|
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 |
On August 24 2026 19:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2026 19:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 24 2026 16:49 oBlade wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Indeed, trade deficit bad. You should definitely tariff more guano from penguin island. Keep going to bat advocating for free trade with an island of penguins, it's an incredibly crucial issue and very productive, and you're making great progress. Because it perfectly highlights how this is not a carefully considered strategy by Trump but just shit thrown at the wall.
|
"These are carefully thought out policies done by experts who know more than you" falls apart as an argument when it's publicly known they got their tariff rates from a ChatGPT prompt.
|
Here's how it works oblade.
Tariffs make prices higher in the country where the tariffs apply. This is why they are compared to "a tax on your own citizens". That's bad
Also, tariffs bring in more money to the government. That's good.
Also tariffs impede free trade, so everyone loses money, but the country that is the target of the tariffs loses the most. That's bad .
Trump doesn't care about higher prices, he cares about bringing in money to finance his tax cuts for his rich friends.
To sum it up. Trump's tariffs are bad for the average american, bad for canada in general and good for Trump and wealthy americans.
Now why would Canada "tax its own people" by applying reciprocal tariffs ?
Because Canada will not use the money from the tariffs to finance tax cuts for the rich, most of it will hopefully go back to the average canadian. Also, canada wants to disincentivize the use of tariffs. Kind of like MAD, but for the economy.
Hopefully this has cleared up any misunderstandings.
|
|
|
Except that Trump does them illegally do that they money can go back to the corps instead of to the government. This way he can speed run record deficits and debts. And Oblade can explain to us how this is actual fiscal responsibility because Donald told him so.
|
On August 24 2026 23:52 Geiko wrote:
Here's how it works oblade.
Tariffs make prices higher in the country where the tariffs apply. This is why they are compared to "a tax on your own citizens". That's bad
Also, tariffs bring in more money to the government. That's good.
Also tariffs impede free trade, so everyone loses money, but the country that is the target of the tariffs loses the most. That's bad .
Trump doesn't care about higher prices, he cares about bringing in money to finance his tax cuts for his rich friends.
To sum it up. Trump's tariffs are bad for the average american, bad for canada in general and good for Trump and wealthy americans.
Now why would Canada "tax its own people" by applying reciprocal tariffs ?
Because Canada will not use the money from the tariffs to finance tax cuts for the rich, most of it will hopefully go back to the average canadian. Also, canada wants to disincentivize the use of tariffs. Kind of like MAD, but for the economy.
Hopefully this has cleared up any misunderstandings.
Honest question, not about if tariffs are good or bad, but just me struggling to understand something: Does the "Because Canada will not use the money from the tariffs" not really make sense? Canadian businesses would be hurt by it if they need inputs from the US that are tariffed, canadians will hurt if they want to buy anything that is tariffed or uses tariffed goods. Some money maybe coming back to them indirectly by whatever the government uses it on, but overall I struggle to not see it as a net loss (purely financially speaking, I understand that turning the other cheek doesn't work with bullies).
Or did you just mean it in the sense that its a necessary evil that will be less bad for the canadians because the government hopefully uses the money in a more productive way?
|
On August 25 2026 00:01 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2026 23:52 Geiko wrote:
Here's how it works oblade.
Tariffs make prices higher in the country where the tariffs apply. This is why they are compared to "a tax on your own citizens". That's bad
Also, tariffs bring in more money to the government. That's good.
Also tariffs impede free trade, so everyone loses money, but the country that is the target of the tariffs loses the most. That's bad .
Trump doesn't care about higher prices, he cares about bringing in money to finance his tax cuts for his rich friends.
To sum it up. Trump's tariffs are bad for the average american, bad for canada in general and good for Trump and wealthy americans.
Now why would Canada "tax its own people" by applying reciprocal tariffs ?
Because Canada will not use the money from the tariffs to finance tax cuts for the rich, most of it will hopefully go back to the average canadian. Also, canada wants to disincentivize the use of tariffs. Kind of like MAD, but for the economy.
Hopefully this has cleared up any misunderstandings. Honest question, not about if tariffs are good or bad, but just me struggling to understand something: Does the "Because Canada will not use the money from the tariffs" not really make sense? Canadian businesses would be hurt by it if they need inputs from the US that are tariffed, canadians will hurt if they want to buy anything that is tariffed or uses tariffed goods. Some money maybe coming back to them indirectly by whatever the government uses it on, but overall I struggle to not see it as a net loss (purely financially speaking, I understand that turning the other cheek doesn't work with bullies). Or did you just mean it in the sense that its a necessary evil that will be less bad for the canadians because the government hopefully uses the money in a more productive way?
He means the latter. We are spending on getting new trade partners and infrastructure to get our products to the ports instead of only south. We are also investing in infrastructure to process our raw material instead of just shipping it out and buying the raw material.
Companies like mine are also adapting and doing things we probably should have done long ago but hadn’t because of long relationships with American suppliers. Often we have found better for the same or less or same for the same or less. Generally we were over paying on American products because our customers thought it was higher quality than from Asia, plus it almost felt like you were buying North American and supporting “our” economies. Now that has completely flopped and people are actively avoiding American products.
I’m sure some of that at the consumer level will bounce back if the US gets a president who isn’t constantly attacking us to try to make up for what a shit job he is doing. But I don’t see a lot of businesses changing back unless something happens with their new supplier. Procurement is generally a pain in the ass and if it’s working it’s not worth the risk of any problems from changing.
|
Trump threatens to unleash military on bond market (?): https://www.rawstory.com/trump-treasury-bonds/
Trump was asked whether he had spoken with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about "another type of intervention" after bond yields climbed back to multi-year highs.
"The ultimate intervention is our military," Trump said. "And if we have to use that, we will."
|
That’s how Oblade knows that his decisions are so good and trusts him so implicitly. Everything he says is just so smrt.
|
On August 25 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:Trump threatens to unleash military on bond market (?): https://www.rawstory.com/trump-treasury-bonds/Show nested quote +Trump was asked whether he had spoken with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about "another type of intervention" after bond yields climbed back to multi-year highs.
"The ultimate intervention is our military," Trump said. "And if we have to use that, we will."
It is really silly. I assume the guy simply forgot who he was talking to and about what, heard "intervention" and thought "yeah, military might fit here".
There is simply no sense. Just insanity after insanity after insanity.
|
For the n-th time. Canada employs counter tariffs to create a negotiating lever during the next round of negotiations.
This is not unique to Canada.. in general tariffs lead to counter-tariffs in a non-stop tit-for-tat economic war harming both sides. Alan Greenspan explains it well.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tariffs-are-an-attack-on-the-economy-alan-greenspan
Alan Greenspan was Fed Chair for 18.5 years in an incredible run where he was amazingly bi-partisan. He is also 23843987 times smarter than clowns like Howard Licknutz. BTW, that joke last name is 100% realistic because Lipshitz is a common variant of the correctly spelled common jewish last name Lipshutz. So, I think Howard Licknutz fits well.
speaking of Greenspan, we're coming up on August 27th. Every good objectivist knows what that means.
Any how, Rest In Peace Mr. Greenspan. The final surviving member of Ayn Rand's Collective is now Leonard Piekoff.. who oddly enough is from WINNIPEG! Dr. Branden had a lot of family in Winnipeg as well. I love Winnipeg!
It was amazing when the USA was guided by geniuses like Alan Greenspan. Alas, those days are long over.
|
The tangent where you explain your insult was based on common Jewish names was, uh, something
|
On August 25 2026 20:01 LightSpectra wrote:
The tangent where you explain your insult was based on common Jewish names was, uh, something
Dr. Seymour Lipschutz is one of my top 5 mathematicians. Is he in your top 5? If you've read my previous posts you know how much I love Jewish math professors.
The way Howard Lutnik has conducted himself the past 2 years he is full value for that insult. He wants to call Canada "trash" he will receive return fire.
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/howard-lutnick-wont-back-down-091500118.html
When Lutnik uses vague terms like 'they suck' and 'Canada is trash' he is confessing he has no rational position to back his claim that the USA has been ripped off by Canada.
So If, in fact, Canada is ripping off the USA then how is this happening? Well, it is not.
|
On August 25 2026 20:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2026 20:01 LightSpectra wrote:
The tangent where you explain your insult was based on common Jewish names was, uh, something Dr. Seymour Lipschutz is one of my top 5 mathematicians. Is he in your top 5? If you've read my previous posts you know how much I love Jewish math professors.
You don't even acknowledge LS's trigonometry pun here. Your Jewish math professors would be so disappointed in you.
|
Anyone heard what the Jeffries - Kushner meeting was about?
Perhaps he was delivering a threat aligned with this message about holding criminals accountable?
Does anyone actually believe Democrats will hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way? Do people not think that failure will have catastrophic/terminal consequences to the concept that the US is a "nation of laws"?
|
United States24805 Posts
I mean, when a majority of voters vote in a criminal as president, isn't the argument already settled?
|
|
|
Canada11607 Posts
"We're going to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America."
Well, why don't we rename America to Canada the Lesser?
Trump is such a child.
We're living in the dumbest timeline.
|
On August 26 2026 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Anyone heard what the Jeffries - Kushner meeting was about?Perhaps he was delivering a threat aligned with this message about holding criminals accountable? + Show Spoiler +Does anyone actually believe Democrats will hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way? Do people not think that failure will have catastrophic/terminal consequences to the concept that the US is a "nation of laws"?
I found this:
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and President Donald Trump's son-in-law and outside adviser Jared Kushner met privately recently in New York, a signal that the White House is seeking ways to work with Democrats if they wrest majority control from Republicans in the midterm elections.
The meeting, first reported Sunday by The New York Times, touched on issues ranging from housing, immigration to the high costs of living. People in the United States are struggling under inflationary prices that Democrats blame on Republicans, alongside Trump, for failing to get under control.
Kushner suggested that Jeffries, who is in line to become House speaker if Democrats regain power in November, meet with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles as a follow-up.
Jeffries, in a statement Sunday, did not mention the private conversation but said the Republican administration needed to drop the GOP's "my-way-or-the-highway" approach that "has failed the American people."
"To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition," the New York congressman said. "The question is whether Republicans will join us."
The meeting shows the depth of Republican Party angst over losing their congressional majority, particularly the House, and the need to make inroads with the opposing party as the White House seeks to stem any potential political fallout on the president.
If Democrats retake power, the White House can expect an aggressive oversight agenda into what Jeffries has called the "crooks" in the administration, with the threat of impeachment among the many tools at the party's disposal. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jared-kushner-and-democratic-leader-jeffries-meet-with-house-control-at-stake-in-november
I don't see this meeting as an optimistic indicator that Congressional Democrats are going to be able to get anything done while Trump is still in office, even if Democrats retake control of Congress. They won't push as hard as they need to; they won't do what Republicans have been willing to do (for better or for worse). I have no reason to think that anything is seriously going to change before we have both a Democratic president and a Democrat-led Congress at the same time, and I definitely don't think that they'll ever hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way.
|
If Dems retake the Senate, it means they can deny SCOTUS, federal judge, and cabinet appointments, and if they impeach anyone in the Trump administration they can hold a full trial with as much testimony as they want for as long as they like, instead of the sham trial that McConnell led the first time Trump got impeached.
If they only retake the House then their only leverage is refusing to vote for the budget if there's insane stuff in it, but that only goes so far. It's already been established that you can just ignore Congressional subpoenas, refuse to schedule anything for a vote in the Senate that the House passes, etc. The House by itself doesn't have any power to prevent military invasions or anything similar under this SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
