Trump's Tariffs and Possible Trade War

[Huckleberry]

I'll be the first to admit, running a complete moron like Harris is bound to affect your communication. Having said that, I think the Dems' problems run much more deeply than putting stupid people in office who can barely string together 2 coherent thoughts. Making matters worse is the fact that Dems have been counting on most of the mainstream media to drag them across the finish line, but that's hard to do when public confidence in the media is at historic lows.

So yeah, the messaging kinda sucks right now, but I feel like a genuine attempt to win back the blue collar working class is your best bet. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to knock off a lot of that silly woke virtue signaling. The majority of Americans simply don't care about this crap, but if you can convince them that you know how to put more money in their pockets, you won't need tone-deaf, idiot celebs to tell them who to vote for.

While I disagree with your characterization of Harris, I think you've hit the nail on the head with the part I've put in bold. As for the "woke virtue-signaling," I agree to a point, but much of what the right calls "woke" I consider basic human rights and decency, so we'd have to explore that a bit further.

 

[Huckleberry]

Until the Democrats can get re-engaged on kitchen table issues they will keep losing elections.

I agree 100%

Most people dont care what their neighbor is doing in his home and they dont really want to know.

There are more than enough busy bodies and judgmental "holier-than-thou" types around to make this statement untrue. I live in Florida and it's an epidemic here. Maybe if those gay folks would just keep quiet and not show any hint of their relationship in public (just like straight people, who never exhibit such things) then there might not be much of a problem, but let them hold hands, kiss, have a photo on their desk, or be represented in a book about families, well, that's just too much.

 

[AWRTR]

I'll be the first to admit, running a complete moron like Harris is bound to affect your communication. Having said that, I think the Dems' problems run much more deeply than putting stupid people in office who can barely string together 2 coherent thoughts. Making matters worse is the fact that Dems have been counting on most of the mainstream media to drag them across the finish line, but that's hard to do when public confidence in the media is at historic lows.

So yeah, the messaging kinda sucks right now, but I feel like a genuine attempt to win back the blue collar working class is your best bet. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to knock off a lot of that silly woke virtue signaling. The majority of Americans simply don't care about this crap, but if you can convince them that you know how to put more money in their pockets, you won't need tone-deaf, idiot celebs to tell them who to vote for.

If you watched any of the election process for DNC chair and the folks they put in the VP slots, specifically David Hogg, you would see that they are appearing to double down. The first party to common sense wins and the Republicans are slightly closer to that according to the voting public and I don’t see that changing. The Dems appear to be driven by their left flank and that may play well in a primary but I doubt it plays well in a presidential general. If Trump is reasonably successful, and he may turn it all into a dumpster fire, Vance will get the nomination. Who will the Dems put up against him?

What moderate Democrat can get through the primary process? Who’s on the bench? Newsome is toast, Shapiro is the wrong ethnic group for the Dems to nominate him, the Illinois governor is a billionaire, that won’t play well, can’t run Harris back, AOC would get destroyed, Bernie is getting too old, Mayor Pete was a garbage cabinet member and hurt his chances in a general a lot. Maybe there is an Obama out there but they better go find him.

 

[Huckleberry]

If you watched any of the election process for DNC chair and the folks they put in the VP slots, specifically David Hogg, you would see that they are appearing to double down. The first party to common sense wins and the Republicans are slightly closer to that according to the voting public and I don’t see that changing. The Dems appear to be driven by their left flank and that may play well in a primary but I doubt it plays well in a presidential general. If Trump is reasonably successful, and he may turn it all into a dumpster fire, Vance will get the nomination. Who will the Dems put up against him?

What moderate Democrat can get through the primary process? Who’s on the bench? Newsome is toast, Shapiro is the wrong ethnic group for the Dems to nominate him, the Illinois governor is a billionaire, that won’t play well, can’t run Harris back, AOC would get destroyed, Bernie is getting too old, Mayor Pete was a garbage cabinet member and hurt his chances in a general a lot. Maybe there is an Obama out there but they better go find him.

Josh Shapiro (you're wrong about his ethnicity preventing his nomination), Ruben Gallego, Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttigieg (I disagree with your statement about him, but regardless, he's extremely intelligent, a great speaker, and might be governor of Michigan by then), John Fetterman, and Josh Stein are all possibilities.

 

[AWRTR]

Josh Shapiro (you're wrong about his ethnicity preventing his nomination), Ruben Gallego, Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttigieg (I disagree with your statement about him, but regardless, he's extremely intelligent, a great speaker, and might be governor of Michigan by then), John Fetterman, and Josh Stein are all possibilities.

Whitmer isn’t a bad one. Fetterman couldn’t get nominated. He’s too far to the center. Im not as familiar with Gallego. I think he’s pretty far left but I could be wrong. I’m not wrong on Shapiro. He was the easy pick for VP this time. The far left won’t vote for him. He could win a general but won’t get out of a primary. Stein could be a possibility. The problem isn’t finding a candidate that could compete in a general it’s finding one that can get through a primary and still be able to win the general. You’re viewing the party through rose colored glasses when the base is simply too far left and they don’t appear to be rethinking their approach. They are simply yelling give me more cow bell. Maybe they prove me wrong in four years, but I don’t think the far left base that votes in a primary will find the road to the center.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886620477948617161

Rampell: Trump is trying to repackage the status quo as a victory. That's what the leaders of these foreign countries are learning. You don't actually have to give Trump anything. You have to let him announce victory on TV.

 

[Huckleberry]

Whitmer isn’t a bad one. Fetterman couldn’t get nominated. He’s too far to the center. Im not as familiar with Gallego. I think he’s pretty far left but I could be wrong. I’m not wrong on Shapiro. He was the easy pick for VP this time. The far left won’t vote for him. He could win a general but won’t get out of a primary. Stein could be a possibility. The problem isn’t finding a candidate that could compete in a general it’s finding one that can get through a primary and still be able to win the general. You’re viewing the party through rose colored glasses when the base is simply too far left and they don’t appear to be rethinking their approach. They are simply yelling give me more cow bell. Maybe they prove me wrong in four years, but I don’t think the far left base that votes in a primary will find the road to the center.

Winning primaries could be a problem for some candidates. The base of the party isn't far-left (relative to the country, not the GOP), but the extremists are vocal, something that moderate Democrats often find hard to fight. Biden, Clinton, and Obama were all relatively moderate (certainly not far-left) and won the nomination, so it can be done.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

I’m by no means saying the US hasn’t done some crappy stuff, but compared to major world powers before us we have been incredibly kind. Human nature being what it is the US has done pretty well.

Maybe so but I've become pretty disillusioned overall which by my comments isn't shocking.

We stopped Nazi Germany (along with allies) from taking over the world - Good

We stopped USSR Russia from taking over the world and or destroying it - Good

We stopped al-Qaeda (for the most part) from further attacking us or anyone else - Good

So yes we do have a history of protecting others in the act of protecting ourselves.

But it feels like if we don't do a better job of policing ourselves and our own worst human nature tendencies we will become a global villain if we aren't already.

The opioid epidemic is not just because of external forces where other countries are the boogeyman.

Plenty of opioids and all kinds of other drugs are manufactured right here inside our own borders and by our own pharma companies and money drives everything because without addicts there is no demand.

If we really wanted to stop it we'd stop manufacturing the stuff first and then worry about stopping what's coming in from outside.

Maybe I am 'insane' or 'obtuse' as it's been alluded to by others but I just find everything so absurd and laughable right now in addition to being incredibly depressing and hopeless.

We have almost 1 Million homeless people in the US right now and probably hundreds of 1,000s more people close to becoming homeless and apparently what's more important than that is putting 2 Billionaires in the White House to play a real life game of RISK and World Domination which is more likely to drive up the cost of living while making enemies.

One of those Billionaires is trying to completely dismantle our entire government and all the systems that make day to day life in a digital world go. He's a threat to people's private information and Data and payment systems to the elderly and the retired and the physically and mentally disabled. He's a threat to National Security and the majority of people aren't even batting an eyelash to what's going on.

We seemingly want to throw people in cages or drag them or fly them over an imaginary demarcation line for 'illegally' being inside of those imaginary borders while those imaginary borders were created in the 1st place by Land usurpers stealing the land from natives.

Everything is so freaking out of whack and I'm just dumbfounded that people are cheering this stuff on.

This country is beyond messed up right now and it doesn't really feel like we are doing all too well.

 

[Bamaro]

Trump is just exercising his mandate. Doing what he campaigned on. I understand it's a little upsetting to some. But I truly believe he wants the best for our country. I also don't think he's trying to cause harm to other countries. In his mind....he's basing things on business not so much politics. Many do not and will never understand.

And BTW...I don't agree with how he handles many things but if it gets us to a better place.....well.....

He has no mandate!
Unfortunately, he only wants whats best for him and let the country be damned.
Yup, its in his mind and that honestly doesn't function normally.
He's like a bull in a china shop breaking everything he encounters.

 

[Bamaro]

I'll be the first to admit, running a complete moron like Harris is bound to affect your communication. Having said that, I think the Dems' problems run much more deeply than putting stupid people in office who can barely string together 2 coherent thoughts. Making matters worse is the fact that Dems have been counting on most of the mainstream media to drag them across the finish line, but that's hard to do when public confidence in the media is at historic lows.

That's part of the plan and its been going on for years. All while those buying into it drift to alternate media many times worse to confirm their mostly unfounded beliefs.

 

[Bamaro]

I may be in the minority here but I dont see this tariff kerfuffle as all a bad thing. If you can believe trump, this is about fentanyl, not unfair trade. Trump rolled the dice and so far and it looks like he got a natural on Canada and Mexico. I'm guessing that if he would have rolled craps, he would have backed off somehow. Thats how he does things. What still confuses me though is why China was only 10%. Without their precursors the fentanyl issue would be much smaller than it is. It seems that Canada is a minor player and Mexico is complicit because of political complacency or outrite bribery/pressure of public officials by cartels.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/trump-blinks-trade-war-analysis

In the face of a trade war with America’s neighbors, Trump blinked

There are two things to remember when assessing Donald Trump’s presidencies.

First, nothing is more important than the commander in chief looking tough.

Second, nothing is really what it seems.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It was a loss, not a mandate. Not even close. If the economy had been better, Harris would have been elected running on that platform. Not that it was perfect, but to claim that it was garbage betrays partisanship rather than reality. The Democratic problem is communication as much as anything else.

Not to look as though I’m picking apart your answer, because I really appreciate your contributions to this board. But a couple of things.

1) I agree with you that Trump did not have a mandate of any kind. Of course, in my lifetime - limited to what I can remember since I was three years old in 1972 - only two candidates have had real mandates, 1980 Reagan in 2008 Obama. (The Democrats had a “repudiation” in 1968).

2) the “economy” as they define it (GDP) was fine. Unemployment was great. Inflation - as one views that as an aspect of “economy” - killed the Ds. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was, it only matters who was in office when it happened.

3) Harris was, let’s be honest, a lousy candidate. Other than her playing a bottom of the deck race card in the debate with Biden in 2019, nobody can remember anything. She said in that campaign, and she was gone before the first ballots were cast. There was NO reason whatsoever to have chosen her as VP. Plus, every VP who runs always gets trapped with the bad things the incumbent has but gets no credit for the good. The Dems struck me as a campaign going through the motions trying to recapture the magic of Obama.

4) Again - there are 3 things l will never understand about the Dems:

a) instead of being so overtly anti-voter ID (because not one rational soul believes their excuse), would it be too difficult to turn to the Republican and ask, “Can you give me specific precincts where voters are not identified?” Because let’s face it, they can’t. And follow that up with, “If you don’t know a single place where it has happened, how do you know it happened at all?” Pivot and aim.

b) they can’t find EVEN ONE case of “cop shoots unarmed black man” when the video makes it obvious “unarmed” is not a synonym for “undangerous” where they can side with law enforcement as strongly as they are with January 6 cops, which fools nobody. I mean, this is not difficult. But they’re afraid - because of the repeatedly disproven myth of identity politics - that they’ll lose black votes if they do (which has always seemed kinda racist to me, given it presumes law abiding blacks will side with the criminal based solely on race)

c) literally cannot say the words “I’m for trans rights but no, transitioning young boys to girls should not be competing with biological girls on the athletic field.”

The refusal to take some simple steps like the above doesn’t help.

But having said that, no, Trump has nothing approaching a mandate. Supposing he did, what would his mandate be for?

Lowering prices?

 

[crimsonaudio]

BC RCMP - Federal Investigators take down the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canada

Federal Investigators take down the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canada

bc-cb.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

 

[crimsonaudio]

Fentanyl czar to help execute plan to minimize or eliminate drug in Canada, Public Safety Minister says

David McGuinty says the person who will be appointed to the new role is ‘to be decided’

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Bodhisattva]

We seemingly want to throw people in cages or drag them or fly them over an imaginary demarcation line for 'illegally' being inside of those imaginary borders while those imaginary borders were created in the 1st place by Land usurpers stealing the land from natives.

Internationally recognized borders are not imaginary. A country without borders is not a country. I can't think of too many places in the world where you can just walk into to another country and expect to be able to stay. In fact, most countries get very salty when you violate their borders. You'd be jailed asap.

And I've heard the "stolen land" argument plenty of times. It is amusing. Anyone who reads history knows that land all over the world has exchanged hands numerous times. All people everywhere move and claim new land as their own. What is now the US is no different. Various Native American tribes moved around and took from others for centuries in land that is now the U.S. Spanish. English. Mexicans. Americans. Is it only bad when Americans did this? Who should the land go back to? The first tribe on a piece of land that were wiped out by another tribe?

When are you giving your land back and to whom?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Internationally recognized borders are not imaginary. A country without borders is not a country. I can't think of too many places in the world where you can just walk into to another country and expect to be able to stay. In fact, most countries get very salty when you violate their borders. You'd be jailed asap.

And I've heard the "stolen land" argument plenty of times. It is amusing. Anyone who reads history knows that land all over the world has exchanged hands numerous times. All people everywhere move and claim new land as their own. What is now the US is no different. Various Native American tribes moved around and took from others for centuries in land that is now the U.S. Spanish. English. Mexicans. Americans. Is it only bad when Americans did this? Who should the land go back to? The first tribe on a piece of land that were wiped out by another tribe?

When are you giving your land back and to whom?

I used to carry around some guilt over this, but then I went to my first Indian casino. They got me so drunk, I was splitting kings at the blackjack table. I figure they got their fair share back from me and just like that, I was living guilt free! (Albeit with an unbelievable hangover a hell of a lot lighter bank account.)

 

[Bodhisattva]

I used to carry around some guilt over this, but then I went to my first Indian casino. They got me so drunk, I was splitting kings at the blackjack table. I figure they got their fair share back from me and just like that, I was living guilt free! (Albeit with an unbelievable hangover a hell of a lot lighter bank account.)

You deserve all the suffering and guilt imaginable, you evil white dude!

 

[CrimsonJazz]

You deserve all the suffering and guilt imaginable, you evil white dude!

Did you...............did you just assume my gender? *Promptly falls into a dead faint.*

 

[Huckleberry]

Not to look as though I’m picking apart your answer, because I really appreciate your contributions to this board. But a couple of things.

1) I agree with you that Trump did not have a mandate of any kind. Of course, in my lifetime - limited to what I can remember since I was three years old in 1972 - only two candidates have had real mandates, 1980 Reagan in 2008 Obama. (The Democrats had a “repudiation” in 1968).

2) the “economy” as they define it (GDP) was fine. Unemployment was great. Inflation - as one views that as an aspect of “economy” - killed the Ds. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was, it only matters who was in office when it happened.

3) Harris was, let’s be honest, a lousy candidate. Other than her playing a bottom of the deck race card in the debate with Biden in 2019, nobody can remember anything. She said in that campaign, and she was gone before the first ballots were cast. There was NO reason whatsoever to have chosen her as VP. Plus, every VP who runs always gets trapped with the bad things the incumbent has but gets no credit for the good. The Dems struck me as a campaign going through the motions trying to recapture the magic of Obama.

4) Again - there are 3 things l will never understand about the Dems:

a) instead of being so overtly anti-voter ID (because not one rational soul believes their excuse), would it be too difficult to turn to the Republican and ask, “Can you give me specific precincts where voters are not identified?” Because let’s face it, they can’t. And follow that up with, “If you don’t know a single place where it has happened, how do you know it happened at all?” Pivot and aim.

b) they can’t find EVEN ONE case of “cop shoots unarmed black man” when the video makes it obvious “unarmed” is not a synonym for “undangerous” where they can side with law enforcement as strongly as they are with January 6 cops, which fools nobody. I mean, this is not difficult. But they’re afraid - because of the repeatedly disproven myth of identity politics - that they’ll lose black votes if they do (which has always seemed kinda racist to me, given it presumes law abiding blacks will side with the criminal based solely on race)

c) literally cannot say the words “I’m for trans rights but no, transitioning young boys to girls should not be competing with biological girls on the athletic field.”

The refusal to take some simple steps like the above doesn’t help.

But having said that, no, Trump has nothing approaching a mandate. Supposing he did, what would his mandate be for?

Lowering prices?

I expect pushback from a board where most of the contributors are conservative, so that's no problem. You've never offended me and, based on your posts, I don't think you ever will. I have always enjoyed reading your thoughts on any of the TF boards.

Believe it or not, I agree with every one of your points. For 1-3, there's nothing to add. For 4, I have a few thoughts:

a) The inability to come across with a cogent argument or rebuttal on these issues is what I meant as communication. It's clear that Republicans want Voter ID in order to suppress votes of those populations likely to support Democrats, but no one effectively calls them on it.

b) (I referred to this in another recent post here, but I'll reiterate) The Democrats are their own worst enemy when it comes to issues of race. Moderate, mainstream Democrats have let the racial propagandists control that issue. Whether it be BLM, the riots after despicable incidents of police brutality, or the 1619 Project, Democrats seem scared to voice any criticism regarding the negative aspects of the issues. Letting the far left wing control the narrative hurts the Democratic message and allows the Republican lies to fester in the public consciousness.

c) This point is 100% related to b. That's exactly what they should say, but they're worried about the response from extremists. If moderate Democrats would clap back at accusations of racism or transphobia from the left wing, then that noise would die down. Instead, it dominates the headlines.

Until the Democrats wise up, loons like Trump and his followers will continue to wreak havoc on the American political landscape. That's why someone like Buttigieg, Shapiro, or Whitmer needs to be at the forefront in delivering the party's message so we can stop letting Republicans define who the party is in the eyes of the public.