Punching the Bully in the Face: Trump’s Tariff Retreat

[Legato]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Stop and fix it.

The fuses are damaged, the inertial damper malfunctioned.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

The fuses are damaged, the inertial damper malfunctioned.

Replace them.

@Legato let me know when you figure out what your point is.

[Legato]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Replace them.

@Legato let me know when you figure out what your point is.

Same as yours none.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Same as yours none.

You just missed it.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

I think his base has always had an interest in politics. You can trace Trump's base back to George Wallace where it wandered into the wilderness and got lost at sea following a few various dingbats like the Ross Perots and Tea Partiers and finally washed up on Republican shores just in time for Trump.

Probably, the whole place looks FUBAR from where I'm sitting.

Absolutely nonsense.

This base care is very little for politics, in fact probably feels that all politicians are the same and whatever the American version of liberal tory same old story is.

It was clear in 2016 that this was one of his biggest appeals in fact. Many specifically stated that they were voting for him in order to throw a wooden shoe or two in the cogs of government. They thought he was like an anti-hero figure.

Thus people who had no interest in politics began to gravitate towards him

The people that tend to support him are people that aren't that interested in politics at all, they're interested in how much they pay for food what kind of job they have whether or not they're safe in their neighborhood. And they probably don't believe the average politician when he says he'll do something about that but they believed trump.

And in fairness he is doing something about all of those things. Some would argue not the right things but you can't argue that he's not taking action.

They like it that he tells the democrats to f off essentially and ignores them, because they don't like them or their opinions. They're glad that he tells the courts to f off because they don't particularly believe in the courts anymore. They're glad he basically tells congress to f off because they don't believe in their congressman and their senators

i think @John Stone  Correct than not with what he said and that trump managed to harness the power of the non-political people politically

[CdnFox]

On 12/7/2025 at 4:22 AM, John Stone said:

........... tariffs are a tax on goods coming into the country ........ stuff people, business use, eat? 

 

Yes and no but really no. As I explained previously. Is the government's way of trying to get people and businesses to use and eat other things

Quote

Arguably what is more damaging is the spectre of uncertainty this whack-a-doodle strategy places on business ....... there is no certainty for future planning. 

You are not the only one who has said that and there is a strong argument to be made there

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You just missed it.

Which is strange because it doesn't seem like you've ever missed not having a point  

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

...you've ever missed not having a point  

Yup, and they're always spot on

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

His tariff taxes will not result in more jobs for Americans. Eventually, even many of his own supporters will figure that out. It’s a ridiculous idea. 

So far you're wrong. We'll have to see how it works in the long term. But to be honest the number of jobs really isn't the question. It probably will result in more jobs for Americans, but the real issue is whether or not those jobs are going to pay more and whether or not that increase in pay exceeds inflation.

He's betting it will, we'll have to see. So far there's nowhere near enough evidence to say he's wrong. I don't tend to think it's a good strategy over time but we'll have to see how it plays out

[SpankyMcFarland]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So far you're wrong. We'll have to see how it works in the long term. But to be honest the number of jobs really isn't the question. It probably will result in more jobs for Americans, but the real issue is whether or not those jobs are going to pay more and whether or not that increase in pay exceeds inflation.

He's betting it will, we'll have to see. So far there's nowhere near enough evidence to say he's wrong. I don't tend to think it's a good strategy over time but we'll have to see how it plays out

I don’t believe Trump is somehow going to make tariffs increase net jobs in the US.  He should have been listening a little more closely when he attended business school. Needless to say, jobs overall may increase down there for many other reasons but not because of tariffs. 

Edited December 12, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t believe Trump is somehow going to make tariffs increase net jobs in the US.

It already is.  But again... what kind of jobs, and how does the increase compare to inflation. That's the real issue. if people are working but cant afford food and rent then they will be pissed. 

 

7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Needless to say, jobs overall may increase down there for many other reasons but not because of tariffs. 

Again you appear to be operating in defiance of the evidence that we already have. A large number of companies have moved their operations to the united states and employment is still going up as a result. While the amount it climbs varies it's been steadily going up  no job losses. Most countries have had at least some months of job losses since the beginning of the year,  Canada has been VERY poor in that regard. 

And the us job numbers are doing decent despite trump laying off a bazillion gov't people, and that's pretty impressive.

I'm afraid you can't just dismiss tariffs like that. Your 'belief' is grounded in your dislike of trump and your desire to see his policies fail.  And that is not a good basis for an argument. 

What happened to think you're probably going to wind up being correct in the sense that over time the policy is going to produce mediocre growth and actually be a drag on the US economy overall, but there's no actual evidence or strong argument to support that just yet.

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 12/12/2025 at 6:55 PM, CdnFox said:

It already is.  But again... what kind of jobs, and how does the increase compare to inflation. That's the real issue. if people are working but cant afford food and rent then they will be pissed. 

 

Again you appear to be operating in defiance of the evidence that we already have. A large number of companies have moved their operations to the united states and employment is still going up as a result. While the amount it climbs varies it's been steadily going up  no job losses. Most countries have had at least some months of job losses since the beginning of the year,  Canada has been VERY poor in that regard. 

And the us job numbers are doing decent despite trump laying off a bazillion gov't people, and that's pretty impressive.

I'm afraid you can't just dismiss tariffs like that. Your 'belief' is grounded in your dislike of trump and your desire to see his policies fail.  And that is not a good basis for an argument. 

What happened to think you're probably going to wind up being correct in the sense that over time the policy is going to produce mediocre growth and actually be a drag on the US economy overall, but there's no actual evidence or strong argument to support that just yet.

 

 

The idea that tariffs increase jobs is a left wing delusion that somehow Trump has swallowed. It hasn’t been a respectable idea in conservative circles for a century. 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The idea that tariffs increase jobs is a left wing delusion that somehow Trump has swallowed. It hasn’t been a respectable idea in conservative circles for a century. 

That's a silly answer. Protectionism has in fact been both a left-wing and right-wing policy over the years and countries tend to swing one way or another. I would remind you that it's not the case that Canada and America did not have any tariffs towards each other prior to trump or even prior to Biden or even Obama Etc

Like I said you can make an argument that you feel it won't produce good results over time. And you can explain why you feel that way. I would tend to agree and I can articulate why.

But you seem bound to determined to demand that orange man bad is an acceptable logical premise for your belief and it simply isn't.

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's a silly answer. Protectionism has in fact been both a left-wing and right-wing policy over the years and countries tend to swing one way or another. I would remind you that it's not the case that Canada and America did not have any tariffs towards each other prior to trump or even prior to Biden or even Obama Etc

Like I said you can make an argument that you feel it won't produce good results over time. And you can explain why you feel that way. I would tend to agree and I can articulate why.

But you seem bound to determined to demand that orange man bad is an acceptable logical premise for your belief and it simply isn't.

It was a right wing idea a long time ago but has become a left wing one in recent years. As Ronald Reagan himself explained, tariffs can be used occasionally against particular industries or states but they are a necessary evil. Nobody should imagine they are good for business. Go read the Wall Street Journal and see what they say about Trump’s utterly chaotic tariffs policy. I’m surprised you are so keen on them. 

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It was a right wing idea a long time ago but has become a left wing one in recent years. As Ronald Reagan himself explained, tariffs can be used occasionally against particular industries or states but they are a necessary evil. Nobody should imagine they are good for business. Go read the Wall Street Journal and see what they say about Trump’s utterly chaotic tariffs policy. I’m surprised you are so keen on them. 

IT's just an idea. Neither side owns it and both sides have practiced it and spoke against it at one point or another. 

Ronald Regan had a mdel that worked for him. I tend to prefer his model but it's just one model, that doesn't mean another way won't work as well. 

And you still haven't done anything but wine like a baby. You haven't made a case, there's no evidence to support your claims, you're only suggestion is to go read newspapers until I find something that supports your argument.

You need set aside your hatred for 30 seconds you might actually let your brain engage and say something intelligent about it.

And if you were paying attention you'd realize I've said for the fifth time but I don't particularly like that model and I think trump is wrong. But the fact is I can't prove that right now. The evidence does not support that conclusion at this point.

At this point the messaging is a little mixed. Some elements of the economy are up substantially, others I would have expected to be up i it were working entirely aren't. It's probably going to take a little bit of time to see how it shakes out. About the most you can say is that it's going through a transition and it's not entirely stable so we can't tell whether or not it's actually working or isn't

You have to learn to start to begin with a question and find a solution, not start with a solution and try to retcon a question. 

[eyeball]

On 12/17/2025 at 7:47 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

The idea that tariffs increase jobs is a left wing delusion that somehow Trump has swallowed. It hasn’t been a respectable idea in conservative circles for a century. 

And yet here we have a conservative telling us its happening

On 12/12/2025 at 2:25 PM, CdnFox said:

A large number of companies have moved their operations to the united states and employment is still going up as a result.

As of late 2025, the U.S. unemployment rate has risen to 4.6%, its highest level since September 2021.

This increase was revealed in a delayed December 2025 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which covered both October and November data following a 43-day federal government shutdown.

Right...and who didn't see that blindsider coming?

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

And yet here we have a conservative telling us its happening

 

Yes. The lefty who mentioned it was wrong again  

 

 

Quote

Right...and who didn't see that blindsider coming?

Pretty much anyone that realized that the employment figures were being artificially inflated by Biden's insane spending and that trump's cutting back at the civil service was going to have a short-term impact on employment figures saw that coming.

But I find it hilarious that things are happening exactly as conservative suggested they would and the right is acting like somehow that means we were wrong  

[SpankyMcFarland]

America is going down a very dark path under Trump, destroying the global rules-based order it so painstakingly created after WWII and retreating into gringo imperialism. The new US National Security Strategy document wants sole-source contracts for US companies in ‘dependent’ countries. As things stand, we rely way too much on US digital services companies - their dominance is worrying enough already. We also need to be free to choose our own military equipment. 
 

Quote

Amidst the document’s laundry list of absurdities, which include asserting the U.S.’s right to control the Western Hemisphere, limiting foreign powers from partnerships and infrastructure-building in the region and reversing other countries’ policies that “disadvantage” U.S. companies, one issue flying under the radar could have significant ramifications for Canada: In a brief point on page 19, the NSS asserts that future agreements with nations “dependent” on the U.S., must require “sole-source contracts for (U.S.) companies.”

As one of these allegedly “dependent” nations, this sole-source requirement is a threat to Canada’s plans to build and procure homegrown solutions in defence and digital infrastructure. Can Canada meaningfully increase its sovereignty if the U.S. is putting all its coercive might into privileging its own companies? In practice, sole-source contracts would lock us in with U.S. providers and substantially limit our freedom to operate and to make sovereign decisions about our infrastructure and security.

Quote

Moreover, any policy to compel Canada’s procurement toward preferred U.S. vendors is a clear violation of sovereignty. The first place this might play out is in the ongoing debate about Canada’s future fighter jet capabilities, with the Carney government indicating it is deciding between U.S. F-35 and Swedish Gripen jets.

Quote

On the basis of digital infrastructure, Canada could certainly be classified as one of those countries that depend on the U.S. the most. A handful of American companies — Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Google LLC — dominate the cloud services market for example, with similar trends in ad tech, AI and other digital markets. At the same time, the national security concerns associated with Canada’s dependence on the U.S. for digital infrastructure are starker than ever. Official U.S. channels for access to information threaten the security of Canadian data stored in the cloud or communicated across networks, and concentration raises concerns about the stability and resilience of critical infrastructure.

CUSMA negotiators should take careful note of any attempt to insert this stuff into the agreement:

Quote

Additionally, the NSS’s reference to trade agreements raises a risk that the U.S. might seek to codify a sole-source contracting requirement within a renegotiated CUSMA in the new year. Such a requirement would erode any chance Canada has of securing its digital sovereignty.

 

In a way, the NSS has simply articulated what many suspected the U.S. position for the upcoming CUSMA renegotiations will be, but we cannot ignore its blatant warning.

 

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/new-us-nss-clause-roughshod-canadian-sovereignity

Edited December 23, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[User]

36 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

America is going down a very dark path under Trump

Never trust what someone else says about a document. Always go read the document. 
 

Like this for example, can you show where in the actual document it says this?

Because it is full of language about being the partner of choice, of free sovereign countries, etc… 

”Amidst the document’s laundry list of absurdities, which include asserting the U.S.’s right to control the Western Hemisphere”

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

18 minutes ago, User said:

Never trust what someone else says about a document. Always go read the document. 
 

Like this for example, can you show where in the actual document it says this?

Because it is full of language about being the partner of choice, of free sovereign countries, etc… 

”Amidst the document’s laundry list of absurdities, which include asserting the U.S.’s right to control the Western Hemisphere”

 

Here is the paragraph in the document that the article is about:

 

Quote

The United States must also resist and reverse measures such as targeted taxation, unfair regulation, and expropriation that disadvantage U.S. businesses. The terms of our agreements, especially with those countries that depend on us most and therefore over which we have the most leverage, must be sole-source contracts for our companies. At the same time, we should make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region.

Note the sentence after the one regarding sole-source contracts. It makes the new US  attitude to the sovereignty of other countries crystal clear. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

America is going down a very dark path under Trump, destroying the global rules-based order it so painstakingly created after WWII and retreating into gringo imperialism. The new US National Security Strategy document wants sole-source contracts for US companies in ‘dependent’ countries. As things stand, we rely way too much on US digital services companies - their dominance is worrying enough already. We also need to be free to choose our own military equipment. 

That's largely because america went down a very dark path under Obama and Biden, destroying the global rules-based order that had so painstakingly being created guaranteeing sovereignty and freedom.

As I have said many times when the pendulum finally swings it tends to swing back as far the other way as it was from where it started

I do believe that we should be eliminating the us as much as possible as a military supplier. I understand the argument of some people that this means that our troops may get second best equipment, but if the history of military activity has shown us anything it's that how you use what you've got is often more important than what you've got. Avoid conflicts where our gear isn't a good fit, maximize taxes and strategies to take advantage of what we've got, and that's about the best we can do no matter what we buy

[User]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Note the sentence after the one regarding sole-source contracts. It makes the new US  attitude to the sovereignty of other countries crystal clear. 

So... crystal clear they didn't actually say what you are claiming. 

 

[Barquentine]

On 12/18/2025 at 1:26 AM, CdnFox said:

You need set aside your hatred for 30 seconds you might actually let your brain engage and say something intelligent about it.

Like:

On 12/19/2025 at 9:06 PM, CdnFox said:

I find it hilarious that things are happening exactly as conservative suggested they would and the right is acting like somehow that means we were wrong

So Right-wingers are saying Right-wingers are wrong?

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Barquentine said:

 

So Right-wingers are saying Right-wingers are wrong?

LOLOL holy shit kid, are you reduced to nothing more than being a grammar nazi?

And it took you a month or so to think of it?  ROFLMAO!!!

If you're only argument against what I have said in this thread is that I made a typo in one place which is pretty obvious then you're absolutely admitting I was right  

Kid, there are days when you come across as being pretty pathetic but damn.... That's pretty bad even for you. You have to see that right? You could do better than that surely

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I made a typo in one place

One place? You don't even read what you write(say).

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

One place? You don't even read what you write(say).

Sometimes I just skim it  I've made no secret of the fact that a lot of the time I post on the fly when I have a few seconds And I tend to use a lot of voice dictation. That's how I pump out posts fairly quickly. I often go back when I have more time and edit any errors. But most people are big boys with big boy pants on who can overlook a few errors and they know what I mean so that's what matters. As I frequently overlook other people's small mistakes as well.

But it's hilarious that you have no actual argument and the only thing you can whine about is I don't take time to proofread every post to you on every occasion 😆😆😆😆 Like, that's all you've got and you're clinging to it desperately   

I hate to break it to you, but so far you just never been worth my time to invest the extra effort    If you're finding it emotionally crippling then let me know and I'll send a note home to your mother authorizing an additional cookie and a nap for you LOL!