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.
Talking of Epstein, what was on Bondi’s desk? What did the FBI spend weeks redacting? Suddenly – hey guys, you won’t believe this – turns out the thing we’ve been working on, that many of us were screaming for in our previous jobs – well, it doesn’t exist! Look, over there – a squirrel!
Flint,
Because I’m a masochist, I have gone many, many rounds with people who extend SARS denial to the entirety of viruses, and beyond to all of germ theory. The ad hoc rationalisation is extraordinary. You feel that there must be some kind of ‘in’ – that if you explain things rationally, they must surely get it. But no. Even experiments by schoolkids on tobacco mosaic virus are somehow tainted; no-one in 125 years has ever realised that it’s actually a deficiency syndrome, even though we can easily test and reject that possibility.
I get a similar flavour with Trump cultists.
Allan Miller,
When you look at the details all what you think you know it is very suspect. It makes me realise you have as many media problems as we do. Many voters here realise what I am telling you. Not going into all these pseudo cases few have not been overturned already. When you look at 26 felonies the reality is a DA making a case on a book keeping entry and trying to spin it as multiple counts and fraud. The strong inference is all these cases surfaced when he was a candidate. Other than bashing, law fare has been the other democratic tactic along with 2 attempts on his life which we don’t know who was behind it. The majority of Americans are tired of the democrats tactics and no longer trust them. Our media with a few exceptions is tied to the Democratic Party. The media has been rapidly losing viewers because of their loss of credibility.
colewd,
He was convicted by a jury of his peers, not by the DA. Are you saying the adversarial jury system is corrupt in the US? Or only when it involves your blemish-free hero.
Should ‘my’ media should be reporting it as such, to avoid accusations of ‘falling for propaganda’?
Notable, also, that nothing else in my post was addressed. For a normal politician, a few flaws would be huge news. Most of us have no trouble criticising the guy we voted for. But as Trump.appears to be all flaw, a cultist can simply dismiss the lot. It is pure TDS, which is hugely ironic. There are so many strikes against Trump that none of them can be true.
American voters have been religiously polarised between their two parties for generations now. They only have two parties to speak of, so there is hardly any other way for them to be. And when the entire atmosphere is such, then also “independent voters” go by the same atmosphere – “independent voters” are usually just more extreme, more wacky, right-wingers.
Elsewhere on the internets I have had encounters for many years now with an entrenched American Republican voter. He never votes Democrat, because his father voted Republican, his father’s father voted Republican and so on. No fact of economy, no point of policy, no argument about candidate’s character or ideological values, nothing could ever sway him. But yesterday he finally put it out in public, “I should not have voted for Trump.” Now, who else was there to vote for? He should just not have voted, he said.
What was the reason for this earth-shattering change of mind? Well, he is an old guy who depends on his medical insurance, including federal subsidies to make it affordable. In his latest handling of paperwork he realised that Trump’s big beautiful bill is taking it away next year.
So, when it comes to your average American, be ready for the absolute worst closed-mindedness, extreme cultishness of party affiliation, deification of the candidate they voted for. The only thing that can sway them – literally the only thing – is when the party or the candidate turns and does something that literally burns their physical skin, literally tears their personal guts out and leaves them to die. There is no other force that can make an American voter admit a mistake or admit a fact.
..thus speaketh the “independent voter”
Indeed…
Our own media, with very few exceptions, is tied to the Right. Particularly, the pernicious influence of Murdoch, and other billionaires. Yet somehow, we’re all propagandised too. Because how can one be critical of Trump without being brainwashed into it? Does Not Compute.
Allan Miller,
This event happened years before the accusation. It’s a book keeping entry problem. How is that a felony? Yes in New York you can make a jury of 12 people who feel like Eric and Keiths do about Trump. Propaganda is powerful until it is debunked. It’s the real enemy of democracy. This case will most likely be overturned on appeal like many others have been.
Here is AI’s conclusion on the case.
colewd,
Oh, you like AI? Here’s AI on lying (prompt: does Donald Trump lie?).
On “who pays the tariffs”?
Now, I’m just a propagandised Limey libtard, but I could have sworn he said otherwise.
colewd,
Surely there is an extensive period of jury vetting first, to reject those liable to be biased?
Allan Miller,
This is true but it’s hard to vet in New York. Again the case has no legal precedent yet he is found guilty. This is one of many cases brought against him by democratic DA’s. Alan Dershowitz a democratic Harvard law professor wrote the book “get Trump.” I have not read it but it summarises the law fare cases which were intended to block him getting elected. Alan has left the Democratic Party since and is now independent.
Now you’re promoting another one – Alan “I kept my underwear on” Dershowitz. Way to go, hypocrite!
colewd:
Interesting that you cite Dershowitz. I saw a clip of him yesterday in which he said that the Trump administration was suppressing the Epstein files in order to protect certain people, and that he knew the names of those people. Is he still credible, Bill, or has he suddenly become a “suspect source”? Why do you think the administration is refusing to release the files?
ETA: Here’s the exact quote:
Allan, to colewd:
Yes, and in addition, attorneys on both sides are allowed to reject a certain number of jurors without giving a reason. Bill is grasping here.
colewd,
I’ll repeat my challenge regarding the E Jean Carroll trial(s). You wrote:
keiths:
Wow. Trump is absolutely panicking over the Epstein files. On Truth Social today:
This is classic. He writes:
That’s great! There’s nothing in there that can hurt the MAGA movement, so no harm in releasing the files. Right, Donald?
Hard to vet in New York because his reputation in business is well known there, as opposed to cultists who are as far away from there as I am?
By the jury. Having heard the legal arguments on both sides.
There has to be a first time for everything. Trump himself is without precedent. His mingling of somewhat dubious business practice and politics at this level make him unique. But not above the law.
You do seem to be squirming. “Carroll wasn’t a criminal case”. “Women target prominent men”. “The 36 felonies are an unprecedented application”. “The lying is just the hard left Washington Post making stuff up”.
Where do you stand on releasing cop beaters? On arresting and incarcerating people just for looking Hispanic? Promoting bitcoin from the Oval Office? Lying about the Epstein files?
Interest in Epstein never dies. I expect him to jump out of a cake, any day now.
Allan Miller,
At the end of the day the evidence is that these cases were an attempt to stop him from becoming president. While the TDS folks love these cases they have not helped the anti Trump cause.
Do you think the Trump bashing is serving any useful purpose at this point?
Prosecution of high level politicians, both democrat and republican, is so hit or miss, that I can’t recall get excited when it happens. Or doesn’t.
No one here has even attempted to respond to my question of how members of congress get wealthy on salaries that are insufficient to support living in DC.
If we took law breaking seriously, at least half of all politicians would be in prison.
Seriously, if you need a gage to tell which way the Epstein wind is blowing, look at people who are not talking about it.
No, absolutely not, because slavish cultists like yourself refuse to believe he has done, or even could do, anything wrong at all.. But it’s amusing to watch the cultist defence.
Like Bongino, Patel, who at one time could not shut up about it?
Hey, I’m not here to judge. Who among us hasn’t tried to hide payments to a porn star? Teenagers can definitely be attractive. When I was 12, no-one would have thought any the worse of me for saying this. But people put Trump on a pedestal of perfection – join hands in sickening displays of religious fervour. He’s flawed, as we all are. But can a Christian recognise this? Not on present showing, no.
In anybody else’s case, it would be bashing, but in Trump’s case, these are basic well-established facts that you cultishly ignore.
NY Post, a pro-Trump tabloid: Ocasio-Cortez slammed over ‘defamatory’ Trump, Jeffrey Epstein post: ‘Sue AOC into bankruptcy’
AOC calls Trump a rapist, truthfully. If the judicial system in USA still functions, Trump will not be able to sue for defamation. Because facts. But if Trump dares to sue, nothing will hold back the Epstein files any longer. Facts.
We appear to be being urged to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, since ‘Trump-bashing’ serves no purpose. Of course if any of his many misdemeanours were perpetrated by Biden or Obama, we’d be similarly enjoined by independent voters. Eh? Eh?
keiths,
Also notable is that this post by DJT got more dislikes than likes for the first time on his own personal platform. This marks the point when Trump’s followers seriously turned against him.
Erik:
I wondered if that was ever going to happen. It wasn’t surprising that they turned on Bondi, demanding her resignation, but I didn’t know if they’d be able to see the obvious, which is that Trump is behind the coverup. He is the one who ordered Bondi and Patel to bury this. No way would they do that on their own without consulting the Dear Leader.
colewd,
You’ll be afraid to answer these questions, but
1) Do you think Pam Bondi was telling the truth when she said she had the Epstein client list on her desk?
2) Or do you think she’s telling the truth now when she says it doesn’t exist?
3) Do you believe Trump’s pitiful claim that the Epstein files were forged by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and John Brennan?
4) If you believe it, why did no one in the administration announce the forgery until now? Why did Pam Bondi stage her much-hyped “Phase 1” release of information from the files, if they are forged?
5) If there is nothing harmful to MAGA in the files, as Trump claims, then why hasn’t he ordered their release?
6) If the files were forged by prominent Democrats, why don’t they contain anything harmful to MAGA?
You still don’t know? Why is it taking you so long to figure it out? Maybe somebody would try, if you responded well to spoonfeeding, but you don’t. So whatever.
I do not know what’s going on with Epstein. Kudos to those who do.
What I do know is there’s a difference between having evidence and having a winnable case.
I have personal knowledge that child sex abuse is almost unprosecutable.
I’m happy for those of you who have attained certainty.
petrushka:
Who are you addressing, and what are they certain of?
Allan Miller,
“Slavish Cultists”
Now look who is using a “lazy label.” 🙂
I am sure like all of us he has done wrong things. Most of us are not in a position where we are in the cross hairs of people who execute the concept of “find me the person and I will show you the crime”.
petrushka,
Isn’t this statutory rape?
colewd,
If it’s voluntary.
But I was referring to involuntary.
colewd, to Allan:
Nothing lazy about it. We’ve based it on your behavior and we’ve backed it up. This thread is a testament to your cultish devotion to His Orange Majesty.
“He’s just like us, it’s just that he’s been scrutinized more closely” is a ridiculous defense. Examine my life as closely as you’d like, and you won’t find anything remotely as bad as what Trump has done. I’m not a sexual predator, and I haven’t bragged about assaulting women. I don’t lie compulsively. If I had the power to pardon, I wouldn’t pardon violent criminals who had assaulted police officers. I wouldn’t stand by for hours, doing nothing, while the Capitol was attacked. I wouldn’t try to steal an election. I wouldn’t denigrate the military. I haven’t cheated with porn stars and then paid them hush money. I’ve never accepted a bribe. And so on.
Trump is an awful person and an awful president, and after almost five weeks, I’m still waiting for you to disprove any of the claims I’ve made about him.
colewd,
You’re avoiding my questions, for obvious reasons, but I’m interested in seeing just how gullible and/or slavish you are. This question is a good gauge of that:
Can you see and acknowledge what a ridiculous lie that is?
petrushka,
So statutory rape is a crime but enslaving a minor into prostitution is not? Or at least hard to prosecute.
keiths,
Lazy label are ok 🙂
I am waiting for the TDS crowd to prove their claims vs constantly argue with logical fallacies such as burden shift fallacies.
It your burden to prove your assertions.
The majorities of. the cases were brought by TDS democrats during the time he was running for office. How do you explain this other than law fare?
colewd:
You aren’t waiting. We’ve supported our claims. That shifts the burden to you.
For example, I’ve stated that Trump is a compulsive liar. I’ve supported that by referring you to the Washington Post’s comprehensive database of thousands of his lies. I’ve pointed out many of Trump’s lies myself, including his ridiculous forgery claim. I’ll ask again:
What about the other lies I’ve pointed out? Quote me and explain why Trump was actually telling the truth in those cases. What about the Washington Post? Do you really think they fabricated thousands of ‘lies’ that aren’t actually lies, and that no one in the world has looked at their public database and discovered their deception? It’s ludicrous.
Trump is a compulsive liar. I’ve supported my claim, and you haven’t refuted it. The burden is on you now.
keiths,
I don’t think you have. The claims I have looked into were not supported.
Quoting the Washington Post says you believe biased news sources without checking them out.
.
Trump compared to other politicians has kept his campaign promises. This is hard evidence of non lying from a politician. The lying claim appears to be TDS propaganda.
keiths:
colewd:
Yes, you do. Otherwise you would jumped on our claims and refuted them instead of making excuses for five straight weeks for why you aren’t addressing them.
Already answered:
colewd:
OK. I’ll present you with a series of Trump lies, and you can explain why they aren’t actually lies. Let’s start with these two — ones that scared you earlier:
Those are two lies. Prove me wrong. Then you can explain: if the WaPo database is a giant scam, why has nobody done an exposé?
Or bore us all to death by making more excuses and running away again.
Colewd has already provided his apologetics for Trump’s rapes, economic illiteracy, and financial and anti-constitutional crimes. That colewd is fine with Trump’s lies is both a given and a far smaller matter.
Edit: To such a deluded cultist, nobody can give a reality check except the cult leader by going after the cultist’s wallet, wife or life.
Yes, me. Deliberately and knowingly. Are you incapable of recognising what is in the mirror? You dismiss every last criticism of Trump as “TDS”. But when someone reflects that back as its antithesis, “slavish cultism”, you complain. Think about it.
Yet you appear completely unable to identify or accept a single one. That’s quite cult-like.
Allan Miller,
Yet I have made criticisms of Trump on my own. What do think Trump is doing if anything that is helpful?
-He over spent on the budget in his first term
-He aggressively pushed a vaccine that was not well tested vs other solutions.
-He aggressively attacks people who do not agree with him (new)
Do you have a list for your current Prime Minister?
colewd,
You’re avoiding my questions. No surprise — you’ve been running scared the entire thread.
Here’s another Trump lie, from his speech yesterday at the White House Faith Office luncheon. He claimed:
That’s a complete fabrication, and in fact gas prices are actually up since Trump took office:
He’s counting on chumps and suckers like you to believe him when he lies like that. He doesn’t respect you enough to tell you the truth. Do you have the guts to admit he was lying when he made that claim?
Wow. A July 10-13 poll by CNN/SSRS asked the question
The number of people responding that they were satisfied:
Criticism of Trump by colewd: Vaccine bad. Rape and insurrection good. Or didn’t happen.
How about getting a fact in? As long as you are not talking facts, there is nothing to talk about, critical or otherwise.
Latest in Trump world: Trump stole the golden FIFA trophy https://www.si.com/soccer/how-donald-trump-stopped-chelsea-real-club-world-cup-trophy
See my comment in the Owens thread.
Conspiracy theories are the contemporary Circus Maximus.
I believe all of them. Just not very much. They are like living historical novels and movies. Based on true stories.