US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5924

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!

On August 24 2026 04:11 LightSpectra wrote:
What unfair trade practices were the penguin island guilty of?

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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. ......

On August 24 2026 06:04 Falling wrote:
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.

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.

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.

On August 24 2026 06:04 Falling wrote:
Canada forced to reciprocate tariffs is precisely why Trump's policies are so bad, but you don't see it that way, oBlade.

On August 24 2026 06:04 Falling wrote:
Trump forced unnecessary trade wars because he's obsessed with trade imbalances and lies to the American public, calling them tariffs.

On August 24 2026 06:04 Falling wrote:
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.

On August 24 2026 16:49 oBlade wrote:

Correct, I do not.

If Canada's tariffs are bad then Canada can just not do them. *taxes own citizens* Look at what Trump made me do!

Or if tariffs are good then there was never an issue to begin with.

On the other hand, if US tariffs are bad for Canada it does not strictly matter as Trump, despite what you fear, not being president of Canada, is beholden to America's interests before Canada's.


Trade imbalances (you mean deficits?) do not happen only by accident.

You have what I like to call the "weather fallacy" status quo view of the world. However things are now, must be necessary. However things could change, is unnecessary. Just whatever the status quo is at any instant shouldn't be touched. In reality, not everything is by accident. When the US has a trade deficit with someone it's not just that in that moment the wind is blowing one direction, and another day there might be a trade deficit in the opposite direction. The deficits are emergent consequences of other factors.

"Blumpf lied" is not relevant here. You can call a tiger a lion and be wrong, and still be eaten. Calling trade deficits tariffs, an OBVIOUS rhetorical metaphor, doesn't make them bad, that's true. But the fact that it's a "lie" (metaphor) doesn't prove that therefore they're actually GOOD instead. (It doesn't prove the tiger is safe to approach.) Or if trade deficits are actually so good, fine, you take them. Problem solved.

Has it always been so transparent that couching all this shit in "Trump is destroying America" is often just when the administration has a policy that affects your native countries in a way you don't like.

I wonder how much inflation Carney's tariffs will cause as he destroys his citizens. In his case, the policy is apparently worth it though.


Can the US at this moment trust Canada not to backdoor an FTA with China after concluding negotiations with the US? When the US is in the middle of trying to strategically isolate China? In other words, is Canada interested in actually becoming Hong Kong just to spite the suggestion that it would ever become Puerto Rico?

On August 24 2026 19:09 Acrofales wrote:

Indeed, trade deficit bad. You should definitely tariff more guano from penguin island.