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.
keiths,
From the land of ‘TDS’, of ‘Russia, Russia, Russia hoax’, of ‘Sleepy Joe Biden’ and ‘Komrade Kamala’, of ‘Radical Activist Judges’ and ‘Biased Far-Left Media’, this is rich.
keiths,
Left wing is not the ultimate issue. The issue is its anti Trump bias by some of the Newsweek authors that Grok picked up on.
The negative “Trump bad” strategy is failing as the public becomes aware of left wing indoctrination especially by the media.
What is the positive message the Democrats are going to come up with to become a competitive party again?
The democratic candidates do not have a chance without a message that resonates with people and the ability to deliver on the promises of that message.
colewd,
It’s funny that you should use that cliché, having recently complained about mantra repetition. It’s a popular MAGA expression. But tell me, what should we do if someone really was bad? Their supporters would simply mumble ‘TDS’, ‘orange man bad’ a few million times. We would find it impossible to get through to them. Their minds would be closed by propaganda.
Good job we don’t live in that world, eh?
The next few days could be interesting. I see vague predictions, but no details.
Two huge problems here. One. On a fact-based balanced analytical assessment, there is hardly anything positive to report on Trump. Trump himself is negative, so if the reporting is to reflect the reality adequately, then it is what it is because there are journalistic standards.
Second. You equate Newsweek with Democrats here. This is (yet another) fatal mistake of yours. A journalistic outlet is not supposed to have either “Trump bad” or “Trump good” strategy. This would be a political bias. I get it that you are biased and by means of projection you think others are biased, but Newsweek reports on Trump as Trump is, and Trump is a disaster. Democrats may come up with a “positive message” if they want, but to equate this with “media” which you think is “left wing” when it is not…
Sorry, you are a cognitive and epistemic wreck. Your brain is so drowned in propaganda that it is not functioning anymore. You are not cognitively there. Well, I guess that you are just emulating Trump and happy to get better at it.
There will be no third meeting on the Ukraine topic on Monday, the whole next week or the week after that, if that’s what you’re talking about. But to let you know charitably: It is hardly ever clear what you talk about. With amazing success, you’re doing the equivalent of an old man’s incomprehensible mumble in writing.
“It’s important that everybody take a deep breath here. This is a very serious matter. And it would be better if we could let the legal process play out.”
You guys are way ahead of me on the news, so you already know.
Allan Miller,
Hi Allan
The next opportunity for change is at the midterms where we can at least obtain a balance of power. The midterms will be lost badly unless the democrats message becomes rational and meets the interests of the people. Guys with fresh ideas, energy, and the ability to lead need to be chosen. The mayor of San Francisco who I have met and supported is an example of a democrat who now has a track record of breaking through bureaucracy and getting things done. We need to hold politicians accountable for results just like corporate CEO’s are held to account.
Grow SF is an example organisation that holds politicians to account and has been part of getting San Francisco on the right track.
Allan:
And ‘Fake News’, ‘Biden Crime Family’, ‘Drain the Swamp’, ‘Unselect Committee’, ‘Barack Hussein Obama’…
Speaking of ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’, I’ll bet Bill actually believes that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
Allan:
colewd:
Did you think we wouldn’t notice your attempt at changing the subject? You haven’t answered Allan’s question. What would it take for you not to reflexively cry “TDS!”, etc., when confronted with true claims about your Dear Leader?
Will there ever be a time when you actually engage our arguments instead of resorting to well-poisoning?
colewd,
Trump’s awfulness has very little to do with what the Democrats do or don’t do. They are in a diffcult place, fighting a cult of personality whose adherents turn a blind eye to every flaw, as you exemplify here.
colewd:
Multiple media watchdogs agree that Newsweek isn’t biased, but it doesn’t matter either way. What matters is reality. Trump, in reality, hasn’t ended six wars, and Trump in reality, is lying when he says he has.
I proved that to you, and I didn’t rely on Newsweek. If you disagree, show me that I’m wrong by disputing what I’ve said and stating the facts that back you up.
Start with Egypt/Ethiopia. I said:
Since you claim that Trump isn’t lying, show us that the nonexistent war between Egypt and Ethiopia actually existed and that Trump ended it. Good luck.
I half-expect your response to be:
At the time that you brought up Trump’s war claim, I think you actually believed it. You’re a gullible guy who has trouble seeing through Trump’s lies. However, now that I’ve laid out the facts for you, you’re avoiding them. That says it all. It shows that you know Trump is lying but can’t bring yourself to admit it.
This isn’t about media bias. It’s about your emotional dependence on the Dear Leader and your inability to say that the truth is the truth.
colewd,
Here are some of Trump’s Truth Social posts:
Israel/Iran:
India/Pakistan:
Rwanda/DRC:
Thailand/Cambodia:
The bolding is mine, but the capitalization is his. He really, really wants you to know that those are CEASEFIRES!
Guess what Trump is saying now:
Those are Trump’s own words. They don’t come from the media. Who is lying, Bill? Is it Trump, or is it Trump? Which of them is the liar? Can you bring yourself to say it? See if you can type the words “Trump is lying when he claims that he ‘didn’t do any ceasefires.'”
Or you can try poisoning the well again:
Or you can simply run away, as usual. If I had to bet, I’d put my money on this last one.
Wow. Here’s a clip from Trump’s news conference today, in which he proudly shows off a picture that Putin sent him of the two of them together. When asked whether he had spoken with Putin about Russia’s attack yesterday, which used 540 drones and 40 missiles and even targeted an American factory, he said “I told him I’m not happy about it.”
Trump
1) gets humiliated at the summit;
2) gets no concessions from Putin;
3) fails to secure a ceasefire;
4) chickens out of the “very severe consequences” he had promised to impose on Russia;
5) watches Russia launch a massive attack on Ukraine that hits an American factory;
6) does nothing more than tell Putin “I’m not happy” (and that’s assuming he actually said anything to Putin about it); and
7) is actually happy and proud that Putin sent him a photo of the two of them together, and wants everyone to know.
Putin is humiliating Trump in front of the entire world, and Trump’s reaction is
“Hey, everybody — look at this picture. It’s me with Vladimir Putin. He likes me! He really likes me!”
Bill, surely even you can see how pathetically weak and insecure Trump is. You’ll never admit it, but I’ll bet that even you can see it.
Which “matter” are you talking about, you confused silly old man? Which “matter” do you think is important here as opposed to some other matter? Are you even on topic?
And you do not even know what news is. There is an insurmountable gap between those who know the events of the world and what different heads of countries, such as Trump, have said and done, and those who ignore news because they are afraid of “left wing media bias”.
Colewd exemplifies here nicely how he has no answer to Trump’s own statements and actions when Trump’s contradictions and idiocies are pointed out to him. Trump must be perfect, so there can be no contradictions and idiocies, so while some quotes must be pure gold and absolute truth (despite facts on the ground) because they come from Trump, other quotes must be “left wing” or “TDS” media bias even though they also come from Trump. This is what you end up as when you hate facts.
Allan Miller,
You are claiming Trump supporters are a cult. How do you think this cult got started and became strong enough to win two Presidential elections?
That you are in a cult is a fact, not a claim or an opinion. That you are in a cult is a fact because, according to you, there is media bias that denies that Trump won the elections. This was your point number 1 here.
The fact is that there is no such media bias. There is not a single journalistic outlet that denies that Trump won the elections, assuming that we are talking about 2016 and 2024 elections. But you did not specify which elections you mean – because you are in a cult and in the cult Trump always won all elections and the anti-Trump media bias is cultishly considered undeniable.
You have not even attempted to prove your claim of media bias, but you keep repeating it, because you are brainwashed by the Trump cult, and as a cultist you must faithfully keep lying and propagandising.
Edit: And of course all other points in your post there were also solid confirmations of your cultishness, each and every one of them. 100% cult propaganda brainwash.
That’s a quote from a public figure who was in the news yesterday. It’s something he said several years ago, but applies now.
Applies to what? To tariffs? To Trump? In what way?
Obviously it does not apply. At best, by quoting him you meant, Hey, I don’t like this tariffs thing. I prefer to talk about the Bolton incident instead. Let’s change the topic!
Conclusion: I’m giving you way too much credit, you silly confused old man.
colewd, to Allan:
It got started because Trump is a con artist and there are a lot of people, like you, who are extremely gullible and fell for his lies. There’s a sucker born every minute. The real question is why you remain in the cult despite being utterly unable to defend him when confronted with facts and arguments that expose his faults.
The answer is simple: you’re an irrational, emotion-driven guy who cannot bear to see Trump for who he really is. You’re in denial. You can’t acknowledge even the most obvious of his lies, like this one. His own words show that he’s lying — he blatantly contradicts himself — but you cannot form the words “Trump is lying about that.” You need Trump to be a good guy, but he isn’t, and that distresses you so much that you can’t countenance the truth. You block it out.
It’s the same with Scientologists. Confront them with proof that L Ron Hubbard was a pathological liar who fabricated his accomplishments, abused his adherents, and believed batshit things that are easily disproven, and they react the same way you do.
keiths,
None of this irrational rhetoric explains why he won twice. My vote did not matter as I am from California. .
Do you think we would be better off with Kamala or Biden? This was the choice voters had.
Your extreme distorted rhetoric isn’t selling. It never has.
colewd:
The “irrational rhetoric” you’re referring to is me showing yet again that Trump is lying, using his own words against him. Prove me wrong. If I’m being irrational, as you claim, it should be easy for you to show that. You won’t, because you can’t. He lied about the ceasefires, and that’s a fact.
Dude, you’ve been trying throughout this entire thread to change the topic from Trump to Biden or Harris as if that would somehow erase Trump’s faults. It doesn’t. Trump’s faults are his faults, and they remain his faults regardless of your opinion of Biden and Harris. The fault we’re talking about right now is that he lied about ending six wars* and about whether he had done any ceasefires.
I would give you slightly more credit if you were at least acknowledging his faults, including those lies, but arguing that despite them he is a better president than his opponents would have been. But you aren’t doing that. You’re denying his faults even when they are indisputably proven to you. You’re unable to state even the most obvious truths about them. As a cult member, you cannot brook criticism of the Dear Leader, much less express it yourself. Sad!!! (to borrow one of your DL’s verbal tics)
* Then six turned into seven, and as of today, the number is ten, because Trump is now including “pre-wars”. I kid you not. It’s pathological.
keiths,
You need to demonstrate you are right. It’s not my burden to prove you are wrong. Is your burden to support your claims. Lying accusation is a tough claim to prove as it involves intent and not just that someone was mistaken. You throw around spin words without care and it makes your arguments untrustworthy.
And you need to demonstrate that you are right. But you spew out lies right here http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/a-critique-of-the-trump-tariff-policy-and-formula/comment-page-26/#comment-302829
They are all lies and propaganda. Care to demonstrate that you are right there? Why not? Because you are a clinical case, incorrigible liar and incurably brainwashed, that’s why.
Perhaps you could recount your own journey from an awareness of him as a playboy and celebrity media figure to the flawless, clear-visioned politician and global strategist he is today? The answer may lie there.
“How can it be a cult if he won 2 elections?”. The two are hardly incompatible.
colewd:
I’ve done so, in detail, including by using Trump’s own words. Link, link.
You say that Trump isn’t lying. That’s your claim. As someone once said, “you need to demonstrate you are right”. The ball’s in your court.
True. Judging from your past behavior, your job is to run away without defending the Dear Leader. The ball is still in your court, but it has dribbled to a stop and is now lying motionless while you are nowhere to be seen.
That’s OK. I’ve proven that Trump is lying about the wars. You can’t prove otherwise, and are afraid to try. I’m happy to leave things there.
Your argument is “he isn’t lying, he’s just completely deluded”? So you think it’s a good thing to have a president who is so disconnected from reality that he believes in imaginary successes he’s had at ending wars, including wars that are themselves imaginary? Who thinks prices are down when they’re up, who thinks inflation is dead when it’s alive and rising, who thinks people are happy with him when they are overwhelmingly dissatisfied?
You might want to rethink your argument.
Which, if true, would make me a sitting duck. You should swoop in and obliterate my “untrustworthy” arguments. Lay out the facts, employ your razor-sharp logic, and embarrass me by proving how wrong I am and how everything I’ve said is just “irrational rhetoric”. This is your golden opportunity to defend Trump. Take advantage of it.
Or run away as usual, leaving the ball motionless in your court.
keiths,
My intent is only rational discussion and not to defend anyone. So far only Allan Miller despite his TDS and Petrushka has shown some ability at rational discourse.
Allan Miller,
My initial interest in Trump was based on my general view of US politics which is filled with special interest and corruption. Trump had his own fortune and I felt he may be a solution to getting the country more focused on citizens and competent economic management. I did not vote for him or Biden in 2020 for various reasons but included basically the same objections posted here. I voted for him in 2024 because of the disaster we faced with Biden and his incompetent administration over the last 4 years.
Independent voters now are very powerful. A winning strategy must persuade this group. TDS type arguments are going to fail IMO.
Interesting. So you were always at least as wrong and ill-informed as now.
In other words, you are expecting your cultish ignorance to be placated, not to be corrected. You will not get it here.
colewd:
Lol.
While I agree that you haven’t succeeded, it’s absurd for you to claim that you haven’t tried to defend Trump. You’ve been doing it literally for months, including right now. You say he isn’t lying about ending those wars. You echoed his claim yourself, which is how we ended up talking about it.
Prove that you’re right and that Trump isn’t lying. As I said earlier:
The ball’s in your court.
God, enough with the “TDS” already, you cultist.
colewd,
You are clearly not ‘independent’. You find an excuse for him at every turn. Rape’s OK. Adjudicated felony’s fine. Clearly articulated objections to his tariff policy don’t land. He cosies up to Putin? No problem. Deports without due process? “But Biden”.
Sure. It’s impossible to persuade a cultist that the object of their adoration has any flaws. Because they’ll just say “TDS”.
colewd,
This, it is quite clear, is no protection against corruption. Rich people are addicted to acquisition. He charges 5 million for a one-on-one. 1 million for group chats. Pimps his bitcoin on Presidential time. Keeps a jet – a bribe – refurbished by taxpayer dollars.
And, I’m sure, you are absolutely fine with all that.
As I’ve said before, I cannot imagine how awful you think Kamala would be if this – this – is the ‘independent’ choice.
Allan Miller,
Hypocritical to call out TDS and not mega cultist.
I am independent as evidence I did not vote for his in 2020 and my financial support over the last two years has been for democratic candidates that are moderate.
The whole Keiths argument requires you to paint anyone who does not hate Trump as partisan. This why your argument against Trump is going to cause more damage to the Democratic position as there is no positive selling for the alternative going on.
The rape accusation is not real. Get real.
Allan Miller,
Kamala was incharge of the largest border invasion in US history. What do think here positive message was in her complain?
colewd:
Yet another lie you fell for hook, line and sinker. This is why we laugh when you claim that we’re victims of propaganda.
Harris was not in charge of the border. She was not the ‘border czar’. As usual, you blindly believed what Trump told you, and he was lying.
Allan:
colewd:
Lol. “Mega cultist” is an apt description of you, but I think you meant to say “MAGA cultist”. Anyway, here’s the difference: We’ve shown that you are a cultist. You haven’t shown that we have TDS. It’s that simple.
For instance, Trump is a compulsive liar. In this thread, I’ve shown you example after example of his lies and provided the evidence that they are lies. You haven’t refuted a single one. I’ve also referred you to a database of over 30,000 lies that Trump told during his first term. You haven’t refuted a single one of those, either.
Who is the cultist? Me, for pointing out Trump’s lies and proving that they are lies, or you, for denying that they are lies when the proof is right in front of you? Me, who urges you to argue for your position, or you, who when challenged to do so, just run away, confirming that you know I am right?
To deny the truth of something that is staring you in the face, simply because it paints your Dear Leader in a bad light, is cult behavior.
Here’s a test: Are you even able to acknowledge that Trump cheats at golf and lies about winning tournaments, or is that a bridge too far?
Allan:
colewd:
Dude, you haven’t acknowledged even a single Trump lie that we’ve proven to you. You are so emotionally dependent on the Dear Leader that these are the worst criticisms of him that you’ve managed to muster in this thread: He can be caustic, he exaggerates at times, he shows some signs of narcissism, just like other presidents (lol), he underestimates how long it will take to solve problems. This guy is already regarded by scholars and historians as the worst president in the history of the United States, and those are the only criticisms you can come up with? When we’re seeing daily evidence of how horrible he is, both as a person and as a president?
Huh? I’ve said no such thing.
Yes, let’s get real. Let’s discuss Trump’s sexual predation. I’ll warn you, though — this discussion will involve evidence and logic. Are you prepared for that?
colewd,
I am endeavouring to show you the ridiculousness of ‘TDS’ by holding up a mirror. I say ‘cultist’ in direct response to ‘TDS’, in vague hope you might recognise the inherent weakness of regarding your opponent as having no rational basis for their arguments.
No luck so far, but I’m a trier.
Adjudicated by a court of law. How about hiding payments to porn stars? Not real either?
Most Trump tariffs are not legal, US appeals court rules
This is pretty obviously the right decision if you look at the text of the law that Trump invoked to justify the tariffs. Two courts have now ruled the tariffs illegal. Expect the Orange Crybaby to stamp his feet and whine about how the judges have TDS and how he’s entitled to break the law because he’s the president and people elected him.
Allan Miller,
Hi Allan
Fair enough. I have said I have empathy for those who hate Trump. I also believe that the hatred makes it difficult to take a rational look at his policies.
Let’s assume for arguments sake this is real. What does this have to do with effectively running our country? Remember Bill Clinton and the creative use of cigars 🙂
colewd:
We’re not finding it difficult. I despise the guy, but I have no trouble looking at his policies rationally. What’s irrational about my critique of his tariffs, for instance? “Trump bad, therefore tariff policy bad” isn’t an argument I’ve made.
Allan:
colewd:
Lol. No assumption required.
It shows you what kind of a person he is. Character is hugely important in a president, and it affects the way they govern. Deporting people to a hellhole prison in El Salvador without due process? That reflects Trump’s character. Leaving a guy in that hellhole after the government admitted that he was wrongly deported? That tells you what kind of a person Trump is. Demanding a mid-cycle gerrymander in Texas in order to steal five House seats that he claims he’s “entitled” to? You think that decision wasn’t affected by his character?
Accepting the Qatari jet? Imposing heavy tariffs on Brazil because they’re prosecuting his buddy Bolsonaro? Directing the FBI to investigate his political enemies? Putting loyalists in important positions rather than picking competent people? Pardoning over a thousand insurrectionists, including some who brutally attacked police officers? None of that has anything to do with Trump’s character?
For the sake of argument we have this very thread, up and running for more than four months now, about Trump’s *policies* being an absolute disaster.
The answer to your question is: *You* are the one who is unable to discuss the facts of how Trump is running the country. You are a cultist who deifies Trump and runs away from every single fact of what effects his policies have.
Trump’s predictable Truth Social meltdown over the tariff ruling:
“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.” Lol. God forbid that we go back to the pre-Trump economy, which The Economist described as “the envy of the world”.
ETA: How in God’s name did Trump convince himself that adding “Thank you for your attention to this matter” to every post would make it sound official and important? It’s as much a verbal tic as his weird capitalization, the ubiquitous “like no one has ever seen”, and referring to the US as the “hottest” country, whatever that means.
I looked into the court rulings, and the judges concluded that the IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs even in the event of an actual national emergency, which is why they ruled against Trump. They didn’t address the question of whether bilateral trade deficits are legitimate grounds for Trump’s declaration of a national emergency.
IANAL, but as I understand it, what will happen now is that the Supreme Court will consider whether the lower courts were correct in determining that the IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs. If they agree, the lower court ruling stands, and the tariffs are struck down. If they disagree, one of two things will happen: they will either go on to consider the “national emergency” aspect themselves and issue a ruling based on that, or they will send the case back to the lower court with instructions to consider the national emergency claim.
If that happens, and if the lower court rules that Trump’s emergency declaration was bogus, then we can expect the appeals process to start all over again.
Remember when Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation went all the way up to SCOTUS and SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that Garcia should not have been deported and should be returned? Trump administration (Stephen Miller in particular) interpreted the ruling as 9-0 in Trump’s favour. Stephen Miller said about the ruling (an inexhaustive list):
– The original judge had “unconscionably” compelled the government to invade El Salvador and kidnap Garcia from El Salvador
– Garcia was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador
– Garcia is an illegal alien, member of a foreign terrorist organisation, and had already previously under Biden ordered deported
All of it was a lie back then, but it is worth emphasising that all of it is still a lie, because most of it is still being repeated by the Trump admin and the Trump cult even after Garcia was brought back. If all/some of what Stephen Miller said was true, then why did they bring Garcia back? In a true cultist fashion, it is both: Yes, they brought Garcia back, but also everything that Stephen Miller says is true.
However, the SCOTUS decision on Garcia was followed up by another order, the order to return Venezuelan men from El Salvador. Did Trump obey this one? If I understand right, this is where the prisoner swap came in – Venezuelans were sent from El Salvador to Venezuela, and some American prisoners in Venezuela were brought back to USA. So the return of the deportees was not facilitated as ordered.
What I’m saying is that whether courts agree or disagree, Trump administration will, on the average and overall, continue to do its thing. The courts will not catch up. There have been instances of trying to hold Trump administration in contempt (quashed on appeal) and trying to gag-order (because of the kind of stream of lies that Stephen Miller, Noem and Bondi spew about deportees), but none of it has any effect.
Trump has demonstrated that it is entirely possible to get away saying totally different things out of court as compared to when testifying in court under oath. And of course *do* entirely different things out of court than what was promised in court under oath. Nobody, no court, SCOTUS, or any other power is going to change this.
Reporter:
Trump:
Reporter:
Trump:
Dude still doesn’t understand how tariffs work. China pays zero. The full cost is paid by American importers, who pass most of it on to consumers.
Bill, have you ever acknowledged that Trump is clueless about tariffs, which are the centerpiece of his economic policy?