She no doubt signed up for it. If you examine the fine print it clearly states “Stand there, do nothing, and keep your mouth shut”.
So it looks like our allies are going to responding pretty quickly to the tariffs. A lot of outlets have pointed out that this is a ridiculous argument, but I don't understand why they aren't pointing out exactly why it's so ludicrous. The military already uses steel from nearly all the nations Trump just targeted with the tariffs. It's kind of hard to justify tariffs on Canada "for the good of national defense" when Canada already supplies just that. If anything the tariffs undermine the viability of national defense, not the other way around. I'm seriously wondering if Trump is even aware of this. I mean, did he just google "What's a good excuse for a president to put a tariff on?" and pick the first one that came up? Nothing would shock me at this point. This is an interview with the CEO of Nucor. They are the largest domestic mill and already making a killing off of this. His rationale for the EU tariffs don't make any sense. It's true that exporters pay a VAT, but so do all the EU suppliers regardless of where it is made. I think he has a fair point about China (fyi the EU put even larger tariffs on Chinese steel than Trump did) but he's pretty much just making up bullshit about the other countries. In fairness there are some EU duty taxes that don't make a whole lost of sense. Eg a 10% duty on cars. We'll see where this all goes. I'm pretty sure our allies just want to resolve it because escalating this into a trade war fucks everyone over without exceptions. Trump should really focus his trade efforts on China, and would easily have the support of all these countries, but then again he's a buffoon so we'll see...
Very all or nothing reductionist argument. People can hate aspects of is actions while being ambivalent or even supportive of others. I think it speaks more to your perceptions and biases to have to be that black and white. Supreme Court also just released the ruling in favor of the bakers not serving the gays. Mainly because they felt the civil rights commission that brought up the case was overly harsh in its prosecution. Trump I’m sure will make serious hay with the “war on Christianity” crowd.
I don't hate the man, because I don't really know the man. I hate the actions he's doing in his office. Sure, he seems to be a fucking idiot based on how he's portrayed, and his use of Twitter, but for all I know the dude is a lot of fun on the golf course or in the Miss Universe locker room. That being said, the way he handles his role as President of the US is fucking insane, and if I had to guess I'd say he is an idiot in "real life" too. Being the President of the US does not define the man. For instance, George W seems like a really nice guy, but I think he sucked as a President. I'd still love to go hang with the dude and have a beer and see his paintings. Obama didn't stop being Obama when he was no longer POTUS, and even though he made some decisions that I don't like, it doesn't mean I hate the guy... quite the opposite. Hell, watching him on David Letterman's new Netflix show made me really appreciate him all the more.
This is why Trump sucks: “I love Canada. But they take advantage of us economically.” ....that’s why you have a profit surplus from trading with Canada that's over two billion dollars, you fucking idiot. He just flat-out lies to justify his actions and all the morons say “Wow......he’s on it.”
Its a little more complicated than that. The US does have a trade deficit with Canada. This is largely offset with the services import/exports (tourism, etc.), which creates an overall surplus which the detractors are focused on. But the deficit on goods is still a thing and worth addressing, which is probably what Trump is focused on. There are a ton of mitigating factors, though. For one the USD is the global reserve currency, which many economists believe gives the US a very unique global economic position in which traditional measures don't really apply. Plus, claims that protectionism would cushion the deficit are dubious at best. Not mention the deficit has declined $12bn in the past 12 months which Trump doesnt really mention. Where Trump is correct is that China and Mexico both have had sluggish growth in recent years and are fully reliant on US consumerism for any of the growth measure that they have at all. China, by the way, is largely known to bullshit their numbers. His claims that the tariff agreements with Europe are all also (generally) correct. the agreements of GATT and the WTO fucked up their intended goal of reducing trade wars. Europe can exact much higher tariffs on US goods (cars, for example) than the US does on them as long as they do the same in Asia, with little recourse by the US. Again there are a million factors at play, but the current system is far from perfect.
I know fuck all about economics, but what I do remember from high school was that tariffs like these were a major contributor to the Great Depression. I'm not saying that this is the same thing, but I'm genuinely curious if there are any positives that could ever result from the tariffs, especially when so many other countries are entering into the fray, not just Canada.
I think the ultimate goal is to spur a renegotiation of trade agreements rather than enact long-lasting protectionism. The first point you made requires some elaboration. The Great Depression in Canada was unique. It was triggered by the same forces that caused it around the world (runaway stock speculation, etc.). But I think what you're referring to was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It was protectionist policy by the US in the 1930s to prop up US farms and agricultural production that was declining at an insane rate after the Depression already started. It ended up crushing Canada's economy even further.
The problem with this is a problem with Trump more generally: he views all negotiations as zero sum, and therefore will only believe he has won if the other side has lost. In an arena like international trade, where the goal is to find a deal that is mutually beneficial, he will never craft a successful deal because it is impossible by definition. Any deal in which our trading partners are satisfied (which is a requisite to any ongoing trade relationship) is a deal that Trump will view as him having "lost" and will either refuse to sign or immediately undermine.
Ha, well I never said he was good at Game Theory. I guess I should say, "I hope its the ultimate goal."
I don't think it is "widely accepted". I think it's a point of contention by a number of people way more knowledgeable about it than I am.
This is kind of my issue with it as well. I largely agree that it is something that merits attention, it's just hard to envision Trump not fucking it up.
Multiple justice departments for multiple presidents have concurred on this. I thought it was pretty well accepted.
I think I know where I'm confused... he can't be charged while sitting, but he can be impeached and then charged.
As far as I know, it is still not constitutionally settled. Meaning a case has obviously never been brought before the Supreme Court, to determine it one way or the other. This discussion came up a lot during Clinton's tenure as well. This article discusses it in more detail, but Constitutionally it is still vague. https://dailygazette.com/article/20...-president-be-indicted-under-the-constitution
There is more than one way you could argue it, but I think this has it nailed down. Ultimately, congress is the check on power, not the justice department. Whether you can or can't indict a president is kind of irrelevant to the bigger picture.