EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5924
| 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 | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1185 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6409 Posts
On August 24 2026 02:10 KT_Elwood wrote: They just do the same magic that Trump did to make billions and billions and billions from Tariffs that didn't cost one american a dollar more. EZ! Sure. Good for them. It is either an apocalyptic fascist tax or it isn't. Be consistent. The self-admitted Reddit transplants who have suffered unremitting aneurysms since last April when they first had to Google what tariffs were, have jack squat to say when other countries apply the exact same tools. Why so quiet? Because it reduces Trump's probably #2 signature issue of trade (and similarly his #2 rage/crashout-inducing issue) to nothing more than a basic policy disagreement, which it always was. When pressed? "Canada uses tariffs because they're just retaliating against the US's unfair trade practices!" "What is the administration you loathe's entire justification for tariffs if not balancing unfair trade practices?" "Uhh" The only possible difference here would just be to think that one or the other side is right. When Canada does it to the US, it's so trivial that it apparently doesn't deserve mention, in this case unless someone from there notices. Not a peep of "What's Canada doing? How'd they let Trump trick them into taxing their own citizens? What an unforced error." No cries of "Ahh don't turn into Trump and tax me, Carney" from the relentlessly anti-Blumpf Billyboy. At all costs, avoid having to confront the gymnastics and double standards. That'd be funny if it weren't predictable. It's more so just boring. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28877 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3076 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14194 Posts
On August 24 2026 04:11 LightSpectra wrote: What unfair trade practices were the penguin island guilty of? Refused american baby formula for their childrens and instead useing local production. | ||
|
Geiko
France2028 Posts
You sound like a twat when you say things like "well they both did some punching so you guys are hypocrites for criticizing one but not the other." Tariff wars are a net lost for everyone, that's why everybody but MAGA knows they're stupid. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6409 Posts
On August 24 2026 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote: That would be a valid point if Trump's tariffs were matching pre-existing tariffs found in other countries targeting the US. To my knowledge that was not the case. (Not to say that no country had no targeted tariffs against certain American products.) This is why I said "trade practices." If you KNOW that you can only use a tariff specifically against another tariff in gentlemen's trade wars, that's an axiom. That's a rule. This has the advantage of sounding fair because tariffs being in the same category as themselves, it seems symmetrical. In fact, we'd have choose how to even define "matching." Matched by pure percent rates? Effective rates? Value-weighted average? Total gross (ex. if Canada is getting $2B from their tariffs, put tariffs on Canadian products estimated to bring in $2B)? Therefore, in cases where you're facing quotas, subsidized industries, currency devaluation, IP theft, and bureaucratic barriers (like are supposed to be erased by the EU saying they and the US will recognize each other's car standards), you're not supposed to introduce tariffs or you're starting a trade war. So for China stealing US IP, US's tit for tat idealist answer is what, steal Chinese IP? If EU puts quotas on US bison, US should.... put quotas on EU bison? A little exploration and this rule doesn't seem to hold up as fair. Also you don't have to be "targeted" to be adversely affected which you would retaliate against. For example, in currency devaluation, a country can't do that just between two countries, because it's currency. And you can't devalue your own currency just to target one other country, you can only devalue your currency to forex markets in general. A country's "widget" import licenses and standards may apply to the whole world, but de facto only affect you if you're the widget manufacturing country. All these problems and it looks like there is at least a case for the use of tariffs being a valid policy outside of the convenient "He started it" exception. Seems like there is just a trade war all the time that sometimes gets hotter and sometimes colder. On August 24 2026 04:41 Geiko wrote: oblade, hitting someone unprovoked is not good. Hitting someone back in selfdefense with proportional force is fine by everyone's standards. You sound like a twat when you say things like "well they both did some punching so you guys are hypocrites for criticizing one but not the other." Tariff wars are a net lost for everyone, that's why everybody but MAGA knows they're stupid. Different point buddy. Are tariffs taxes or not? If so, how could they be good? What did Canadian citizens do to deserve to be hit by their government with taxes proportional to those that the US hit their citizens with? | ||
|
Geiko
France2028 Posts
On August 24 2026 04:45 oBlade wrote: This is why I said "trade practices." If you KNOW that you can only use a tariff specifically against another tariff in gentlemen's trade wars, that's an axiom. That's a rule. This has the advantage of sounding fair because tariffs being in the same category as themselves, it seems symmetrical. In fact, we'd have choose how to even define "matching." Matched by pure percent rates? Effective rates? Value-weighted average? Total gross (ex. if Canada is getting $2B from their tariffs, put tariffs on Canadian products estimated to bring in $2B)? Therefore, in cases where you're facing quotas, subsidized industries, currency devaluation, IP theft, and bureaucratic barriers (like are supposed to be erased by the EU saying they and the US will recognize each other's car standards), you're not supposed to introduce tariffs or you're starting a trade war. So for China stealing US IP, US's tit for tat idealist answer is what, steal Chinese IP? If EU puts quotas on US bison, US should.... put quotas on EU bison? A little exploration and this rule doesn't seem to hold up as fair. Also you don't have to be "targeted" to be adversely affected which you would retaliate against. For example, in currency devaluation, a country can't do that just between two countries, because it's currency. And you can't devalue your own currency just to target one other country, you can only devalue your currency to forex markets in general. A country's "widget" import licenses and standards may apply to the whole world, but de facto only affect you if you're the widget manufacturing country. All these problems and it looks like there is at least a case for the use of tariffs being a valid policy outside of the convenient "He started it" exception. Seems like there is just a trade war all the time that sometimes gets hotter and sometimes colder. Different point buddy. Are tariffs taxes or not? If so, how could they be good? What did Canadian citizens do to deserve to be hit by their government with taxes proportional to those that the US hit their citizens with? You're overthinking all this. In my opinion we should just use blanket tariffs for everyone calculated on the basis of trade deficit / total imports. That would be nice and simple and fair. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3076 Posts
On August 24 2026 04:55 Geiko wrote: You're overthinking all this. In my opinion we should just use blanket tariffs for everyone calculated on the basis of trade deficit / total imports. That would be nice and simple and fair. oBlade's aggressive evasion of understanding how anything works is still more effort than what the Trump admin actually did, which was to copy their tariff rates from a ChatGPT prompt. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1185 Posts
On August 24 2026 04:00 oBlade wrote: Sure. Good for them. It is either an apocalyptic fascist tax or it isn't. Be consistent. ...... Well.. I never called it that. It's just a dumb idea to tariff each other IF... you believe in free markets, capitalism and innovation. If you believe in "Dear Leader should be able to grift and grift in a closed off market and get paid for favors and exempts".. like North Korea and Russia... in that case.. it's agood idea. Canada uses the tariffs like sanctions against Trump Admin, for being so erratic and plain offensive. If the EU had some BALLS they would do the same. Shutting down US Military bases in Europe and no longer protect US patents, brands and copyrights would also be a - legal - WTO sanction against the dumbfuck that is US policy right now. | ||
KwarK
United States44256 Posts
Trump is threatening to raise costs for everyone in both the US and Canada unless Canada gives the US lopsided preferential treatment. What Carney is doing in response is creating a financial incentive for the Canadian economy to reduce dependence on US imports. It's not remotely the same thing. The starting point for Trump is that US/Canada trade is already mutually beneficial and optimal but instead of just enjoying the profits evenly he'll threaten to blow it all up unless he gets more. It's economic terrorism. He's creating new taxes on US consumers to make it economically irrational to source things from the most efficient lowest cost provider when that provider is Canada. If trade between them is a boat with Trump and Carney in it then Trump threatened to shoot holes in the boat unless Carney paid him. Now the boat is sinking. Carney's tariffs are completely different. The motivation there is to create economic pressure for diversified supply chains because the US is proving that it is an unreliable and hostile partner. Yes, he is also taxing his own domestic consumers but the context is entirely different. He is making US imports comparatively more expensive than they otherwise would be because there is a strategic need to divest from reliance on the US and he is leveraging free market incentives to encourage alternative suppliers. And the revenues raised from Canadian consumers who fail to divest are being used to create new infrastructure that supports trade relationships across the Atlantic and Pacific. Returning to that boat metaphor, Carney is scavenging planks from the sinking boat to build himself a raft. Trump is using tariffs to blow things up. Carney is using tariffs to rebuild. They're both damaging the boat but that does not make them both the same. | ||
Falling
Canada11596 Posts
But it doesn't really matter, because either Trump's negotiators are delusional or they deliberately spiked any agreement with us by insisting they control who we trade with. That's not a serious agreement unless they are planning on turning us into Puerto Rico. Trump: Canada wants "'benefits of being a State, without being one" Get real with 54'40" or fight already or get the hell out of here and stop your bitching. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22538 Posts
On August 24 2026 06:04 Falling wrote: They were close to a deal and then Trump added terms that everyone knows would be utterly unacceptable.Canada forced to reciprocate tariffs is precisely why Trump's policies are so bad, but you don't see it that way, oBlade. Trump forced unnecessary trade wars because he's obsessed with trade imbalances and lies to the American public, calling them tariffs. But it doesn't really matter, because either Trump's negotiators are delusional or they deliberately spiked any agreement with us by insisting they control who we trade with. That's not a serious agreement unless they are planning on turning us into Puerto Rico. Trump: Canada wants "'benefits of being a State, without being one" Get real with 54'40" or fight already or get the hell out of here and stop your bitching. Aka doesn't actually want a deal, he purposefully sabotaged it. Why? The easy and obvious answer is that he and his buddies made another buttload of cash off of insider trading knowing the deal would be blown up last minute and bigly tariffs would be imposed. Trump doesn't care about the US or its industries and he can make more money personally off of playing the market. | ||
|
Billyboy
2182 Posts
Weakest, most scared president of all time. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3076 Posts
On August 24 2026 06:37 Gorsameth wrote: They were close to a deal and then Trump added terms that everyone knows would be utterly unacceptable. Aka doesn't actually want a deal, he purposefully sabotaged it. Why? The easy and obvious answer is that he and his buddies made another buttload of cash off of insider trading knowing the deal would be blown up last minute and bigly tariffs would be imposed. Trump doesn't care about the US or its industries and he can make more money personally off of playing the market. Alternative hypothesis: the US negotiators misinterpreted American booze reappearing on Canadian shelfs as a sign of weakness instead of a token of good faith. So they went all in thinking Carney was as weak as Trump is. | ||
|
Billyboy
2182 Posts
| ||
|
dyhb
United States634 Posts
Shortly after Trump extended the tariff deadline, negotiators were near a deal: The U.S. would lower tariffs on steel and aluminum from 50% to 25% and ease top-line automotive tariffs from 25% to 15%, according to people familiar with the discussions. But pushback from U.S. industry and acrimony within the Trump administration helped derail those critical aspects of the deal. In particular, some domestic producers of aluminum products argued that while tariffs on primary aluminum could be decreased, the U.S. should maintain 50% tariffs on downstream products made with the metal, people familiar with the talks said. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick took up their cause internally, the people said, arguing the U.S. should take a harder line on the sectoral tariffs, which his agency administers. Lutnick’s involvement in the trade talks worried people in Canada, people familiar with the negotiations said. In the past, he has said Canadians “suck” and criticized their negotiating strategy. The U.S. then floated proposals that would have maintained high tariffs on some downstream metal products, including those made from aluminum, as well as set quotas for the amount of steel that could come into the U.S. under lower tariff rates. The conflicting proposals ultimately led the entire agreement on sectoral tariffs to unravel, the people said. WSJ | ||
| ||
