I think the market isn't reacting as badly as it was a few weeks ago because no one believes he will actually do these things.
It still generates uncertainty which is why we're seeing wild fluctuations instead of steady growth. A lot of companies stocked up on supplies just before they knew the tariffs would take effect and now that many tariffs were reversed or lessened, they're still going through the supplies but it's not effecting their businesses as drastically as it would have had the tariffs remained. So, basically Trump created an emergency, businesses reacted to lessen the impact, and then Trump came in galloping on his pretend horse and told everyone to praise him for saving them from the emergency he created as he rolled back or reduced many tariffs and businesses sighed in relief. Trump used the tried and tested 'butt plug' method of shoving something so huge up Americas ass it had everyone screaming but when he removed it and stuck in his tiny little mushroom penis everyone sighed in relief since at least it wasn't as big as the painful tariffs, but the fact is he's still fucking American businesses and by extension the American consumer.
When our son (now 49) went off to a sports high school, we got him a little studio so he could manage his time efficiently, between the gym and classroom. To stay in touch, we got him a "portable" phone. The thing was a two-ton BRICK. Not Moto, some French brand.
What is most disturbing is that nobody in his circle will stand up to this idiot. And the House is worthless. I suspect the Senate will prove itself worthless too.
…trump threatened any gop legislators that vote against any of his proposals that they will face opposition in their next primary. Rather than show any backbone, any integrity…the quest to maintain their seat is their only priority. Woefully weak, unimaginably united in giving this dangerous administration carte blanche power.
‘Bad Morning At The White House!’ CNBC Anchors Roast Trump As Stocks Tank Amid Tariff Threat
Tommy Christopher 3-4 minutes 5/23/2025
CNBC co-anchors Becky Quick , Andrew Ross Sorkin , and Joe Kernen roasted President Donald Trump as stock futures plunged on new trade war threats.
On Friday morning, Trump suddenly dropped another pair of shoes in the trade wars with a series of Truth Social posts .
First, he threatened to slap a 25 percent duty on iPhones made in China. Then, he posted a bombshell threat to drop a 50 percent tariff on goods from the European Union, which was instantly followed by steep drops in major stock futures indices.
On Friday’s edition of CNBC’s Squawk Box , Quick read out Trump’s post and quipped, “you can see it’s been a bad morning at the White House,” as she and her co-anchors called out the promised trade deals that have yet to materialize:
BECKY QUICK: Trump — the president saying, “The European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of taking advantage of the United States on trade, has been very difficult to deal with their powerful trade barriers that taxes ridiculous corporate penalties, non-monetary trade barriers, monetary manipulations, unfair and unjustified lawsuits against American companies and more, have led to a trade deficit with the US of more than $250 billion a year, a number which is totally unacceptable. Our discussions with them are going nowhere. Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% tariff on the European Union starting June 1st, 2025. There is no tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
This in combination with the Truth Social earlier attacking Apple for making its products that are sold in the United States outside of the United States.
You add that up and you can see that it’s been a bad morning at the White House in terms of thinking these negotiations are getting somewhere —
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Well, that’s always been the big question, everyone said we can have all these deals — we still haven’t seen just about any of them.
JOE KERNEN: I thought India was supposed to be done, Japan.
BECKY QUICK: You can see that the FTSE in Italy is the biggest decliner of the European averages. It’s down by about 1.9%. And then here are the declines that you see in the United States.
Dow futures down by 470 points. S&P futures off by 67. The NASDAQ down by close to 300.
Joe, you mentioned that treasury yields were coming down. I guess that’s what would happen if you thought you were approaching a recession more rapidly.
JOE KERNEN: 446 now.
BECKY QUICK: 446 now.
JOE KERNEN: Wow.
BECKY QUICK: The 30-year sitting right at 5% — we’ll continue to monitor this.
Trump lists the trade barriers the EU has erected against the United States. So, what is the United States supposed to do? Start another war so the EU begs for military trade goods? Should US trade with the EU rely solely on a war economy?
Democrats are whining about their own pocketbooks, their own investment portfolios. Democrats want cheap labor who will be dependent on their government handouts. Why is that good for the United States? Democrats are the first to tell us that the United States cannot compete on trade while they decry poverty. But those same Democrats expect the United States to lead the world geopolitically. Democrats have tied the country's hands. The only way to do what Democrats want is to pursue military imperialism. That's the geopolitics of drive-by-shootings.
Don't like tariffs? What's the alternatives? A bigger military? Spend more money? Become a bully nation? Or are we just supposed to kick the can and pretend everything was working fine?
Trump has said all along that all these countries would come to him begging for a deal. What happened ?
Neoliberal politics happened. All those other nations believe that US policy can be coerced by holding US consumers hostage. Losing unchallenged access to the US consumer market is an existential threat for Mexico, Canada, and the EU. These trade partners cannot supply their own domestic consumption. So, how can these trade partners dominate US trade? That requires either complacency or complicity within the United States.
Neoliberals have always been hostage takers. Like it or not, you are being held hostage by financiers, passive investors, and profit seekers.
Trump has removed Ronald Reagan from the Republican landscape. So, Democrats have taken up the challenge of defending Ronald Reagans legacy. Democratic Party leadership now embrace the legacy of both Reagan and Clinton. Barack Obama wasn't quoting Ronald Reagan to persuade Republicans; he was attempting to convince Democrats.
The United States has finally reached the proverbial fork in the road. The United States cannot be the dominant geopolitical/diplomatic influence in the world while being helplessly dependent upon adversarial supply chains. Mexico, Canada, and the EU are quite willing to fight a trade war rather than negotiate. So, how much influence does the United States really have?
Hasn't bumper-sticker politics contributed to the decline of the 'democratic' institutions of the United States?
I think the decline in politics has mostly been caused by religious conservatives who always seem so certain that they're doing what their God wants them to. They have injected their religious beliefs into the body politic claiming altruism, but the end result is always increasing their own power. Now we have a country split between those who want to protect our constitutional republic and those who are trying to replace it with a rightwing authoritarian theocracy.
I think the decline in politics has mostly been caused by religious conservatives who always seem so certain that they're doing what their God wants them to. They have injected their religious beliefs into the body politic claiming altruism, but the end result is always increasing their own power. Now we have a country split between those who want to protect our constitutional republic and those who are trying to replace it with a rightwing authoritarian theocracy.
That ignores the competition between an objective morality and subjective morality. Religious morality is a codified stable form of morality that changes slowly. The choices for religious morality is to either subjectively accept that morality or subjectively reject that morality; the morality itself remains objective.
A subjective morality changes with circumstance. A subjective morality can approve of anything or condemn anything based upon subjective feelings. A subjective morality depends solely upon the power of persuasion. Subjective morality is always self serving.
Obviously those who celebrate self interest and self benefit would be adamantly opposed to any form of stable, objective morality. Those Bible thumper defenders of God's morality are a threat to those seeking instant gratification.
What's the alternative to God's morality? Excuses and justifications from Dr. Feelgood? The 'fuck 'em and flush 'em' morality is so superior to anything written by ignorant sheep herders.
He seems pretty silent on the subject, entirely content to let humans speak and write for him.
Fair enough, since his words, like his self, are their creation.
As I said accepting or rejecting objective morality is a subjective choice. Objecting to a representative authority, such as God, doesn't avoid the subjective choice of accepting or rejecting objective morality.
Would claiming objective morality is nature's morality alter the choice to accept or reject that morality? The facts of science offers no help since science doesn't delve into questions of morality. Adopting a subjective morality that serves self gratification only results in chaos.
That ignores the competition between an objective morality and subjective morality.
There is no such thing as objective morality. The only morality we have ever been subjected to is subjective morality, the subject being us.
Something issubjectiveif it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions,imagination, orconscious experience). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.Something isobjectiveif it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true.
As far as I know, we haven't confirmed any morality independently from a human mind.
Religious morality is a codified stable form of morality that changes slowly.
So. It's still subjective regardless of how quickly or slowly it changes. If it were objective it wouldn't change at all.
The choices for religious morality is to either subjectively accept that morality or subjectively reject that morality; the morality itself remains objective.
LOL! What complete and utter bullshit. You can subjectively accept or subjectively reject religions subjective morality, religious morality has never been and will never be objective unless and until some independent mind, something outside of humanity, proves its existence and then proves why some moral claim is objective and not just subjective from some other beings' point of view.
To be objective it MUST be independently confirmed free of bias, perception, emotion, opinion, imagination or conscious experience. There are simply NO religious morals that meet that definition.
Obviously those who celebrate self interest and self benefit would be adamantly opposed to any form of stable, objective morality.
Obviously religious persons have their heads stuffed up their own asses if they believe that sort of backwards bullshit. As I pointed out, there is no objective morality so there really is no reason to do anything other than to laugh in the faces of those who believe such hilarious bullshit.
What's the alternative to God's morality?
Prove your God exists before asking what the alternative to its supposed morality is.
Since you can't, then you can't prove your morality is objective, thus your entire argument disintegrates into nothingness and we're back to just a bunch of mentally disturbed religious bigots desperately trying to force their subjective morality on everyone around them.
That's just the point. The morality isn't objective. It's the subjective morality of humans, claiming to be the morality of the god some of them worship.
Prove your God exists before asking what the alternative to its supposed morality is.
God cannot exist since God precedes and remains outside of our existence. Your measures for proof are meaningless. That's why God cannot be refuted.
Since you can't, then you can't prove your morality is objective, thus your entire argument disintegrates into nothingness and we're back to just a bunch of mentally disturbed religious bigots desperately trying to force their subjective morality on everyone around them.
It is impossible for God to exist because God precedes existence and is outside of existence. Your expectations for proof are as meaningless for morality as they are for the existence of God. At best, you can argue that objective morality is subjective to God. But that is impossible to prove or disprove because it is impossible for God to exist.
That's just the point. The morality isn't objective. It's the subjective morality of humans, claiming to be the morality of the god some of them worship.
Is the sanctity of life subjective? Everyone is well aware that some reject that morality. But the rejection is a subjective choice that doesn't refute the morality.
Is it? Why? Do you think the Bible holds that view?
There's an awful lot of killing going on by the supposed good guys, for there to be any regard for the "sanctity of life".
I mean, Abraham was ready to slaughter his own innocent son. And he's the daddy of the whole incestuous mess.
If you believe the Bible, that is.
That mixes law and morality. Which is which?
You've illustrated that people subjectively reject law by killing. So, what does that say about laws that are derived from morality? Does rejecting the law also reject the underlying morality? Some will declare that punishments for violating law are immoral. Some will reject the morality of certain laws as justification for not enforcing law. Is the moral justification for rejecting laws and enforcement of laws objective or subjective morality?
God precedes existence and is outside of existence
At best, you can argue that objective morality is subjective to God.
At worst, I can copy you and give up the argument and just claim victory. Haha! I won!
At best I can just shake my head in amusement at the predictable and utterly flimsy paper this defense of religious morality.
You're welcome to be subjective to your God. That's your right to self-impose whatever morality you choose. Beyond self-imposed obedience and human inflicted punishments God has no power over humans.
I mentioned nothing of laws, Nerm. I gave examples in which the "sanctity of life" was not upheld by the narrative of the Bible, your supposed source of objective morality. The supposed good guys, "god's chosen people", didn't hold life to be all that sacred, according to the Bible, and in some cases, being willing to kill the innocent was seen as a feature rather than a bug.
So, Nerm, does your "objective" morality hold that life is sacred? Or nah? Or does it depend on the situation, and whether god woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day and needed to test the faith of somebody about which he was supposed to know everything?
You're welcome to be subjective to your God. That's your right to self-impose whatever morality you choose. Beyond self-imposed obedience and human inflicted punishments God has no power over humans.
You, too, are mixing law and morality. Let's choose an example that the scientifically minded can relate to.
We often refer to the laws of gravity. But gravity is not a law. We cannot repeal gravity. We cannot replace gravity with a different law. We can explain gravity by Newtonian physics, quantum physics, or fairy tales but that does not change the objective reality of gravity.
Gravity is a component of our reality that is a fundamental force. We can try to subjectively reject gravity but the consequences could be severe. We can create laws based on gravity. We can impose laws that require structures be of sufficient strength to avoid the consequences of gravity. We can impose laws that require safety harness for those who may be affected by gravity. We can overcome gravity with great effort but that does not allow us to be complacent concerning the effects of gravity. Law does not allow us to escape the objective reality of gravity.
The consequences of rejecting gravity are real, apparent, and need no proof. Those consequences can be discerned by observation without the necessity of any understanding of gravity. We only need an understanding of the consequences for defying gravity. And it would be natural to create laws based on that understanding of consequences.
The consequences of rejecting gravity are real, apparent, and need no proof.
The consequences of rejecting gravity are men walking on the moon and people doing things humans once thought impossible.
We only need an understanding of the consequences for defying gravity.
Oh, how very like religion to just shout out some fantasy penalty like immortal souls burning in eternal torment and you expect everyone to just jump in line.
Now, if you're trying to claim that God is like gravity, then okay, I'm listening. Can we test God? Can we drop an apple from a tree and prove that an effect occurs that we can then say, "That's God."? Of course not, and the attempt to compare the two was flawed from the start.
If God exists then there would be calculatable phenomenon where if you drop apple from tree, it falls down on Newtons head. You pray to said God, you get healed or money or whatever you believe that God can do, but can you do it reliably and repeatedly like you can with gravity? Of course not. And religions excuse? "God is not to be tested!" they scream with indignant impotent rage.
The consequences of rejecting gravity are men walking on the moon and people doing things humans once thought impossible.
Those who walked on the moon were still under the influence of gravity, Even in space, the lack of gravity had consequences that could not be ignored.
Oh, how very like religion to just shout out some fantasy penalty like immortal souls burning in eternal torment and you expect everyone to just jump in line.
Isn't punishment a consequence of law?
Humans engage in universal behaviors inherent to humans that have been observed across geographic separation, across cultures, and across time. These common human behaviors have been judged to the good and bad which the basis of morality. These virtues and vices may be described differently by different cultures but every culture recognizes the same virtues and vices in one form or other.
Virtues:faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude
Vices:pride, greed, envy, wrath (anger), lust, gluttony, and sloth
These virtues and vices are not laws yet they have their own consequences. The consequences are virtues and vices are internalized. Morality has consequences.
Punishment by any authority requires laws. The laws may or may not be based on virtues and vices. Laws have punishment.
So, even a completely lawless society cannot escape the consequences of morality.
Pure partisanship. Your post rants about the Ds while applauding the continued misuse of tariffs by Trump.
We cannot force nations to buy our products. The solution is for us to compete. And if we cannot compete in a market then we focus on other markets (and make markets).
And if we cannot build parts we need better and cheaper than imports, then we buy imports.
Focus on being better, positive, rather than trying to force the rest of the planet because that is pointless and foolish.
Pure partisanship. Your post rants about the Ds while applauding the continued misuse of tariffs by Trump.
Trump is NOT misusing tariffs.
We cannot force nations to buy our products. The solution is for us to compete. And if we cannot compete in a market then we focus on other markets (and make markets).
How do we compete when trade partners arbitrarily erect trade barriers? The US taxpayers paid for the commercial development of alternative energy (nuclear, solar, wind), alternative vehicles (hydrogen, electric), digital communication (the internet, broadcast communications, telephonic communications), mechanized and automated industry, robots, drones, space tech, and just about everything our modern technological lifestyles depend upon. And the United States can no longer compete in the markets with these goods?
How can the United States be the leader in innovation but unable to compete commercially? That boggles the mind. And it can't be explained away by neoliberal rhetoric or progressive liberal talking points.
And if we cannot build parts we need better and cheaper than imports, then we buy imports.
Then how do we pay for innovation? Or should the United States stop being an innovator?
Focus on being better, positive, rather than trying to force the rest of the planet because that is pointless and foolish.
Just kick the can and ignore the growing organic imbalance in global geopolitics? Are we suppose to accept military imperialism as the only remaining means to assert leadership around the world?
The oversimplified solution for us to compete is based upon the neoliberal belief that comparative advantage is static. But that's a false expectation. A maturing economy strives to overcome dependencies. The natural maturing of developing economies short circuits the fundamental basis for interdependent globalization.
Globalization has been wrong from the beginning. Neoliberals thought they were exploiting China. But the facts are China has been exploiting the US from the beginning to free itself from dependencies.
Good grief, do some research on the purpose and proper use of tariffs.
How do we compete when trade partners arbitrarily erect trade barriers?
Make better products or focus on different markets. Putting up tariffs does NOT solve this problem.
Do you not recognize that tariffs are a consumption tax on the US consumer? Do you not recognize that tariffs (as Trump is using them) simply encourage nations to NOT trade with the USA and encourages reciprocal tariffs?
Diplomacy + building more appealing products. Win by doing better, by making fair deals. We will NOT win by some irresponsible buffoon making threats and changing his mind.
How is Trump able to ensnare so many people to actually think he knows what he is doing?
Good grief, do some research on the purpose and proper use of tariffs.
I do understand tariffs. I do not understand your expectations.
Make better products or focus on different markets. Putting up tariffs does NOT solve this problem.
The United States has been the world' leader in innovations. The United States has consistently been the largest investor in scientific research. The United States innovates and our trade partners begin erecting trade barriers to inhibit the ability of the United States to trade on those innovations. The United States makes better products all the time. But other countries reap the economic benefits of those better products.
Do you not recognize that tariffs are a consumption tax on the US consumer? Do you not recognize that tariffs (as Trump is using them) simply encourage nations to NOT trade with the USA and encourages reciprocal tariffs?
Do you not understand that trade barriers against the United States are taxes against innovation? Taxpayers have been subsidizing innovation in the United States but are not allowed to recoup their investment. Why should taxpayers continue to subsidize research if they cannot receive any economic benefit from the innovations?
Diplomacy + building more appealing products. Win by doing better, by making fair deals. We will NOT win by some irresponsible buffoon making threats and changing his mind.
All of Apple's iPhone prototypes are created in Cupertino, CA, or elsewhere in Silicon Valley. Why should the United States government engage in diplomacy with a multi-national corporation? Why is Apple gaming the system of free trade? Apple expects the United States to protect its intellectual property while expecting China to protect its profit.
Should the tariffs be imposed on a company by company basis?
The United States has been the world' leader in innovations
Yes. And if a foreign nation does not want our products we either offer products they want or do without the business. We cannot force them to buy. Do not buy into Trump's absurd belief that the USA can bully the global market. We can push our weight around and get some short term gains, but in the end any bullied deals will be circumvented by other suppliers.
Do you not understand that trade barriers against the United States are taxes against innovation?
What a pile of horse shit.
Why should the United States government engage in diplomacy with a multi-national corporation?
The US government should NOT be telling companies how to conduct business unless they are engaging in unlawful or unsafe practices.
Should the tariffs be imposed on a company by company basis?
Tariffs should be well-reasoned, targeted and few with the express purpose of temporarily protecting a strategic industry.
I do understand tariffs.
Then demonstrate this instead of trying to defend Trump's idiocy.
Tariffs should be well-reasoned, targeted and few with the express purpose of temporarily protecting a strategic industry.
What are strategic industries? Food production? Transportation? Communications? Housing? Healthcare? Textiles? Electricity generation? Which industries are not strategic for the United States?
Then demonstrate this instead of trying to defend Trump's idiocy.
Taxes are a government tool to manage and regulate the economy by establishing incentives and disincentives for economic behavior. Tariffs are a subclass of taxes used by government to regulate and manage the economy by establishing incentives and disincentives for economic behavior.
I understand that Trump is attempting to regulate the US economy by using taxes to create incentives and disincentives.
What are your expectations? Are you expecting the government to avoid regulating the economy? Are you expecting the government to facilitate profit seeking? Are you expecting the United States to not protect the country's comparative advantage in innovation?
We constantly hear that the United States cannot compete in manufacturing because labor is too expensive and manufacturing costs are too high. Yet the United States has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. Healthcare comprises more than 17 pct of the US GDP. The United States has erected fairly stringent regulatory, tax, and tariff trade barriers to protect our healthcare system.
It is impossible for the United States to produce plastic Barbie dolls because we can't compete. The United States invented plastic injection molding; that's a US innovation. Yet, the United States performs $20K colonoscopies as a routine health screening and no one bats an eye.
So, how is the country supposed to pay to have a video camera shoved up its ass?
An industry that (for sound reasons) is viewed as critical for the US (as a nation). The textbook example is the steel industry.
An across-the-board, across-the-globe, issuing of tariffs is brain-dead stupid; it is neither a rational nor responsible use of tariffs.
Taxes are a government tool to manage and regulate the economy by establishing incentives and disincentives for economic behavior.
Taxes are first most a way to fund government. They can be used to influence the economy domestically but should be used sparing else we move towards a command economy (bad).
Trump's tariffs are broad, ill-conceived, and clearly without any plan. They are used as a misguided attempt at bullying. A total abuse of tariffs. And, yet again, Trump keeps trying to sell the gullible that foreign nations pay the tariffs.
Are you expecting the government to avoid regulating the economy?
YES!!! Government should NOT try to tell consumers what to buy and producers what to produce. As I already stated, government should ensure that our market-based economy is reasonably fair and safe. It should use more direct measures sparingly.
It is impossible for the United States to produce plastic Barbie dolls because we can't compete.
So we should not try to compete in that market but rather focus our GDP energies on areas where we are strongest and areas that make us strong. For example, being the most innovative producer and exporter of energy technology and energy itself.
Your arguments seem to have a tone of a command economy. Where you actually seem to prefer government interference in the market rather than a more laissez-faire approach. A very odd tone for someone who seems to be rooted in conservative principles.
Your arguments seem to have a tone of a command economy. Where you actually seem to prefer government interference in the market rather than a more laissez-faire approach. A very odd tone for someone who seems to be rooted in conservative principles.
Monetary controls, price stability, and government intervention to maintain low inflation exert a broad systemic influence over all aspects of the economy that is more intrusive than tariffs. Tariffs only influence imports.
Tariffs resulting in a command economy means the country is far too dependent upon imports. Tariffs do not prevent consumers buying imports. Tariffs do not prevent businesses buying imports. Tariffs do not allow the government to pick and choose what consumers buy or do not buy (only embargoes can do that). Tariffs do not work any differently than excise taxes on cigarettes; people can still buy cigarettes and they do.
Neoliberals have never, ever been economic conservatives. Neoliberals are radical lefties in economics. Neoliberals do not want any rules, regulations, or government interference in the economy. Free trade is not about protecting traditions and institutions. Free trade is not about protecting national sovereignty. Free trade is not about defending and maintaining ethics, morality, or virtuous behavior. Bill Clinton advocated for and adopted neoliberal policies. Was Bill Clinton a conservative?
Nerm, tariffs are effectively a consumption tax. They dissuade purchases on discretionary items and force consumers to pay more for essential items.
Effectively???? Any tax on business is 'effectively' a consumption tax since revenue from consumers are used to pay the tax.
Tariffs are different because the 'effective' consumption tax are only applied to imported goods. An automaker buying steel produced in the United States won't pay for any tariff. An automaker who buys parts, components, and assemblies make in the USA won't be paying tariffs. That's because there is effectively no tax on domestically produced goods.
See why tariffs are effective as an incentive to produce in the USA?
Tariffs, properly used, are targeted and well-reasoned. They are used to assist strategic industries to get their footing.They are NOT across-the-board, across-the-planet, and based on the changing whims of a single incompetent buffoon.
The United States has applied across-the-board import duties and tariffs on medical goods for a long time. There have been outright embargoes on generic drugs and specific medical devices. We weren't hearing how bad tariffs were when Obamacare was pushed through on a party-line vote. It's okay if government 'effectively' pays the tariffs using taxpayer money?
We couldn't obtain lower cost medications from Canada but the Free Traders allowed the country to become completely dependent on China for precursors? Why should anyone be stupid enough to give serious consideration to those who are whining about tariffs? The whiners never cared about the United States when they were selling out the country for profit.
How can you possibly be confused on the fact that tariffs are effectively a consumption tax? Quit trying so hard to be disagreeable ... especially on concepts this easy to understand.
I mean, maybe try talking to them differently. You know, like, with respect and goals of mutual profit, instead of bullying them with threats. Give them reasons to believe that you can be trusted and won’t break your agreements at random.
On second thought, it’s probably too late for all that. Probably someone else should be talking to them.
Trump is clearly drunk on power. Look at him careening from side to side 'out of balance' with the world around him. Somebody needs to help him to a seat. . .and to bed.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A madman.
they all know that if they wait a week, the orange menace will cave ...
good gawd! He still doesn't understand how tariffs work.
Do his supporters also still not understand that Apple will pass the tariff costs onto consumers?
They probably do now but then they will just buy Samsungs.....
I have never had anything but Samsung (Android). Works fine for me and they generally cost less money.
I think the market isnt reacting as badly as it was a few weeks ago because no one believes he will actually do these things.
That's what I have had for my last 2 phones. I really did like my Motorola Razor, tho
but they used to explode & burn...
It still generates uncertainty which is why we're seeing wild fluctuations instead of steady growth. A lot of companies stocked up on supplies just before they knew the tariffs would take effect and now that many tariffs were reversed or lessened, they're still going through the supplies but it's not effecting their businesses as drastically as it would have had the tariffs remained. So, basically Trump created an emergency, businesses reacted to lessen the impact, and then Trump came in galloping on his pretend horse and told everyone to praise him for saving them from the emergency he created as he rolled back or reduced many tariffs and businesses sighed in relief. Trump used the tried and tested 'butt plug' method of shoving something so huge up Americas ass it had everyone screaming but when he removed it and stuck in his tiny little mushroom penis everyone sighed in relief since at least it wasn't as big as the painful tariffs, but the fact is he's still fucking American businesses and by extension the American consumer.
I never heard that
I'm surprised he can spell it.
I'm surprised you think he can.
I'm so old that my first cell phone was a hard-wired Motorola car phone. It was hard fitting that RX-7 into my pocket.
When our son (now 49) went off to a sports high school, we got him a little studio so he could manage his time efficiently, between the gym and classroom. To stay in touch, we got him a "portable" phone. The thing was a two-ton BRICK. Not Moto, some French brand.
But... it did the job...
the chinese will be knocking off iphone copies with those factories before apple can produce 1 phone here in the US ...
What is most disturbing is that nobody in his circle will stand up to this idiot. And the House is worthless. I suspect the Senate will prove itself worthless too.
“And the House is worthless…”
…trump threatened any gop legislators that vote against any of his proposals that they will face opposition in their next primary. Rather than show any backbone, any integrity…the quest to maintain their seat is their only priority. Woefully weak, unimaginably united in giving this dangerous administration carte blanche power.
The confusing part is that Trump has a horrendous record of his "supported" candidate actually winning.
www.mediaite.com /media/news/bad-morning-at-the-white-house-cnbc-anchors-roast-trump-as-stocks-tank-amid-tariff-threat/
‘Bad Morning At The White House!’ CNBC Anchors Roast Trump As Stocks Tank Amid Tariff Threat
Tommy Christopher 3-4 minutes 5/23/2025
CNBC co-anchors Becky Quick , Andrew Ross Sorkin , and Joe Kernen roasted President Donald Trump as stock futures plunged on new trade war threats.
On Friday morning, Trump suddenly dropped another pair of shoes in the trade wars with a series of Truth Social posts .
First, he threatened to slap a 25 percent duty on iPhones made in China. Then, he posted a bombshell threat to drop a 50 percent tariff on goods from the European Union, which was instantly followed by steep drops in major stock futures indices.
On Friday’s edition of CNBC’s Squawk Box , Quick read out Trump’s post and quipped, “you can see it’s been a bad morning at the White House,” as she and her co-anchors called out the promised trade deals that have yet to materialize:
Watch above via CNBC’s Squawk Box .
Is he mad because he found out about the Greenland deal?
Probably.
revenge and retribution are the only motivating factors in his pathetic life ...
It sure can't be about making a profit. Trump is likely the only person to ever run a casino into the ground.
Will a 50% tariff be adequate? Doubtful.
Trump lists the trade barriers the EU has erected against the United States. So, what is the United States supposed to do? Start another war so the EU begs for military trade goods? Should US trade with the EU rely solely on a war economy?
Democrats are whining about their own pocketbooks, their own investment portfolios. Democrats want cheap labor who will be dependent on their government handouts. Why is that good for the United States? Democrats are the first to tell us that the United States cannot compete on trade while they decry poverty. But those same Democrats expect the United States to lead the world geopolitically. Democrats have tied the country's hands. The only way to do what Democrats want is to pursue military imperialism. That's the geopolitics of drive-by-shootings.
Don't like tariffs? What's the alternatives? A bigger military? Spend more money? Become a bully nation? Or are we just supposed to kick the can and pretend everything was working fine?
Trump has said all along that all these countries would come to him begging for a deal. What happened ?
They're making deals. Or have you missed that amidst the tantrums?
Neoliberal politics happened. All those other nations believe that US policy can be coerced by holding US consumers hostage. Losing unchallenged access to the US consumer market is an existential threat for Mexico, Canada, and the EU. These trade partners cannot supply their own domestic consumption. So, how can these trade partners dominate US trade? That requires either complacency or complicity within the United States.
Neoliberals have always been hostage takers. Like it or not, you are being held hostage by financiers, passive investors, and profit seekers.
Trump has removed Ronald Reagan from the Republican landscape. So, Democrats have taken up the challenge of defending Ronald Reagans legacy. Democratic Party leadership now embrace the legacy of both Reagan and Clinton. Barack Obama wasn't quoting Ronald Reagan to persuade Republicans; he was attempting to convince Democrats.
The United States has finally reached the proverbial fork in the road. The United States cannot be the dominant geopolitical/diplomatic influence in the world while being helplessly dependent upon adversarial supply chains. Mexico, Canada, and the EU are quite willing to fight a trade war rather than negotiate. So, how much influence does the United States really have?
new painting hung in the white house
-----------
Trump hangs outrageous painting with Reagan and Lincoln on White House walls
I started reading the link you provided but had to quit because of the self-aggrandizing of our "CIC"
sounds about right. notice which of the three is front and center
"Greatest Patriots"?
I'll definitely give it to Lincoln. In his heart Reagan was a true American and cared about this country.
Don't get me started on trmp
Hasn't bumper-sticker politics contributed to the decline of the 'democratic' institutions of the United States?
I think the decline in politics has mostly been caused by religious conservatives who always seem so certain that they're doing what their God wants them to. They have injected their religious beliefs into the body politic claiming altruism, but the end result is always increasing their own power. Now we have a country split between those who want to protect our constitutional republic and those who are trying to replace it with a rightwing authoritarian theocracy.
That ignores the competition between an objective morality and subjective morality. Religious morality is a codified stable form of morality that changes slowly. The choices for religious morality is to either subjectively accept that morality or subjectively reject that morality; the morality itself remains objective.
A subjective morality changes with circumstance. A subjective morality can approve of anything or condemn anything based upon subjective feelings. A subjective morality depends solely upon the power of persuasion. Subjective morality is always self serving.
Obviously those who celebrate self interest and self benefit would be adamantly opposed to any form of stable, objective morality. Those Bible thumper defenders of God's morality are a threat to those seeking instant gratification.
What's the alternative to God's morality? Excuses and justifications from Dr. Feelgood? The 'fuck 'em and flush 'em' morality is so superior to anything written by ignorant sheep herders.
You mean what men have claimed is God's morality?
He seems pretty silent on the subject, entirely content to let humans speak and write for him.
Fair enough, since his words, like his self, are their creation.
As I said accepting or rejecting objective morality is a subjective choice. Objecting to a representative authority, such as God, doesn't avoid the subjective choice of accepting or rejecting objective morality.
Would claiming objective morality is nature's morality alter the choice to accept or reject that morality? The facts of science offers no help since science doesn't delve into questions of morality. Adopting a subjective morality that serves self gratification only results in chaos.
There is no such thing as objective morality. The only morality we have ever been subjected to is subjective morality, the subject being us.
As far as I know, we haven't confirmed any morality independently from a human mind.
So. It's still subjective regardless of how quickly or slowly it changes. If it were objective it wouldn't change at all.
LOL! What complete and utter bullshit. You can subjectively accept or subjectively reject religions subjective morality, religious morality has never been and will never be objective unless and until some independent mind, something outside of humanity, proves its existence and then proves why some moral claim is objective and not just subjective from some other beings' point of view.
To be objective it MUST be independently confirmed free of bias, perception, emotion, opinion, imagination or conscious experience. There are simply NO religious morals that meet that definition.
Obviously religious persons have their heads stuffed up their own asses if they believe that sort of backwards bullshit. As I pointed out, there is no objective morality so there really is no reason to do anything other than to laugh in the faces of those who believe such hilarious bullshit.
Prove your God exists before asking what the alternative to its supposed morality is.
Since you can't, then you can't prove your morality is objective, thus your entire argument disintegrates into nothingness and we're back to just a bunch of mentally disturbed religious bigots desperately trying to force their subjective morality on everyone around them.
That's just the point. The morality isn't objective. It's the subjective morality of humans, claiming to be the morality of the god some of them worship.
This would imply that religious conservatives are more influential than they were at some point in the past.
I don't think there is much evidence to support that, and lots of evidence to refute it.
God cannot exist since God precedes and remains outside of our existence. Your measures for proof are meaningless. That's why God cannot be refuted.
It is impossible for God to exist because God precedes existence and is outside of existence. Your expectations for proof are as meaningless for morality as they are for the existence of God. At best, you can argue that objective morality is subjective to God. But that is impossible to prove or disprove because it is impossible for God to exist.
Is the sanctity of life subjective? Everyone is well aware that some reject that morality. But the rejection is a subjective choice that doesn't refute the morality.
Is it? Why? Do you think the Bible holds that view?
There's an awful lot of killing going on by the supposed good guys, for there to be any regard for the "sanctity of life".
I mean, Abraham was ready to slaughter his own innocent son. And he's the daddy of the whole incestuous mess.
If you believe the Bible, that is.
That mixes law and morality. Which is which?
You've illustrated that people subjectively reject law by killing. So, what does that say about laws that are derived from morality? Does rejecting the law also reject the underlying morality? Some will declare that punishments for violating law are immoral. Some will reject the morality of certain laws as justification for not enforcing law. Is the moral justification for rejecting laws and enforcement of laws objective or subjective morality?
At worst, I can copy you and give up the argument and just claim victory. Haha! I won!
At best I can just shake my head in amusement at the predictable and utterly flimsy paper this defense of religious morality.
You're welcome to be subjective to your God. That's your right to self-impose whatever morality you choose. Beyond self-imposed obedience and human inflicted punishments God has no power over humans.
I mentioned nothing of laws, Nerm. I gave examples in which the "sanctity of life" was not upheld by the narrative of the Bible, your supposed source of objective morality. The supposed good guys, "god's chosen people", didn't hold life to be all that sacred, according to the Bible, and in some cases, being willing to kill the innocent was seen as a feature rather than a bug.
So, Nerm, does your "objective" morality hold that life is sacred? Or nah? Or does it depend on the situation, and whether god woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day and needed to test the faith of somebody about which he was supposed to know everything?
You, too, are mixing law and morality. Let's choose an example that the scientifically minded can relate to.
We often refer to the laws of gravity. But gravity is not a law. We cannot repeal gravity. We cannot replace gravity with a different law. We can explain gravity by Newtonian physics, quantum physics, or fairy tales but that does not change the objective reality of gravity.
Gravity is a component of our reality that is a fundamental force. We can try to subjectively reject gravity but the consequences could be severe. We can create laws based on gravity. We can impose laws that require structures be of sufficient strength to avoid the consequences of gravity. We can impose laws that require safety harness for those who may be affected by gravity. We can overcome gravity with great effort but that does not allow us to be complacent concerning the effects of gravity. Law does not allow us to escape the objective reality of gravity.
The consequences of rejecting gravity are real, apparent, and need no proof. Those consequences can be discerned by observation without the necessity of any understanding of gravity. We only need an understanding of the consequences for defying gravity. And it would be natural to create laws based on that understanding of consequences.
That new plane they gave to trump, why didn't they just fly it into an American building? Seems to fit their MO much better.
The consequences of rejecting gravity are men walking on the moon and people doing things humans once thought impossible.
Oh, how very like religion to just shout out some fantasy penalty like immortal souls burning in eternal torment and you expect everyone to just jump in line.
Now, if you're trying to claim that God is like gravity, then okay, I'm listening. Can we test God? Can we drop an apple from a tree and prove that an effect occurs that we can then say, "That's God."? Of course not, and the attempt to compare the two was flawed from the start.
If God exists then there would be calculatable phenomenon where if you drop apple from tree, it falls down on Newtons head. You pray to said God, you get healed or money or whatever you believe that God can do, but can you do it reliably and repeatedly like you can with gravity? Of course not. And religions excuse? "God is not to be tested!" they scream with indignant impotent rage.
Those who walked on the moon were still under the influence of gravity, Even in space, the lack of gravity had consequences that could not be ignored.
Isn't punishment a consequence of law?
Humans engage in universal behaviors inherent to humans that have been observed across geographic separation, across cultures, and across time. These common human behaviors have been judged to the good and bad which the basis of morality. These virtues and vices may be described differently by different cultures but every culture recognizes the same virtues and vices in one form or other.
Virtues: faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude
Vices: pride, greed, envy, wrath (anger), lust, gluttony, and sloth
These virtues and vices are not laws yet they have their own consequences. The consequences are virtues and vices are internalized. Morality has consequences.
Punishment by any authority requires laws. The laws may or may not be based on virtues and vices. Laws have punishment.
So, even a completely lawless society cannot escape the consequences of morality.
You mean the plane given to the Department of Defense? You should really keep up with what is actually happening.
Pure partisanship. Your post rants about the Ds while applauding the continued misuse of tariffs by Trump.
We cannot force nations to buy our products. The solution is for us to compete. And if we cannot compete in a market then we focus on other markets (and make markets).
And if we cannot build parts we need better and cheaper than imports, then we buy imports.
Focus on being better, positive, rather than trying to force the rest of the planet because that is pointless and foolish.
Hence the tariffs.
Trump is NOT misusing tariffs.
How do we compete when trade partners arbitrarily erect trade barriers? The US taxpayers paid for the commercial development of alternative energy (nuclear, solar, wind), alternative vehicles (hydrogen, electric), digital communication (the internet, broadcast communications, telephonic communications), mechanized and automated industry, robots, drones, space tech, and just about everything our modern technological lifestyles depend upon. And the United States can no longer compete in the markets with these goods?
How can the United States be the leader in innovation but unable to compete commercially? That boggles the mind. And it can't be explained away by neoliberal rhetoric or progressive liberal talking points.
Then how do we pay for innovation? Or should the United States stop being an innovator?
Just kick the can and ignore the growing organic imbalance in global geopolitics? Are we suppose to accept military imperialism as the only remaining means to assert leadership around the world?
The oversimplified solution for us to compete is based upon the neoliberal belief that comparative advantage is static. But that's a false expectation. A maturing economy strives to overcome dependencies. The natural maturing of developing economies short circuits the fundamental basis for interdependent globalization.
Globalization has been wrong from the beginning. Neoliberals thought they were exploiting China. But the facts are China has been exploiting the US from the beginning to free itself from dependencies.
Good grief, do some research on the purpose and proper use of tariffs.
Make better products or focus on different markets. Putting up tariffs does NOT solve this problem.
Do you not recognize that tariffs are a consumption tax on the US consumer? Do you not recognize that tariffs (as Trump is using them) simply encourage nations to NOT trade with the USA and encourages reciprocal tariffs?
Diplomacy + building more appealing products. Win by doing better, by making fair deals. We will NOT win by some irresponsible buffoon making threats and changing his mind.
How is Trump able to ensnare so many people to actually think he knows what he is doing?
I do understand tariffs. I do not understand your expectations.
The United States has been the world' leader in innovations. The United States has consistently been the largest investor in scientific research. The United States innovates and our trade partners begin erecting trade barriers to inhibit the ability of the United States to trade on those innovations. The United States makes better products all the time. But other countries reap the economic benefits of those better products.
Do you not understand that trade barriers against the United States are taxes against innovation? Taxpayers have been subsidizing innovation in the United States but are not allowed to recoup their investment. Why should taxpayers continue to subsidize research if they cannot receive any economic benefit from the innovations?
All of Apple's iPhone prototypes are created in Cupertino, CA, or elsewhere in Silicon Valley. Why should the United States government engage in diplomacy with a multi-national corporation? Why is Apple gaming the system of free trade? Apple expects the United States to protect its intellectual property while expecting China to protect its profit.
Should the tariffs be imposed on a company by company basis?
Yes. And if a foreign nation does not want our products we either offer products they want or do without the business. We cannot force them to buy. Do not buy into Trump's absurd belief that the USA can bully the global market. We can push our weight around and get some short term gains, but in the end any bullied deals will be circumvented by other suppliers.
What a pile of horse shit.
The US government should NOT be telling companies how to conduct business unless they are engaging in unlawful or unsafe practices.
Tariffs should be well-reasoned, targeted and few with the express purpose of temporarily protecting a strategic industry.
Then demonstrate this instead of trying to defend Trump's idiocy.
What are strategic industries? Food production? Transportation? Communications? Housing? Healthcare? Textiles? Electricity generation? Which industries are not strategic for the United States?
Taxes are a government tool to manage and regulate the economy by establishing incentives and disincentives for economic behavior. Tariffs are a subclass of taxes used by government to regulate and manage the economy by establishing incentives and disincentives for economic behavior.
I understand that Trump is attempting to regulate the US economy by using taxes to create incentives and disincentives.
What are your expectations? Are you expecting the government to avoid regulating the economy? Are you expecting the government to facilitate profit seeking? Are you expecting the United States to not protect the country's comparative advantage in innovation?
We constantly hear that the United States cannot compete in manufacturing because labor is too expensive and manufacturing costs are too high. Yet the United States has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. Healthcare comprises more than 17 pct of the US GDP. The United States has erected fairly stringent regulatory, tax, and tariff trade barriers to protect our healthcare system.
It is impossible for the United States to produce plastic Barbie dolls because we can't compete. The United States invented plastic injection molding; that's a US innovation. Yet, the United States performs $20K colonoscopies as a routine health screening and no one bats an eye.
So, how is the country supposed to pay to have a video camera shoved up its ass?
An industry that (for sound reasons) is viewed as critical for the US (as a nation). The textbook example is the steel industry.
An across-the-board, across-the-globe, issuing of tariffs is brain-dead stupid; it is neither a rational nor responsible use of tariffs.
Taxes are first most a way to fund government. They can be used to influence the economy domestically but should be used sparing else we move towards a command economy (bad).
Trump's tariffs are broad, ill-conceived, and clearly without any plan. They are used as a misguided attempt at bullying. A total abuse of tariffs. And, yet again, Trump keeps trying to sell the gullible that foreign nations pay the tariffs.
YES!!! Government should NOT try to tell consumers what to buy and producers what to produce. As I already stated, government should ensure that our market-based economy is reasonably fair and safe. It should use more direct measures sparingly.
So we should not try to compete in that market but rather focus our GDP energies on areas where we are strongest and areas that make us strong. For example, being the most innovative producer and exporter of energy technology and energy itself.
Your arguments seem to have a tone of a command economy. Where you actually seem to prefer government interference in the market rather than a more laissez-faire approach. A very odd tone for someone who seems to be rooted in conservative principles.
Monetary controls, price stability, and government intervention to maintain low inflation exert a broad systemic influence over all aspects of the economy that is more intrusive than tariffs. Tariffs only influence imports.
Tariffs resulting in a command economy means the country is far too dependent upon imports. Tariffs do not prevent consumers buying imports. Tariffs do not prevent businesses buying imports. Tariffs do not allow the government to pick and choose what consumers buy or do not buy (only embargoes can do that). Tariffs do not work any differently than excise taxes on cigarettes; people can still buy cigarettes and they do.
Neoliberals have never, ever been economic conservatives. Neoliberals are radical lefties in economics. Neoliberals do not want any rules, regulations, or government interference in the economy. Free trade is not about protecting traditions and institutions. Free trade is not about protecting national sovereignty. Free trade is not about defending and maintaining ethics, morality, or virtuous behavior. Bill Clinton advocated for and adopted neoliberal policies. Was Bill Clinton a conservative?
Nerm, tariffs are effectively a consumption tax. They dissuade purchases on discretionary items and force consumers to pay more for essential items.
Tariffs, properly used, are targeted and well-reasoned. They are used to assist strategic industries to get their footing.
They are NOT across-the-board, across-the-planet, and based on the changing whims of a single incompetent buffoon.
Effectively???? Any tax on business is 'effectively' a consumption tax since revenue from consumers are used to pay the tax.
Tariffs are different because the 'effective' consumption tax are only applied to imported goods. An automaker buying steel produced in the United States won't pay for any tariff. An automaker who buys parts, components, and assemblies make in the USA won't be paying tariffs. That's because there is effectively no tax on domestically produced goods.
See why tariffs are effective as an incentive to produce in the USA?
The United States has applied across-the-board import duties and tariffs on medical goods for a long time. There have been outright embargoes on generic drugs and specific medical devices. We weren't hearing how bad tariffs were when Obamacare was pushed through on a party-line vote. It's okay if government 'effectively' pays the tariffs using taxpayer money?
We couldn't obtain lower cost medications from Canada but the Free Traders allowed the country to become completely dependent on China for precursors? Why should anyone be stupid enough to give serious consideration to those who are whining about tariffs? The whiners never cared about the United States when they were selling out the country for profit.
How can you possibly be confused on the fact that tariffs are effectively a consumption tax? Quit trying so hard to be disagreeable ... especially on concepts this easy to understand.
I mean, maybe try talking to them differently. You know, like, with respect and goals of mutual profit, instead of bullying them with threats. Give them reasons to believe that you can be trusted and won’t break your agreements at random.
On second thought, it’s probably too late for all that. Probably someone else should be talking to them.
Trump is clearly drunk on power. Look at him careening from side to side 'out of balance' with the world around him. Somebody needs to help him to a seat. . .and to bed.