to fund his initiatives and balance the budget.   That is, the moron believes that tariffs bring money into the USA and does not understand that tariffs impose a consumption tax on US consumers.

And which is bullshit for a lot of people without proof that claim is true.

61% of Americans own stocks in some way. I saw the 500 point rally this morning when investors thought there might be a 90 day stay on tariffs, but then Trump threw another can of jet fuel on that fire when he announced a new round of 50% tariffs on China possible on Wed. 

That is, the moron believes that tariffs bring money into the USA and does not understand that tariffs impose a consumption tax on US consumers.

They are a consumption tax, but they do bring in money to the treasury.

We do not pay tariffs to countries.

That depends on the product and the receiving entity in the country in question. 

For example, if Ford exports a Mustang to England, they pay a 10% tariff on the total value of the car, shipping, insurance, etc, because they are the importing entity as well as the exporter.  They pay that duty along with another 20% VAT whether the car sells or not.

Obviously, they increase the price of the car to offset those costs, but at the end of the day the tax is paid by an American business and enriches the UK treasury.

That's not the case with every product or every business, but it does happen.

On another note, there is an interesting idea here connected with the modern global marketplace.  Americans can import small items for personal use without tariff.  Generally, if the value of the item is less than $800, no import taxes are assessed. 

So while Amazon may have to pay 30% more for the 10,000 bluetooth speakers they imported from China, you would not have to pay that if you bought 2 of the same $100 speakers from a Chinese merchant directly.   40 years ago, that wasn't really an option, but now it's a few clicks and you're done.

So the (misguided, IMO) attempt to make American manufacturers more competitive may actually make American retailers less so.

tariffs impose a consumption tax on US consumers.

Not if those products (which seem to be lining up) are made right here in the good 'ol USA. That is what this is about. Make it here or pay the price.

As far as paying tariffs to countries, indirectly, yes, we do if they have a tax structure at all (which for most outside the US and especially Europe there is a VAT) indirectly.

Not if those products (which seem to be lining up) are made right here in the good 'ol USA. That is what this is about. Make it here or pay the price.

It's not like you can just start making shit here overnight.  Even in business friendly places like Texas, we're talking about years to get a mass-manufacturing operation up and running.  And why in God's name would you invest that money when Trump changes his tune every 24 hours?  

TBF, I am not opposed to tariff parity.  If they tariff us, we tariff them in return.  There is either fair trade or their isn't.  The Canadians can fuck right off with their 300% upcharge on Wisconsin cheese.  

That said, this is very much like Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan....it's something most of us didn't object to until he completely fucked up the implementation.

Yeah, I heard that last week when someone claimed it would take ten years to build a new factory. Well I pointed out that that was bullshit as Hyndai did it in two in Georgia. I have spent 45 years in manufacturing and it seems like some here need some practical experience with what it takes from ground break to output as well as the manufacturing processes needed.

They are a consumption tax, but they do bring in money to the treasury.

Yes and that is why I stated " tariffs bring money into the USA".   That is why the language that preceded what you quoted referred to Trump's campaign rhetoric.   Taken as a whole, here is what I wrote:

TiG@6.1.21 ☞ By the way, do you even remember Trump's campaign plan regarding tariffs?   He claimed that tariffs would bring in so much revenue that he would be able to fund his initiatives and balance the budget.   That is, the moron believes that tariffs bring money into the USA and does not understand that tariffs impose a consumption tax on US consumers.

The context was quite clear.

For example, if Ford exports a Mustang to England, they pay a 10% tariff on the total value of the car, shipping, insurance, etc, because they are the importing entity as well as the exporter.  They pay that duty along with another 20% VAT whether the car sells or not.

Yes the end consumer will pay (for the most part) all of the accumulated taxes imposed by nations in a complex supply chain transaction.   One of the reasons why I have stated that in an ideal world there would be no tariffs.   Tariffs are an artificial increase in price.

That's not the case with every product or every business, but it does happen.

Indeed, it is an exception.  It is rare in any situation to not have an exception.   What we were discussing was the norm: when a US consumer buys a foreign good, they pay tariffs (ultimately) to the US government, not to a foreign nation.   Again reinforcing the fact that Trump's tariffs are a consumption tax on the US consumer.   That they do the opposite of lowering prices (a key reason he was elected).

So the (misguided, IMO) attempt to make American manufacturers more competitive may actually make American retailers less so.

Global economics is complex and intertwined (both economically and politically).   Trump uses brute force rather than cooperative, reasoned, informed, thoughtful negotiation—relying on publicly proclaimed belligerent economic threats rather than privately conducted diplomatic consensus.   The result is unnecessary collateral damage.

Not if those products (which seem to be lining up) are made right here in the good 'ol USA.

If a product is made in the USA then the concept of a tariff does not apply.   So your argument is confused.

Further, where do you get the idea that the USA is going to bring back conventional manufacturing?   That is just not going to happen primarily due to the lower production costs (especially labor) in foreign nations.   There is no getting around those basic economic factors.

Manufacturing in the USA will continue to be based on AI and robotics and less on human labor.   Tariffs do not apply here, rather the reliability and cost of the technology become dominant.   Another factor, by the way, is locality and cost of resources.    So if the USA were smartly focused on renewable energy, we would likely be in a position to offer very low energy costs to manufacturers which would be a positive incentive.

But regardless, businesses do not invest billions to build manufacturing facilities on a whim.    These are long-term strategic decisions and are not triggered because we have a rogue PotUS for four years making irrational decisions.   So if you think that Trump is going to bring back manufacturing and manufacturing jobs then you are in for a major disappointment.

As far as paying tariffs to countries, indirectly, yes, we do if they have a tax structure at all (which for most outside the US and especially Europe there is a VAT) indirectly.

I see you have jumped on Jack's exception.   Do you want us all to now believe that this is what you meant ?   (Note that the VAT is technically not a tariff.   But I see you have changed from tariff to 'tax'.)

I have spent 45 years in manufacturing and it seems like some here need some practical experience with what it takes from ground break to output as well as the manufacturing processes needed.

As an executive, strategic planner, architect, builder, or as a worker?

Well I pointed out that that was bullshit as Hyndai did it in two in Georgia.

I agree with you on the time frame.   A new automobile plant takes 2-5 years to produce.   But my point remains:

TiG@6.1.28 ☞ But regardless, businesses do not invest billions to build manufacturing facilities on a whim.    These are long-term strategic decisions and are not triggered because we have a rogue PotUS for four years making irrational decisions.   So if you think that Trump is going to bring back manufacturing and conventional manufacturing jobs then you are in for a major disappointment.

All speculation.  

The context was quite clear.

And yet ....

He claimed that tariffs would bring in so much revenue

Meaning revenue to the US treasury, hence his statement that it would do things like balance the budget.  As we've already agreed, tariffs do, in fact, bring in revenue to the treasury. 

At no point did Trump indicate they brought "money into the USA". 

What we were discussing was the norm: when a US consumer buys a foreign good, they pay tariffs (ultimately) to the US government, not to a foreign nation. 

We were discussing "tariffs we pay to other countries", specifically referring to goods we export and the tariffs other countries assess on those.

Trump uses brute force rather than cooperative, reasoned, informed, thoughtful negotiation—relying on publicly proclaimed belligerent economic threats rather than privately conducted diplomatic consensus.

I'm actually not as upset about "brute force" or public threats.  We knew to expect that.  To the contrary, what has me frustrated is the lack of public threats.

I expected an ultimatum like "we're going to assess exactly reciprocal tariffs on any nation assessing one against us, and every trading partner has 90 days to decide what they're going to do".  It's obnoxious, but everybody knows what's going on and we're not guessing what the trade policy is going to be on Tuesday and will it have changed again by Friday morning.

You're responding to me but you're quoting Jim's comments.  

That said, we were all talking about tariffs being paid to other countries, so they would only apply to US manufactured goods.

That is a good question. The Israeli Prime Minister is sitting right next to him right now and says Isreal will drop all tariffs. Trump didn't respond directly but told a reporter that we gave a lot in aid to Isreal. I don't know what Trump is getting at, but he is playing tariffs like he is holding a Royal Straight Flush.

But now it is too late. 

I'm not seeing that. But I do see him twisting the knife into some of these countries. He really feels they abused us and took our manufacturing & a good deal of our industry. I'm waiting for the new trade deals, just like everyone else.

If a product is made in the USA then the concept of a tariff does not apply.   So your argument is confused.

That was the point (SMMFH). He, and we, are trying to convince the worst perpetrators of "Tariff for thee but not for me" countries AND corporations that if they want to be tariff-free, they had better come to the table or, as others have begun, make the product in the US. Pretty easy, really. It is only die-hard politicians that think they know what they are talking about due to what they have been told in the past. This is a new era. Enjoy...........or remain miserable. Your choice of course.

Meaning revenue to the US treasury, hence his statement that it would do things like balance the budget. 

Yes with the implication that this came from foreign nations, not from US citizens.   Trump promised tax cuts and price reductions.   He promised to make everyone richer.   Do you think the average Trump supporter understood that the tariffs were going to be paid by them?  

At no point did Trump indicate they brought "money into the USA". 

He most certainly did and does.   That has been the underpinning of his tariff rhetoric.

Most recently:

Key quotes from the transcript:

For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense. But now it's our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt.   And it will all happen very quickly.

Where are these trillions of dollars coming from so quickly?   Do you think the average American understands that the only place these trillions could possibly quickly come from is from a consumption tax?

He does talk about bringing back manufacturing and causing more domestic jobs, etc.   That is a pipe dream, but if traditional labor-intensive manufacturing were to return to the USA, it would offer plenty of low-paying jobs.   But then we would need to change our immigration policies to staff them (I am being sarcastic of course).   Ultimately though, this is not something that happens very quickly so Trump is either incredibly naive or he is just bullshitting (or both).

Another bit from the transcript:

The United States charges other countries only a 2.4% tariff on motorcycles. Meanwhile, Thailand and others are charging much higher prices, like 60%. India charges 70%, Vietnam charges 75%, and others are even higher than that. Likewise, until today, the United States has for decades charged a 2.5% tariff — think of that — 2.5% on foreign-made automobiles. The European Union charges us more than 10% tariffs, and they have 20%. That’s much, much higher. India charges 70%. And perhaps worst of all are the non-monetary restrictions imposed by South Korea, Japan, and very many other nations.

When Trump speaks of charging other countries and having other nations charge us, how would you realistically expect the average citizen to interpret that?    He is describing a tariff we impose as a charge to the foreign nation and a tariff they impose as a charge on us.   He has used this rhetoric repeatedly throughout the campaign.   Analysts have been talking about this total misrepresentation of tariffs since well before the election.   Yet here he is, three days ago, still speaking of a tariff as charging a foreign nation.

Not if those products (which seem to be lining up) are made right here in the good 'ol USA.

If a product is made in the USA then the concept of a tariff does not apply.   So your argument is confused.

Further, where do you get the idea that the USA is going to bring back conventional manufacturing?   That is just not going to happen primarily due to the lower production costs (especially labor) in foreign nations.   There is no getting around those basic economic factors.

Manufacturing in the USA will continue to be based on AI and robotics and less on human labor.   Tariffs do not apply here, rather the reliability and cost of the technology become dominant.   Another factor, by the way, is locality and cost of resources.    So if the USA were smartly focused on renewable energy, we would likely be in a position to offer very low energy costs to manufacturers which would be a positive incentive.

But regardless, businesses do not invest billions to build manufacturing facilities on a whim.    These are long-term strategic decisions and are not triggered because we have a rogue PotUS for four years making irrational decisions.   So if you think that Trump is going to bring back manufacturing and manufacturing jobs then you are in for a major disappointment.

As far as paying tariffs to countries, indirectly, yes, we do if they have a tax structure at all (which for most outside the US and especially Europe there is a VAT) indirectly.

I see you have jumped on Jack's exception.   Do you want us all to now believe that this is what you meant ?   (Note that the VAT is technically not a tariff.   But I see you have changed from tariff to 'tax'.)

Sorry, not intentional.

That was the point (SMMFH). He, and we, are trying to convince the worst perpetrators of "Tariff for thee but not for me" countries AND corporations that if they want to be tariff-free, they had better come to the table or, as others have begun, make the product in the US. Pretty easy, really. It is only die-hard politicians that think they know what they are talking about due to what they have been told in the past. This is a new era. Enjoy...........or remain miserable. Your choice of course.

That is one of Trump's claims.   Remember that during the campaign he talked about tariffs as a means to raise trillions of dollars, finance all of his initiatives, and cut taxes.   While at the same time claiming that he would drop consumer prices and, in particular, cut US energy costs in half.

So Trump's message is at the least confused.

Now he is on the reciprocal tariff game.   And while I would applaud the removal of ALL tariffs worldwide, my criticism of Trump has been on his method.   He is trying to bully the entire planet to submit to his demands.   Nations will of course want to negotiate, but his belligerent threats and actions have created unnecessary damage to international relationships that will take decades to repair (if at all).   

The USA is major player in the global economy but we are not in control of it.   The idea that Trump can just bully his way into great deals is stupid.   Trading partners have been pursuing alternatives and making strategic plans to be less dependent on the USA.   That is the opposite of what we want.   Instead of trying to force other nations, we should be working on strategic relationships that will enable the USA to be a desired source for critical items such as energy.   If I were a leader of a nation right now, I would at the very least diversify my sources and not rely heavily upon the USA ... even if the USA has better prices.   That is NOT what we want.

If a product is made in the USA then the concept of a tariff does not apply

Excuse me, but DUH!!!. And THAT is the objective FFS.

Yes with the implication that this came from foreign nations, not from US citizens. 

That's not how I interpreted it, but OK.

Where are these trillions of dollars coming from so quickly?  

That could be any number of places.  It's TrumpSpeak, so it's difficult to say.  It's possible he/they think that the protectionism inherent in tariffs will produce a significant upturn in economic prosperity in the near term as people "buy American".   It's possible he/they think that other countries will cave and reduce or eliminate their own tariffs, and that American businesses will prosper with new export markets.  Or, as you suggest, he could imagine that huge tariffs will somehow not deter imports and he's found an unlimited money glitch of some sort.  Who knows.

Do you think the average American understands that the only place these trillions could possibly quickly come from is from a consumption tax?

 I generally have very low expectations for the average American's level of understanding related to anything financial.  Or numerical.  Or their ability to spell properly. 

He is describing a tariff we impose as a charge to the foreign nation and a tariff they impose as a charge on us.

I don't necessarily object to the verbiage.  It's not entirely accurate, but it fits his point.  And like it or not, the point that many other countries engage in unfair trade practices with the US is valid. 

That is a good question. The Israeli Prime Minister is sitting right next to him right now and says Isreal will drop all tariffs. Trump didn't respond directly but told a reporter that we gave a lot in aid to Isreal. I don't know what Trump is getting at, but he is playing tariffs like he is holding a Royal Straight Flush.

So... tying several opposing views together here.....

The fact that Israel ever had a single tariff on a single US good is fucking unbelievable, and is the best evidence I can imagine to support Trump's point that this bullshit needs to stop.  If you impose a tariff on US goods, we should definitely impose one on yours.  

That said.... announcing this goal ahead of time and giving these countries a chance to get in compliance BEFORE just slapping tariffs around like a substitute teacher with a detention pad would have kept markets much more stable and cost all of us a shitload less money.

Yeah, I heard that last week when someone claimed it would take ten years to build a new factory. Well I pointed out that that was bullshit as Hyndai did it in two in Georgia.

The two years you see is a small fraction of the total time needed.  By the time they break ground, the project has been underway for at least 2 years already, between civil engineering, utility management, permits, funding, tax negotiations, scheduling and project management.  Just the wastewater management alone is going to take years. Not to mention that once it's built you then have to hire and train everybody who's going to work there.

Trump is gone in 4 years.  The tariffs are definitely gone long before that.  If he keeps this shit up, the midterm reversal is going to make 2010 look like a close contest.  A heavily blue congress is going to stop Trump tariffs on the first day, assuming the current congress doesn't do it first.

Are you going to invest $200m in a factory to mitigate tariffs you know are going away in less than 24 months?  Hell no.  Nobody is.  

So the traditional protectionist ideas that standing tariffs support don't apply here, because they won't last long.  His best case is to use this lever to force open foreign markets.... and he could have done a lot of that with simply the threat of a tariff.

This is his Afghan withdrawal.  A noble idea that he has royally fucked up.

Excuse me, but DUH!!!. And THAT is the objective FFS.

That is one of Trump's claims.   Remember that during the campaign he talked about tariffs as a means to raise trillions of dollars, finance all of his initiatives, and cut taxes.   While at the same time claiming that he would drop consumer prices and, in particular, cut US energy costs in half.

So Trump's message is at the least confused.

Now he is on the reciprocal tariff game.   And while I would applaud the removal of ALL tariffs worldwide, my criticism of Trump has been on his method.   He is trying to bully the entire planet to submit to his demands.   Nations will of course want to negotiate, but his belligerent threats and actions have created unnecessary damage to international relationships that will take decades to repair (if at all).   

The USA is major player in the global economy but we are not in control of it.   The idea that Trump can just bully his way into great deals is stupid.   Trading partners have been pursuing alternatives and making strategic plans to be less dependent on the USA.   That is the opposite of what we want.   Instead of trying to force other nations, we should be working on strategic relationships that will enable the USA to be a desired source for critical items such as energy.   If I were a leader of a nation right now, I would at the very least diversify my sources and not rely heavily upon the USA ... even if the USA has better prices.   That is NOT what we want.

That could be any number of places.

The key is what the average American (who, it seems, does not understand tariffs ... at all) would understand based on Trump's rhetoric.

I do not think it is logical to hold that someone would vote for Trump with knowledge that he would engage in a practice that would NOT lower prices (key campaign promise) but rather trigger inflation.    That his practice would not bring in money into the USA (quickly) but would instead tax them ... force them to pay more for goods.

I generally have very low expectations for the average American's level of understanding related to anything financial.

I held a higher opinion of my fellow citizens' understanding of reality prior to Trump's reelection.

And like it or not, the point that many other countries engage in unfair trade practices with the US is valid. 

Never was the question for me.   My issue has always been with Trump's methods, not his idealistic objective of making our trade situation better.   Similarly, I fully support reducing the size and complexity of government but am against the method Trump is using.   Finally, I am also in favor of controlling illegal immigration and dissuading further attempts, but do not approve of Trump's methods.

Are you going to invest $200m in a factory to mitigate tariffs you know are going away in less than 24 months?  Hell no.  Nobody is.  

More like a minimum of $1 billion for something like an auto manufacturing plant.

And I agree, these are strategic decisions and Trump is not going to be able to influence such a long term decision.

I do not think it is logical to hold that someone would vote for Trump with knowledge that he would engage in a practice that would NOT lower prices (key campaign promise) but rather trigger inflation. 

I think you still fundamentally misunderstand Trump voters.

My issue has always been with Trump's methods, not his idealistic objective of making our trade situation better. 

That's fair.  You may remember conversations we've had in recent months where I was waiting to see how things progressed before making my judgment.  They've now progressed, and I think it's fair to say he is mishandling the situation. 

More like a minimum of $1 billion for something like an auto manufacturing plant.

I don't doubt it.

I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of smaller facility making auto parts or HVAC equipment or power tools or something far less complex than cars. But you're right, if we're talking about huge production facilities like cars or the new chip wafer plant here in North Texas (Sherman), we're talking about more zeros in the numbers.

I think you still fundamentally misunderstand Trump voters.

Other than a cultish mentality and/or stubborn ignorance, explain why Trump supporters continue to support his tariffs.   If you have some special insight, please share with us all why they continue to support someone who is doing the opposite of what he was (naively) predominantly elected to do (deal with high prices).

They've now progressed, and I think it's fair to say he is mishandling the situation. 

My view is that publicly berating and threatening our trade partners with outrageous tariffs before engaging them privately (especially with Canada and Mexico where Trump negotiated the USMCA trade deal) was utterly stupid.   Taking it to the next step and imposing the tariffs made things worse and triggered a trade war.   Expanding the outrageous tariffs worldwide takes matter to the next level of stupidity.

Other than a cultish mentality and/or stubborn ignorance, explain why Trump supporters continue to support his tariffs.

I don't know if I'd call it cultish.  If we're going to call them cultish, we'll need a far stronger word to describe the far left.

There is some sense of loyalty to the team, yes. 

But in this particular case we're talking about people who have been the "victims" of free trade agreements and who have spent decades watching manufacturing jobs go to China or Mexico or India or wherever, all while listening to very wealthy people who have plenty of extra money every month tell them how great it all is.

When you listen to some of the conversations right here on NT, you get a strong sense of "buy American and you don't have to worry about the tariffs".  There is a strong and not wholly unjustified view that the political structure has neglected them, and they see reciprocal tariffs as somebody finally giving American industry a fairer shot.

It's wholly impractical in the short term, but it's symbolic of somebody finally standing up for them in a small way.

My view is that publicly berating and threatening our trade partners with outrageous tariffs before engaging them privately (especially with Canada and Mexico where Trump negotiated the USMCA trade deal) was utterly stupid.

I still don't care about that.  It's just grandstanding.  It's the politician's version of trash talk before a basketball game.  

I think the yo-yo trade policy is much more problematic.  Tariffs on.  No.. tariffs off.  No... on again....  Nobody knows what to expect or how to plan.

I am saying that stocks are overvalued.

Spin spin spin, anything to justify trump's fuck ups. Jesus, have you no shame?

I can appreciate people believing that politicians do not care about them (quite true) and to feel the pain of struggling to make ends meet.   Those are legitimate feelings backed by fact.  

The disconnect that I do not understand is the unjustified belief in Trump.   The man is a pathological liar, a demonstrable con-man, a terrible businessman, and someone who is apparently adverse to learning (apparently thinking he already is the smartest guy in the room).   And on top of that, he is the only PotUS in our history to attempt to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.   The we have his infamous private sector failures.  

What Trump does well is bully and bullshit.   His super power is his ability to lie convincingly (to those who are not thinking critically) and present himself and his name as something of great value.

Now how is it that people can take a person like that and somehow believe his outrageous promises?  

Specifically are so many so unaware of global economics to not understand why conventional manufacturing exists in foreign nations with access to inexpensive resources and, in particular, inexpensive labor?   To actually believe that there is a way for the USA to be competitive with conventional manufacturing (I think you know, but I am using conventional to distinguish labor-based manufacturing from AI-robotic-based manufacturing).

Then, on top of that, to be so ignorant of how trade works and how tariffs work to think that Trump's attempt to bully all of our trade partners is a smart move?   To ignore that Trump himself has been able to negotiate trade deals with diplomacy rather than damage caused by belligerent public humiliation and trolling of trade partners?

And ultimately, to not see that Trump is hurting them where it counts ... financially.   That instead of cutting energy prices in half and lowering consumer prices on day one, that he is triggering another round of high inflation and likely pushing our strong economy into a recession.

What is it that causes so many Trump supporters to even now defend his every move?   We had two members just today who independently argued that it is good that Trump has shocked the market because stock prices were inflated (true) and that now people can buy stocks at a cheaper price (also true).  What sort of mental contortions must one engage in to ignore all the negatives of the Trump-imposed chaos on the market and instead pretend as though Trump accomplished something of value?   As if Trump actually wanted to crater the market.

I think the yo-yo trade policy is much more problematic. 

Uncertainty is clearly bad.  But imagine if Trump simply continues with these tariffs.   We get certainty but at a price a rational person should not be willing to pay.  Domestic inflation, likely recession, increased international hostility and the serious consequences it brings.

Eroding global trust in the U.S. is not just an academic concern—it has real, measurable consequences.   Our value is dependent upon our good faith and strong economy.   We have been a reliable trade partner.   Those days are gone for at least a decade IMO.   Nations will diversify more, make more careful trade agreements and do not be surprised if we see a serious move to displace the USD as the reserve currency.

The best we can do is find a way to muzzle Trump.   This is the key current failure of Congress; it is not serving as a check on the Executive branch.   Midterms will very likely change the mix of Congress and it will then perform its constitutional duties.    But Trump can do plenty of damage until then and if his supporters continue to accept whatever he does, there is nothing stopping him other than a conflicted Judicial branch for almost two more years.

It is true. I knew someone who made a lot of money in the market during the 2008 financial/housing crisis. That person told me that it might be time to start investing again.

The disconnect that I do not understand is the unjustified belief in Trump.

I realize that, and I think I understand that disconnect.

You are a person who makes decisions and judgments based on what you believe to be the logical analysis of observable data.  It's a good way to go.  Respectfully, you're historically not as strong when it comes to understanding illogical decisions or imagining potential data that isn't currently known, and Trump support generally relies heavily on one or both of those two factors.

It may (or may not) be helpful to view Trump supporters as the more conservative version of Bernie supporters.

Like Trump, Bernie promises a better life to working class people (plays on the emotion of hope).  His followers don't understand how things work, so they are easily convinced that they are being nefariously oppressed by some secret faceless enemy (imagining data that isn't known, and playing on the emotion of anger).  They have limited understanding of complex issues, so they don't see how completely impossible his ideas actually are, and therefore imagine that Bernie's ridiculous "solutions" will strike a blow for the common man and set things right (back to hope).

Trump is just a better salesman than Bernie, so he has a larger following.

What Trump does well is bully and bullshit.   His super power is his ability to lie convincingly (to those who are not thinking critically) and present himself and his name as something of great value. Now how is it that people can take a person like that and somehow believe his outrageous promises?  

Bully and bullshit, no doubt.  As far as "not thinking critically", I think that needs to be tempered by the level of comprehension most Americans have about any complex issue.  People tend to gravitate to overly simplistic solutions like "build a wall" or "tariffs = fairness" or "Medicare for all" or "tax the rich" because that's the level they can comprehend.

IMO, what we're really seeing in our society decades of failure of the American educational system played out in front of us. 

Specifically are so many so unaware of global economics to not understand why conventional manufacturing exists in foreign nations with access to inexpensive resources and, in particular, inexpensive labor? 

Yes.  Absolutely.  Which is why it's so easy to convince them of nearly anything.   Americans are infamously ignorant about anything related to money.  Here.  Try this: finra   It takes less than 2 minutes.  The average American gets 3.2 questions right out of 7.  Oh FFS.

What is it that causes so many Trump supporters to even now defend his every move? 

A couple of reasons.  First, emotions.  Specifically hope and anger.  They maintain hope that this will all work out in the end.. and TBF they're not wrong... it will eventually.  They're angry about 50 years of trade policies that allowed blue collar jobs to move to cheap labor economies, and Trump is the first politician in decades to even mention it. 

Secondly, and probably more significantly, they don't actually have another viable alternative.  Democrats are still a loud, boisterous complete shitshow at every level. 

People can either support Donald Trump, or have to support college women being forced to compete against and undress in front of a 6'4" man with cock and balls.  They would have to support a president who is very obviously not making any of the decisions and shows little sign she is capable of doing so.  They would have to support everything form drag shows for little children to idiotically unrealistic energy policy to blatant racism to selective law enforcement to whatever angry white liberals decide is the next test of moral purity in their bizarre new religion.  There is no room in this tent for dissent.  You either buy the entire package or face the consequences.  Despite the election demonstrating a significant shift away from their crazier ideas, they seem utterly unwilling to engage in any meaningful introspection. 

Edit:  Just read the article on the Colorado bill that just passed where using your child's actual name can be used against you in a custody hearing.  You asked why so many people are so stubborn in their support of Trump, there is your answer.

We have been a reliable trade partner.   Those days are gone for at least a decade IMO.

Trump being who he is, I suspect we'll see him get some minor concessions from some countries, declare supreme victory in a huge party of self aggrandizement, and we'll get back to some semblance of normal trade.

The gop have successfully demonized the idea of wealth redistribution. Yet, that is and always has been the economic function to taxation and government spending. The gross national product of the United States is about thirty trillion dollars per year or nearly ninety thousand dollars per man woman and child. That is more than $150,000 per worker. Maybe $300,000 per household and that is every year. That kind of wealth production makes it entirely feasible to do better. Why should senior citizens who worked their whole lives subsist on next to nothing in America? The fact that nearly all the wealth and income is so concentrated in the top one or two percent to this degree is what is societally unsustainable. Now blah blah blah about socialism and those you feel are undeserving. There have been revolutions before and there will be again. What revolution was ever caused by the rich and powerful rising bup against the oppressed masses of humanity? We really could Do Better! 

Respectfully, you're historically not as strong when it comes to understanding illogical decisions or imagining potential data that isn't currently known, and Trump support generally relies heavily on one or both of those two factors.

Yeah, I do not find illogical decisions to be logical and do not respect the opinions  of those who do not even attempt to think critically.

People tend to gravitate to overly simplistic solutions like "build a wall" or "tariffs = fairness" or "Medicare for all" or "tax the rich" because that's the level they can comprehend.

In short, Trump supporters buy Trump's simplistic solutions without an understanding of what is required, what is likely, or the consequences of his methods.

First, emotions.  Specifically hope and anger.

Which does indeed summarize the details in your paragraph.   Also, not having a viable alternative is no reason to support someone who will make matters worse.

People can either support Donald Trump, or have to support college women being forced to compete against and undress in front of a 6'4" man with cock and balls. 

To me this is obvious.   The issue of trans athletes is almost insignificant compared to the global economy.    So while this is indeed a whole package decision (as always), the line items in the respective packages are not even remotely close in terms of harm to the nation.

Trump being who he is, I suspect we'll see him get some minor concessions from some countries, declare supreme victory in a huge party of self aggrandizement, and we'll get back to some semblance of normal trade.

Damage is already done.    We are hoping that Trump backs off sooner than later to stop further damage.   And we should elect a PotUS in 2028 who has as a key priority reestablishing (at least starting same) the trust and good faith of the USA with the international community and forging a path based on mutual success rather than belligerent negativity and a fundamentally flawed understanding of the global economy.    Working cooperatively and strategically to mutual good ends is ultimately far more productive than burning political capital to exact short-term gains through force.

The gop have successfully demonized the idea of wealth redistribution.

I don't think it needed their help.  It is wholly antithetical to the principles upon which our country was founded and contradicts the prevailing American value system through the vast majority of our history.

Yet, that is and always has been the economic function to taxation and government spending.

Absolutely not. What a strange statement.

Why should senior citizens who worked their whole lives subsist on next to nothing in America?

Why would they not have planned?  Was retirement some sort of surprise?

The fact that nearly all the wealth and income is so concentrated in the top one or two percent to this degree is what is societally unsustainable.

Probably, but not for the reasons I suspect you believe.

Now blah blah blah about socialism and those you feel are undeserving.

*eyeroll* 

Are you actually able to consider ideas outside current political binary nonsense?

Yeah, I do not find illogical decisions to be logical and do not respect the opinions  of those who do not even attempt to think critically.

Fair enough.  But we all have to acknowledge that political decisions are often made illogically.

In short, Trump supporters buy Trump's simplistic solutions without an understanding of what is required, what is likely, or the consequences of his methods.

It's worth restating that they don't have a monopoly on the practice.

The issue of trans athletes is almost insignificant compared to the global economy.

I think Trump supporters would agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why they object to the package.

And we should elect a PotUS in 2028 who has as a key priority reestablishing (at least starting same) the trust and good faith of the USA with the international community and forging a path based on mutual success rather than belligerent negativity and a fundamentally flawed understanding of the global economy.

It's fascinating how, as a person who discounts the validity of emotions when they drive supporters to Trump, that you cling to the importance of emotions you project on to people in foreign countries you've never met.

The thing about emotions is that they are fleeting.  People get over them, and generally pretty quickly.  The other thing about them is that no matter what we think  we absolutely cannot control or even materially influence the emotions of others.  They will feel however they decide to feel.  Americans as a society were significantly unpopular with much of the rest of  the world long before Trump, and that will continue no matter what he does.

It's fascinating how, as a person who discounts the validity of emotions when they drive supporters to Trump, that you cling to the importance of emotions you project on to people in foreign countries you've never met.

Foreign trading partners are not merely acting on emotion—they are (justifiably) making smart, long-term decisions to reduce their reliance on the U.S.

Canada, a trusted strategic partner for decades, is taking steps to reduce its dependence on the U.S. (e.g. the Trade Diversification Corridor).   While fueled by emotion to some degree, ultimately this is based on sound logic and facts.   Canada has seen how quickly the U.S. can hand power to an unfit leader, and how fragile our checks and balances really are when tested by a loyalist base and a demagogue.

Other allies, like EU nations, are doing the same—and who can blame them?  Global trust in the U.S. has taken a serious hit.  Dismissing that as mere “emotion” misses the point and underestimates the real-world consequences.

If you were the leader of a trade partner would you NOT change your strategic relationships to become less dependent on the USA?   Do you think these leaders are simply being emotional and are not employing sound reasoning given a clear set of facts?

The USA does not control the global economy.   We are a big part but we need allies and we need trading partners who want to buy our goods.    Rather than promote a healthy global economy, Trump has, in less than three months, created a hostile, uncertain global trade environment.   This is not based strictly on emotions and will not merely fade away.

Foreign trading partners are not merely acting on emotion—they are (justifiably) making smart, long-term decisions to reduce their reliance on the U.S.

Exactly.  So let's not project emotions onto them.

Strawman!

My argument has been based on the assumption that foreign leaders will rationally deal with what Trump has done.   I have not argued emotions.

My argument has been based on the assumption that foreign leaders will rationally deal with what Trump has done.   I have not argued emotions.

A significant number of your statements presume an emotional response.

You've regularly and almost constantly argued for a couple of months now that our relationships with other countries have been severely damaged by Trump's mannerisms, bellicosity, and inflammatory rhetoric.

In this conversation you've referred to "damage caused by belligerent public humiliation and trolling of trade partners".  You have complained about "publicly berating".  

You've said it will "take years if not decades" for trust to be restored.

The truth of each of those statements is predicated on varying degrees of emotional response from the countries or leaders in question. 

Your assessment that Trump is a complete asshole is completely accurate.  He most certainly is that.  However none of these world leaders got their positions without being pretty big assholes themselves and overcoming other assholes along the way.  They are both accustomed and immune to political trash talk.  

A significant number of your statements presume an emotional response.

No they do not.   I have never argued that foreign leaders are going to react emotionally.   My arguments have clearly been that Trump's actions will be factored into their decisions and that they will, if rational, seek to lessen their dependence on the USA and provide plans to deal with future irrational acts by Trump.

You've regularly and almost constantly argued for a couple of months now that our relationships with other countries have been severely damaged by Trump's mannerisms, bellicosity, and inflammatory rhetoric.

Yes.   And you interpret that to mean that I am saying they will simply react emotionally?   That is you inventing meaning for me.   Don't do that.

In this conversation you've referred to "damage caused by belligerent public humiliation and trolling of trade partners".  You have complained about "publicly berating".  

A fact.   National leaders will have to contend with the reaction of their people based on Trump's trolling.   Not once have I stated anything about the emotions of the national leaders.   Again, this is you inventing positions that I have not stated.

You've said it will "take years if not decades" for trust to be restored.

Correct.   Do you think that trust in the USA is a reflection of emotion or a rational factor considered by a leader?    Again, this is from you, not me.

The truth of each of those statements is predicated on varying degrees of emotional response from the countries or leaders in question. 

That is not what I argued.   The actions of the leaders will factor in the above.   Nowhere do I suggest that their thought process will be emotionally based.

They are both accustomed and immune to political trash talk.  

And yet again, this is just a summary of your strawman.

My argument has always been that national leaders will consider the threats and actions of Trump as information.   They will factor that into their plans.   Their plans will almost certainly, given this information, seek to reduce dependence on the USA.

This is all critical thinking, no emotion is required by these leaders to make these decisions.

And since I have never once argued that these leaders will make irrational decisions based on emotions, you are continuing with a wholly unjustified strawman.

No they do not. 

You may not realize it, but they do.

Yes.   And you interpret that to mean that I am saying they will simply react emotionally?

Not simply.  The relationship damage you describe requires offense, which is an emotional response.

National leaders will have to contend with the reaction of their people based on Trump's trolling.

The emotional reaction of their people.  And it's not something with which they "have to contend".  You fail to recognize the glorious opportunity that reaction represents for the leaders of those countries. Nothing makes them look stronger that appearing to stand up to the world's only superpower.   

 Do you think that trust in the USA is a reflection of emotion or a rational factor considered by a leader? 

You said "years or decades".  Which means that if Mark Kelly or Gavin Newsom or Jamie Dimon or some other free trade Democrat is the next president, these nations will not want to sign new trade deals with the US because of Trump, who will be long gone?   And you don't think that would be an emotional response?  You're kidding yourself.

That is not what I argued.   The actions of the leaders will factor in the above.   Nowhere do I suggest that their thought process will be emotionally based.

The actions of these leaders will be driven by emotional responses to things like "trolling", but won't be "emotionally based"?  Riiiiight.

You may not realize it, but they do.

For a while you engaged me intellectually but it is clear that you have now resorted to just making obnoxious posts.   That did not take long.

I am fully aware of what I mean and what I wrote.   When I speak of leaders reacting to Trump's rhetoric and actions I presume rational rather than emotional.

The fact that their people are emotional is a factor that they will of course consider.   Public pressure influences choices.   That does not mean that the leaders themselves are reacting emotionally.

Let's see how many illegal migrants are receiving Medicaid.



Get me Big Balls on Line 1

 illegal migrants are receiving Medicaid.

This wouldn't be the same people the "Hands Off" clowns were talking about would it?

This would be the Biden crowd

The left's man of the year!

I saw where he stated that "Maga voters are scared of my masculinity"  ( yahoo ). 

Then Mayor Glenn Thomas Jacobs (many know him as Kane from the WWE) challenged him ( foxnews ). 

Now, Tiny Tim is been very quiet.

The odd thing is that it is Tim who is very insecure about it.

He didn't expect anybody let alone Mayor Jacobs to step up.  Now he's running away.

He runs funny too.

At least he doesn't dance like he jerking off two guys at the same time. 

I don't know what that means, but thank God, we don't have him or Kamala anywhere near the White House.

President Trump announced he will randomly select 2,000 people on X for a chance to visit the White House and take a photo with him in his third term with all expenses covered.



I just took my blue suit to the cleaners.

I just took my blue suit to the cleaners.

Trump is taking America to the cleaners to satisfy an economic theory dismissed by all but a handful of sycophants penning X-notes to Laura gLoomer.

To use his own words: You are going to see trade deals like nobody has ever seen before.

Oh goodie, maybe my body will spin in unison with my head ... /s

Help I'm slipping!



Right off the page!

Lunchtime



Be back in a few.

No surprise.  Anti-Democratic governments use the selective prosecution of opponents to supplant democratic choice.  No different than partisan democrats charging Trump with the same "crime" that Hillary committed in their jurisdiction and ignored.  The EU's democracy deficit keeps getting worse. 

The President just announced that crucial negotiations will take place in Iran this Saturday.

"President Trump said Monday that the U.S. had been holding "direct talks"  with Iran  and that a "very big meeting" involving "very high-level" officials will be taking place this Saturday.

Why it matters:  The surprise announcement from  Trump  follows his repeated  warnings that Iran  must sign a new nuclear deal or face military strikes."

Trump says U.S. holding nuclear talks with Iran in surprise announcement

The President just announced that crucial negotiations will take place in Iran this Saturday.

Is he going to be able to make it between rounds of golf?

I bet a lot of democrats wish that all he did was play golf.

Oh yay!! The Lincoln Project bullshit revised.