I’m going to be scathing in my critique because these people are both dishonest and incompetent and deserve to be called out on it.
Here’s their formula:
It’s a ridiculously simplistic formula.
First, a stylistic quibble. What is up with those asterisks in the denominator? I’ll give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume that they wanted the formula to be understandable by people who aren’t familiar with standard math notation, in which the juxtaposition of variables indicates multiplication. But to see it written that way in an official document is just… weird.
The i subscripts in the formula just indicate that the formula is to be applied to one country at a time — country i. I’ll therefore omit the ‘i’s from the rest of the discussion.
∆𝜏 is the amount by which the tariff currently being placed on that particular country should change (according to the Trump administration bozos) in order to drive the bilateral trade deficit to zero. In other words, 𝜏 (the existing rate) + ∆𝜏 (the change in rate) would be the correct final rate (according to the formula) to achieve the dubious goal of a trade balance.
The inanity of insisting on bilateral trade balances
We’re off to a bad start already, because the notion that every bilateral trade deficit should be zero is ridiculous on its face. Let’s look at a simplified example. Suppose Malawi sells us only mangoes, and the US (henceforth ‘we’, since I’m American) sells them only air conditioners. In order for the trade deficit to be zero, we need to buy the same dollar amount in mangoes that they buy in air conditioners, and we should adjust the tariffs we impose on Malawi until that happens. Why is this desirable? Why should the amount of mangoes be linked to the amount of air conditioners? Who the hell knows? It’s just Trump’s idiotic obsession, and it makes no sense.
To make the stupidity even more obvious, think of an analogous situation. Ernesto sells tacos from a taco truck, and George runs a landscaping business. George occasionally buys tacos from Ernesto, and Ernesto hires George to mow his lawn. Suppose Ernesto pays more to George each month than George spends buying tacos from Ernesto. Is Ernesto being cheated? Is he subsidizing George? No and no. George gets every taco he pays for, and Ernesto gets his lawn mown on schedule. It would be ridiculous to say that either of them is being cheated, and ridiculous to say that the goal should be to make the amounts even.
Why is Trump obsessed with trade deficits? It’s because he is confused enough to believe that the existence of a bilateral trade deficit — a trading deficit with a particular country, Malawi in my example — means that they are cheating us and that we’re subsidizing them. He actually believes that we are just handing over the money, getting nothing in return. In reality, we get every frikkin’ mango we pay for, and they get every air conditioner they pay for. No one is being cheated, and to demand that the dollar amounts should match is idiotic and pointless.
Trump actually declares in his executive order that trade deficits are a “national emergency”. He does this because he doesn’t have the authority to impose tariffs unless it’s a national emergency. Otherwise, the job falls to Congress, where it belongs. Trump is lying about the supposed national emergency.
The formula
According to the USTR statement, the x in the formula is the dollar value of what we export to a particular country, while m is the dollar value of what we import from them. The numerator, x – m, is therefore equal to the trade imbalance. If x is bigger than m, then the difference is positive, and we are running a trade surplus. If x is less than m, then x – m is negative, and we have a trade deficit. But note that they have it backwards in the formula: it should be m – x, not x – m. Why? Because the denominator is positive. If both the numerator and denominator are positive, as they would be in the case of a trade surplus, the formula would deliver a ∆𝜏 that is positive. In other words, the formula as written would actually increase the tariffs for the countries with whom we have a trade surplus, and it would decrease the tariffs for countries with whom we have a trade deficit. The formula therefore punishes the (supposedly) good guys and rewards the (supposedly) bad ones, which is opposite to the administration’s intentions. One more indication of their clown car incompetence.
They could easily have corrected the formula if they were aware of the error. Just put a negative sign in front of the formula, or swap x and m, or redefine x and m as the amounts exported and imported by the other country, instead of the amounts exported and imported by the US. Any one of those three would fix the problem, but no.
Let’s assume that we have corrected that mistake for them and that the numerator now equals the amount of the trade deficit, not the surplus. What about the denominator? Well, it just so happens that the values they chose for 𝜀 and 𝜓 are 4 and 0.25, respectively. Those multiply to 1, thus canceling each other. How convenient. These charlatans actually and blatantly chose the values so that they would cancel out, instead of using the most accurate numbers they could find in the literature. They cheated.
After that suspiciously convenient choice of parameters, the formula is now just ∆𝜏 = trade deficit divided by total imports:
Do they actually apply this formula? No. They massage its output even more. They divide ∆𝜏 by two, for no good reason. That means that for the formula to match the actual tariffs, they should multiply the denominator by 2. They fail to do that, as you’d expect. Why 2? My hypothesis is that even those dunces realized that the numbers they were getting from the formula were ridiculously large, and dividing by 2 was a way to get them down to a range that they considered reasonable. More number fudging with no theoretical justification.
Next problem: according to the corrected formula, ∆𝜏 should be negative in the case of trade surpluses. That is, we should decrease the tariffs on imports from those countries. If the existing tariff rate is small enough, it should even go negative, according to the formula, in order to balance our trade with that country. Trump doesn’t like that, so he has arbitrarily declared that everyone will pay a minimum of 10%, whether there’s a trade deficit or a trade surplus. In other words, the policy, which is already misguided, is also unfair — it says that it’s OK for the US to screw other countries by imposing high tariffs, even if they’re doing the “right” thing and allowing us to run a trade surplus with them.
The actual rates
Here are the charts spelling out the actual tariff rates.
The chart labels them “Reciprocal Tariffs”, but that is a lie, since the formula doesn’t take into account the tariff rate charged by the other countries on our exports to them. It’s completely missing from the formula. They aren’t reciprocal tariffs, they’re misguided tariffs in response to trade deficits, and they punish US importers instead of the countries selling us those goods and services.
The label on the middle column is wrong for the same reason, and it’s even further wrong because it depicts a bilateral trade deficit as a quantifier of “currency manipulation and trade barriers”, which it isn’t. We can run a bilateral trade deficit for no other reason than that Americans want more of what the other country is selling us than they want from us. That’s not “currency manipulation and trade barriers”, and the Trump administration is dishonest for trying to sell it that way.
The numbers in the middle column are apparently those that come straight out of the formula. You can tell, because the tariffs that are actually being imposed by the US are just the middle column divided by 2. That’s the arbitrary factor of 2 I mentioned above. The only exceptions are in those cases where dividing by 2 would leave a less than 10% tariff, in which case the tariff is set to 10%. Gotta make sure that everyone gets screwed at least that much.
The US Trade Representative’s explanation
Now some excerpts from the USTR statement. The very first paragraph:
Reciprocal tariffs are calculated as the tariff rate necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the U.S. and each of our trading partners. This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Tariffs work through direct reductions of imports.
Well, duh. The phrase “tariff and non-tariff factors” covers literally every possible factor in the entire world. Yes, there are actual reasons that we buy more in mangoes from Malawi than they buy from us in air conditioners. Therefore we should conclude that we’re getting ripped off?
While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero.
Not by any reasonable person. You need to do the homework before making policy decisions that will affect the entire world economy. If they want less of what we’re selling than we want of what they’re selling, that can lead to a trade deficit, independent of all the factors they list above.
This doesn’t mean that trade practices can’t be unfair, but it does mean that to assume something nefarious is going on merely because we’re running a bilateral trade deficit is stupid.
If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.
No. If we like Malawian mangoes more than the Malawians like our air conditioners, nothing is broken. Nothing is unfair. No reason to blindly punish the Malawians. It just means that American demand for Malawian mangoes is greater than Malawian demand for American air conditioners. No big deal.
A case could be made for nudging the US’s global trade deficit — which is the aggregate trade deficit we’re running with all of our trading partners put together — toward zero, but trying to eliminate every bilateral trade deficit is bonkers. These people are clueless.
Consider an environment in which the U.S. levies a tariff of rate τ_i on country i and ∆τ_i reflects the change in the tariff rate. Let ε<0 represent the elasticity of imports with respect to import prices…
Right there they say that ε < 0, but a few sentences later they assign it a value of 4. The last time I checked, 4 was greater than 0, not less. Their sloppiness is consistent, at least. What is wrong with these folks?
let φ>0 represent the passthrough from tariffs to import prices, let m_i>0 represent total imports from country i, and let x_i>0 represent total exports. Then the decrease in imports due to a change in tariffs equals ∆τ_i*ε*φ*m_i<0. Assuming that offsetting exchange rate and general equilibrium effects are small enough to be ignored, the reciprocal tariff that results in a bilateral trade balance of zero satisfies:
As noted earlier, they have the numerator backwards. It should be positive for a trade deficit, not negative, in order for ∆𝜏 to be positive, which represents an increase in tariff rates.
To calculate reciprocal tariffs, import and export data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2024. Parameter values for ε and φ were selected. The price elasticity of import demand, ε, was set at 4.
Which inside the Trump administration is less than 0, lol. And how convenient that εφ multiplies to 1, as noted above.
Recent evidence suggests the elasticity is near 2 in the long run (Boehm et al., 2023), but estimates of the elasticity vary. To be conservative, studies that find higher elasticities near 3-4 (e.g., Broda and Weinstein 2006; Simonovska and Waugh 2014; Soderbery 2018) were drawn on. The elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, φ, is 0.25.
It wasn’t to be conservative. It was to fudge the numbers so that the product εφ came out to be 1. And picking a value of 4 for elasticity isn’t “being conservative” in the sense of “this value is more likely to be correct”. It’s conservative in the sense of “we’d better make this number big because otherwise the tariffs will be so outrageously huge that everyone will see that we’re idiots.”
Think about it. They want φ to be small (whether or not the evidence supports it), because they want to maintain the fiction that other countries will mostly absorb the tariffs and that importers and retail customers will shoulder less of the burden and therefore experience less inflation. On the other hand, a small φ balloons the value of ∆𝜏 to ridiculous levels. So they set 𝜀 to 4 to bring ∆𝜏 down, even while acknowledging that the true value of 𝜀 is closer to 2.
The recent experience with U.S. tariffs on China has demonstrated that tariff passthrough to retail prices was low (Cavallo et al, 2021).
I haven’t verified that, but either way I would sure like to see the actual number. Why didn’t they include it? Is it really 0.25? In any case, the question of pass-through to retail prices is irrelevant when you’re trying to determine which country is absorbing the cost of the tariffs. It’s the pass-through factor to importers that is relevant, and that is close to 1, even if the pass-though to retail customers is less. That means that US importers are bearing the cost of the tariffs and passing some of that cost on to consumers. It’s inflationary, and it’s a tax by the US government on US importers, not a tax on foreign countries. Which contradicts Trump’s whole rationale.
The reciprocal tariffs were left-censored at zero.
No, they were “left-censored” at 10, as you can see by looking at the charts. 10 is the minimum tariff you’ll see in the third column of the charts.
Higher minimum rates might be necessary to limit heterogeneity in rates and reduce transshipment.</p
No explanation of why “heterogeneity in rates” is to be avoided, and no comment on the fact that it isn’t avoided, given the large range of new tariff rates in the third column of the charts. That means there’s still plenty of incentive for transshipment. Take Vietnam, for instance, with a new rate of 46%. There’s a *lot* of incentive for them to transship through one of the countries with a 10% rate.
Tariff rates range from 0 to 99 percent.
There is no inherent limit. Tariffs could be 100%, 180%, or 2100%. 99% is an arbitrary limit. Tariffs could even be negative in a perverse world, in which case the government would be giving importers a bonus for importing more and nudging us toward a trade deficit. Obviously that wouldn’t happen in practice, but my point is that the 99% is arbitrary, and anyone who thinks tariffs are limited to being less than 100% doesn’t understand tariffs.
The unweighted average across deficit countries is 50 percent, and the unweighted average across the entire globe is 20 percent.
It’s pointless to state the unweighted average. An unweighted average is really just a weighted average with all of the weights set to 1. That gives Liechtenstein equal weight with China, which is stupid. Our trade volume with China is some 1,770 times as great as our trade volume with Liechtenstein, but these geniuses are weighting them evenly and presenting the average as if it had some kind of significance. Morons.
Weighted by imports, the average across deficit countries is 45 percent, and the average across the entire globe is 41 percent. Standard deviations range from 20.5 to 31.8 percentage points.
Here, they tell us that the import-weighted average of tariffs is 41 percent. Combine that with their assumed pass-through rate of 0.25. meaning that exporters in other countries will shoulder 75% of the tariff burden. That’s unrealistic and it clashes with the actual data, but even if you take the Trumpers at their word and assume that only 25% of the additional cost due to tariffs is passed to importers, that’s still over 10%, because 0.25 * 41% is greater than 10%. 10% import inflation! So much for Trump’s campaign promise: “I’ll reduce prices on day one.” Idiot.
Good job, Trump supporters. By voting for him, you put power in the hands of these dishonest and incompetent economic doofuses.
I wonder how does Bill like the big beautiful bill and whether he agrees with Musk or Trump on that one.
dazz:
I don’t know if Bill is a deficit hawk, but if he is, I suspect it won’t outweigh his fealty to the Dear Leader. My guess is that he’s with Trump on this one. Perhaps he’ll weigh in.
People who assess character or intelligence based on ability to accumulate wealth (of whom there are depressingly many) must be severely conflicted.
Being elected to congress does wonders for character and intelligence. It’s a much more reliable road to accumulating wealth.
I’d say hitting the Presidency is where the big bucks are.
keiths,
I think the biggest mistake our government has made is running up the debt which I blame George W for starting the process. I was very disappointed that Trump did not attack this more aggressively but understand if he was too aggressive then a long recession could occur.
I think Elon taking the opposite position is healthy. The challenge is addressing the debt problem while keeping the economy healthy. If the powers at be are not careful they can make the problem worse killing revenue by causing a severe long recession.
Also taco memes.
With the National Guard being deployed in California it’s beginning to look like 1968…
Shoot, there goes my déjà-vu again
Alan Fox,
How do you see the parallel between the two events? By 1968 are you talking about Vietnam was protestors?
colewd,
Are you serious, Bill? When folks have lost the support of law, they have nothing to else to lose. The (majority in the) Supreme Court has abandoned US citizens. Desperation is a terrifying motivation.
No, civil rights. Black people. Women. Disabled. Gay etc . People who don’t fit someone’s paradigm.
Alan Fox,
Are you claiming that deportations of people who are in the country without citizenship, visas or green cards is illegal according to US law?
Nope. I’m suggesting the US is no longer (if it ever was) a beacon of democracy.
Alan Fox,
The US is a constitutional republic.
Typical christofascist response from those NPCs like you who support the orange dictator. Fuck you, Bill. Contitutional republic? Trump and his minions don’t care about the constitution and the rule of law (like when they round up and deport people without due process), and he acts like he’s the king.
Where you can no longer speak your mind or expect due process.
colewd:
You might want to remind your Dear Leader of that.
Trump, in 2022:
And this year:
Trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution. Do you, Bill?
keiths,
I simply corrected Alan on what the US is. It is a constitutional republic.
The TDS is pretty prevalent here. If you can help me understand this emotion that appears irrational I would appreciate it.
colewd:
Nothing irrational about it. The Constitution is the foundational law of our constitutional republic, and Trump swore a solemn oath — twice — to uphold it. That is his most important duty as President, and he’s not only failing to uphold the Constitution, he’s actively trying to violate it.
Do you think the oath is just a formality, and that the President should be free to violate the Constitution when he feels like it? Do you think the Constitution matters? If you don’t draw the line at violating the Constitution, where do you draw it?
As I have remarked before, “TDS” is a lazy label, and its use sounds reflexive rather than subject to great thought. It is a simplistic means to deflect criticism, without addressing it. I despise the man and all he stands for. But I can still give rational backup to that view.
Does Trump have Biden Derangement Syndrome?
Allan Miller,
This is what the lazy label TDS is supposed to represent. His polices are closer to traditional democratic policies than republican.
I think he disagrees with his policies and like most now realise Biden was not mentally capable to perform the duties of the office.
LMAO
Allan:
colewd:
You conveniently omitted what Allan wrote before and after that sentence:
There’s nothing “deranged” about despising someone who lies pathologically, tried to steal an election, willfully breaks the law and violates the Constitution, weaponizes the government against his political opponents, sexually assaults women, blames his predecessors for his own mistakes, doesn’t read, shows no interest in learning, has to have everything massively dumbed down for him in his briefings (when he bothers to attend them), is disloyal, utterly transactional, abandons people when they are no longer of use to him, accepts bribes, exploits his office for personal gain, pardons people who assault police officers, and stands by doing nothing for hours while the Capitol is being breached. That isn’t the end of it, by any means. I could keep going, but I think I’ve made my point.
I can back all of that up. It isn’t deranged to despise a man who acts like that; it’s deranged to support him.
Ran across this old interview yesterday, in which Trump tries to fake being a reader:
Pat Buchanan, after Trump says one of his favorite authors is Tom Wolfe:
Did you read Vanity of the Bonfires? [sic — he corrects himself momentarily]
Trump: I did not.
Buchanan: What’s the best book you’ve read beside Art of the Deal?
Trump: I really like Tom Wolfe’s last book…
Buchanan: Which book?
Trump: His current book. His, just, his current book, it’s just out.
Buchanan: Bonfire of the Vanities?
Trump: Yes.
Lol. Stupid and dishonest, both then and now.
Which reminded me of this:
Also:
Do you think Trump is a genuine Christian, Bill?
ETA: For Christ’s sake (so to speak), he couldn’t even come up with John 3:16??
Trump, in a 2020 interview:
Governor Newsom did not request the National Guard, and in fact asked the administration not to send them, because like any sensible person, he knew that it would only inflame the situation.
Trump broke the law and sent them anyway. He knew he was breaking the law, as his statement above demonstrates. Do you think it’s OK for a President to deliberately break the law, Bill? Is it fine with you as long as it’s your Dear Leader who is doing it?
It used to be possible to think someone an asshole without some hokey diagnosis. Of course, we all remember “Darwin Derangement Syndrome”, used in the opposite manner by Arrington et al.
Now, that is absurd. But are you saying his policies are bad, if so? Are you a closet Democrat?
He despises the man and everything he stands for…
Derangement Syndromes…
keiths,
Hi Keiths
The problem is you cannot back most of your claims with more than anecdote as your information comes from suspect sources. We can make the same claims about most Presidents depending on the sources of information we use.
Allan Miller,
I am a registered independent and honestly think the political system needs lots of reforms, it is not representing the voters, and has not for a long time. I think Trump is a result of this broken system.
I have sympathy for those like you who do not like him as he does have some unusual caustic tendencies. I am not currently happy that we are not attacking the deficit more aggressively.
Yes, you “corrected” his view that USA is (no longer) a democracy. It only shows the stupidity, the derangement syndrome very common in USA, as if democracy and republic were different things. However, republic is a direct Latin translation for the Greek word democracy.
Republic and democracy are the same concept. When someone says, “USA is a republic, not a democracy,” it is a sure sign of an American know-nothing racist wacko. Another similar sure sign is the saying “We have a Congress, not a parliament.”
Erik,
Constitutional republic. How would you describe your countries working structure?
Nah, USA is definitely a despotic dictatorship by now, and it always was constitutionally close to such, due to the missing difference between head of government and head of state – too much power in one single person. As it is said American mythology, “The greatest deed of George Washington was that he resigned,” meaning that he apparently could have remained president for life (as many African and some South American presidents do) without raising any eyebrows.
Not a dictatorship. And even if it were, it would not make USA less of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are not that special, and there is nothing special about USA being one.
Erik,
Can you be more specific? What is working and what is not?
colewd:
Lol. Tell me specifically which of the following you dispute, and why:
Again, please tell us specifically which of the above you dispute, and why.
Dude, you are deep in a personality cult. The evidence of Trump’s faults and wrongdoing is clearcut and unmistakable, but like any good cult member, you deny it. Eerily reminiscent of the way Scientologists bristle at criticism of their own Dear Leader, L Ron Hubbard.
colewd:
But you’re OK with it when he deliberately breaks the law or tries to steal an election?
Regarding the “caustic” bit: I see that all the time, along with the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” accusation, as an excuse for not addressing the things Trump has done and is now doing. “You just don’t like him because he’s caustic”, as if we didn’t have justifications that go far beyond that.
Trump sends the National Guard to Los Angeles, knowingly breaking the law. Is that just being “caustic”? He sends Abrego Garcia to a hellhole prison in El Salvador without due process, in violation of the Constitution, and then leaves him there in defiance of a Supreme Court order. “Oh, you don’t like him because he’s caustic.” Give me a frikkin’ break.
You dodged my earlier question, so I’ll repeat it.
Trump, in 2020:
Newsom did not ask Trump to send the National Guard to Los Angeles. Trump knows it’s illegal, and he did it anyway.
Do you think it’s OK for a President to deliberately break the law, Bill? Is it fine with you as long as it’s your Dear Leader who is doing it?
keiths,
The evidence is not there my friend. It appears you lack the ability to filter bias.
What law is he breaking?
He is providing for public protection against a pretty tough “protest” that is bordering on a riot with rocks thrown, burning of cars, looting stores and injured police. As President would you let this continue despite the fact that the police chief claimed to not have enough resources?
Are you a Democrat Keiths?
colewd:
I’m an independent, not that it matters. Truth is truth, regardless of the political affiliation of the person stating it.
Then it should be easy for you to respond to my request:
colewd:
Title 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which requires him to go through the governor when federalizing the National Guard.
I would have followed the law. Is that really such a hard call? “Let’s see, should I follow the law, or should I break it and then make excuses for breaking it?”
I would also be intelligent enough to know that sending in the National Guard and the Marines would exacerbate the situation. Isn’t that obvious?
The police chief has explicitly stated that he did not want and did not request the federal government’s intervention:
Then there’s Trump’s claim, without any evidence, that the protesters are “paid insurrectionists”. Do you think presidents should be honest, Bill, or is it OK as long as it’s your Dear Leader who is doing the lying?
I’ll remind you again of Trump’s own words in 2020:
So even if you could somehow demonstrate that Trump isn’t violating the law, it remains the fact that he thinks he’s violating it. Is it OK with you when a president deliberately tries to break the law?
The quote is out of context, and federal district court has already ruled in favor of Trump in the current situation.
petrushka:
What is it about the context of that quote that you think changes its clear meaning?
The judge merely granted time for the Trump administration to file a response brief, due tomorrow. He did not rule on the merits.
I would answer if you knew what “working” means. Based on our earlier discussion on tariffs in this thread, you do not know what “working” means.
By the way, how are those tariffs working out? Do you think they are working? Trump promised 90 deals in 90 days, then announced that he already made 200 tariff deals, but now five months in he does not have a single deal. Does it matter to you that he is lying? Does it matter to you that he does not know the difference between an immigrant and a citizen, not to mention between an illegal alien and an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
Any bigger words, such as “constitution”, “republic” or “dictatorship” are over your head by far.
You are hopelessly out of touch. You do not know what “law” means either.
The fuller quote is, “We can’t move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection, but there’s no reason to ever do that. Even in a Portland case, we can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a governor. If a governor or a mayor is a Democrat, like in Portland, we call them constantly.”
So the fuller quote is about a Democratic governor, which makes your point stronger. petrushka is wrong about the context, which is not a surprise. He is always wrong about everything, which again is no surprise, because Trumpites are passionately anti-fact and anti-reality.
Erik,
Plus, I provided context in an earlier comment that shows Trump is aware of the law. He wasn’t just saying “we can’t do it because it isn’t customary”, he explicitly said that it’s against the law:
colewd,
Why, then, are you trying to deflect criticism of him with that lazy :”TDS” meme?
This notcriticism is reminiscent of the “notpology”. “Yes, I’m critical of the President: he’s not going in hard enough. Not deporting enough illegals; I’m still seeing Mexicans”.
Is there any Democrat-oriented criticism of him that has merit?
colewd,
People who set themselves up as superior in this regard are, almost invariably, not.
Allan Miller,
Hi Alan
I am not superior as I have lived in political eco chambers before. It is really easy to get sucked in. California is where I live and I do have some personal insight on the politics due to relationships on both sides of the isle. The city to watch is San Francisco as they have a democrat mayor who is a very rational guy with personal wealth that has little corrupt influence. San Francisco is also having problems with protests and he is handling them so far.
https://x.com/SenFettermanPA/status/1932234335425323417
colewd, to Allan:
It’s apparent that you’re living in an echo chamber right now. In this entire thread, the only criticisms you’ve been willing to level at Trump are that he’s “caustic” and “not attacking the deficit more aggressively”.
Meanwhile, you’ve tried to dismiss the rest of us as suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, relying on “anecdote” and “suspect sources”, and being unable to “filter bias”. Why? Because we’re criticizing your Dear Leader.
If I’m suffering from TDS and relying on “suspect sources” due to my inability to “filter bias”, it should be easy for you to point out what I got wrong in this paragraph, and why:
I’ve asked you twice, and this is now the third time. Will you continue to dodge the challenge?
PS For a long time, you’ve had trouble understanding what the ad hominem fallacy is, including in this thread. Well, here’s a prime example of it: when you accuse us of suffering from TDS instead of addressing the substance of our arguments, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. “They have TDS, so they’re wrong” is not a valid argument.
Criticizing us is fine. Using it as an excuse for not addressing our arguments is not.
colewd,
As an outsider (though I have walked the length of California as part of the Pacific Crest Trail), Trump seems to have personal beef with Newsom. (NDS?). He seemed to blame him for the winter fires, and ordered the pointless opening of sluices to waste water saved for this summer.
Having gutted the Forest Service, incidentally, this year’s fire season could be a doozy. And opening up your National Parks and Forests for development and exploitation? Roosevelt would be turning in his grave. And John Muir, the foreigner.
keiths,
This is conglomeration of antidote and spin that is propaganda IMO. For instance January 6 was truly a horrible event where many police officers were hurt. On the other hand many of the participants that may have not been involved in the assaults were in jail for a long time without due process as I understand it.
Allan Miller,
The pacific trail is a huge hike…congrats.
I agree that Trump believes Newsom is a weak administrator. I don’t know if Newsom is corrupt but his primary focus is raising money. I have a friend who is his family member.
Trump was there to support him with the fires and Gavin accepted the help. It is not logical why Gavin would not want more resources to maintain order on the streets when the LA police admitted they needed help.
colewd,
I asked you to address my list:
I’ve asked you three times. You finally “answered” with a non-answer:
You didn’t name a single thing that I got wrong, and the only thing you did say, in response to this…
…didn’t address the issue at all.
Does this sound like a valid argument? “It’s OK that Trump pardoned the known assailants, because according to my sources, other people were kept in jail for a long time without due process?”
You are making excuses for Trump’s pardoning of people who are known to have assaulted police officers. If you can’t even bring yourself to say that that’s wrong, then you are deep deep deep in the Trump personality cult.