EPTObviously that's quite a bit different from immediately flip-flopping on something you just campaigned on, like how child rapist Donald Trump campaigned in 2024 on "When I win, I will immediately bring [grocery] prices down, starting on Day One" and then admitted that wasn't happening before he was even inaugurated. But again, that's different from social values evolving across decades.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5866
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2889 Posts
Obviously that's quite a bit different from immediately flip-flopping on something you just campaigned on, like how child rapist Donald Trump campaigned in 2024 on "When I win, I will immediately bring [grocery] prices down, starting on Day One" and then admitted that wasn't happening before he was even inaugurated. But again, that's different from social values evolving across decades. | ||
|
dyhb
United States521 Posts
It's a mark of a good politician to convince the voter that they should be voted for on the basis of the new view, and aren't just lying or concealing their true views to win an election. | ||
Falling
Canada11586 Posts
However, is it actually trade discrimination when it's a tit for tat reaction to a trade war you initiated/ continually threatened to annex? Inquiring minds want to know. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17797 Posts
On July 20 2026 03:26 Yurie wrote: Spotted a random Youtube video a while ago that might go well here. It talks about the fight against Malaria (by a non-profit that works on the topic) and how US politics has been a large factor in how that has gone. Towards the end they talk about USAID and European aid decreasing which they assume will cause a large backslide on the topic but is hard to prove this soon afterwards. Cool. Love random videos like that. Recently I got this one and I really hope this dude isn't right somehow. What he's proposing is that the ultra-rich in the US are actually much smarter than we give them credit for and all of their idiotic decisions and moves do have a concrete purpose and that is to rob the middle class of whatever vestiges of autonomy they have left. | ||
|
dyhb
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11586 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2029 Posts
You all have TDS | ||
|
oBlade
United States6321 Posts
On July 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote: Smoot-Hawley is so defunct this is smacked down by the courts this week. There is nothing defunct about what the White House cited, which is extant law. On July 20th the White House wrote: 1. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1338) (section 338) empowers the President to, among other things, impose duties on imports of a foreign country to offset the burden or disadvantage from a foreign country’s discrimination against or unequal imposition on the commerce of the United States. 19 USC 1338 means the US Code now. Did you by any chance get "defunct" from this exact article? https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/trump-imposes-new-illegal-tariffs-on-canada/ It's disinformation. Really hard for something to be "defunct" that's in the current US Code. Which everyone can read for themselves here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1338 It's certainly possible President Boasberg or any number of other district court judges will claim the administration can't do this, but most parts of the text appear to be non-justiciable policy questions. It also doesn't have the same procedural path as Section 301 of the Trade Act which needs a USTR investigation. It just needs the president to find it serves the public interest to impose a duty against discriminatory trade practices. Which from the outlined facts seems plausible for cars and dairy and alcohol. Even if it's an existing trade war, Section 338 doesn't have a "you started it" exception that voids the president's power. So whether Canada's discriminatory trade policies are a response to Trump's earlier prodding of the fires or not, seems he has the authority to counter them if he wants. And the cool thing is Section 338 duties stack with other tariffs already. So he's not raising the max to 50%, he's adding 50%. | ||
|
lestye
United States4217 Posts
On July 21 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote: If it was just 2-10 years ago, the politician needs a believable story on what changed in their thinking and why. Trump's explanations don't work, but also "I'm not campaigning on that" or "I'm not going to talk about that/it doesn't matter/opponents are acting in bad faith to smear me." Voters have to gauge whether the candidate will flip back to the previous view if he/she held it recently, or if there was a good reason to change and the candidate isn't lying now to get them their vote. It's a mark of a good politician to convince the voter that they should be voted for on the basis of the new view, and aren't just lying or concealing their true views to win an election. It's really weird because we don't really need to give explanations on the crazy decisions they're making. Like.... I never understood how tariffs became such a big deal and a huge pivot for Republicans, when for the most of my life, conservatives and neoliberals talked about free trade was awesome. None of my Republican relatives could really square that that besides the talking point of "They're ripping us off". Same way, I get really irritated, why Trump never has to explain why his deals he did when he was president the first time were bad and now he needs new deals. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18381 Posts
On July 21 2026 16:07 oBlade wrote: There is nothing defunct about what the White House cited, which is extant law. 19 USC 1338 means the US Code now. Did you by any chance get "defunct" from this exact article? https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/trump-imposes-new-illegal-tariffs-on-canada/ It's disinformation. Really hard for something to be "defunct" that's in the current US Code. Which everyone can read for themselves here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1338 It's certainly possible President Boasberg or any number of other district court judges will claim the administration can't do this, but most parts of the text appear to be non-justiciable policy questions. It also doesn't have the same procedural path as Section 301 of the Trade Act which needs a USTR investigation. It just needs the president to find it serves the public interest to impose a duty against discriminatory trade practices. Which from the outlined facts seems plausible for cars and dairy and alcohol. Even if it's an existing trade war, Section 338 doesn't have a "you started it" exception that voids the president's power. So whether Canada's discriminatory trade policies are a response to Trump's earlier prodding of the fires or not, seems he has the authority to counter them if he wants. And the cool thing is Section 338 duties stack with other tariffs already. So he's not raising the max to 50%, he's adding 50%. #stumpfortrump | ||
|
dyhb
United States521 Posts
On July 21 2026 16:07 oBlade wrote: The colloquial use of the word, not whatever that article is alleging.There is nothing defunct about what the White House cited, which is extant law. 19 USC 1338 means the US Code now. Did you by any chance get "defunct" from this exact article? https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/trump-imposes-new-illegal-tariffs-on-canada/ It's disinformation. Really hard for something to be "defunct" that's in the current US Code. Which everyone can read for themselves here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1338 It's certainly possible President Boasberg or any number of other district court judges will claim the administration can't do this, but most parts of the text appear to be non-justiciable policy questions. It also doesn't have the same procedural path as Section 301 of the Trade Act which needs a USTR investigation. It just needs the president to find it serves the public interest to impose a duty against discriminatory trade practices. Which from the outlined facts seems plausible for cars and dairy and alcohol. Even if it's an existing trade war, Section 338 doesn't have a "you started it" exception that voids the president's power. So whether Canada's discriminatory trade policies are a response to Trump's earlier prodding of the fires or not, seems he has the authority to counter them if he wants. And the cool thing is Section 338 duties stack with other tariffs already. So he's not raising the max to 50%, he's adding 50%. | ||
| ||
