DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

He's getting crushed in the Polls after only one year.

It's not even close.

---

The polls have never been wrong about Trump before, oh wait…

---

I'm willing to bet a lot of money that the GOP gets rolled at Midterms.
How about you?

---

Then do it. They have predictive markets for that

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Of course he's not going to unite the country (even if he was inclined to try - which he very likely is not - there's a segment of the populace that has no interest in that message). But it is also true that the traditional sense of decorum to SCOTUS that may be ignored by Trump has long since been ignored by Obama, Schumer and regular folk on one side of the isle with doxing of SCOTUS members leading to death threats against them and their families.

---

Just curious.

On a Scale of 1 - 10, how would you rate Trump's performance overall with respect to what he campaigned on?

---

Hard question. I really do not hang on everything he says and does. My impression is he doing pretty much what he campaigned on. 9/10? 10/10? It has not all been as effective as envisioned and some of the ways the admin has pursued what he campaigned on has pushed the envelope / been provocative. Does effectiveness and "how" come into the grade too? Then a lower number.

---

Yes, the word "effectiveness" did cross my mind as you pointed out.
So allow me to rephrase.

In your opinion on a Scale of 1 - 10, how "effective" has Trump's presidency been overall when it comes to concepts that he campaigned on?

Affordability
No New Wars
Securing the Border
Cutting Spending and the Debt
Ending the War in Ukraine

tequila4kapp said:

---

Of course he's not going to unite the country (even if he was inclined to try - which he very likely is not - there's a segment of the populace that has no interest in that message). But it is also true that the traditional sense of decorum to SCOTUS that may be ignored by Trump has long since been ignored by Obama, Schumer and regular folk on one side of the isle with doxing of SCOTUS members leading to death threats against them and their families.

---

Trump is already on the record saying he couldn't care less about unifying the country.


"Justice Amy Coney Barrett has faced intense hostility and criticism from segments of the political right, particularly following specific Supreme Court rulings. This backlash has included vitriolic public attacks, such as labeling her a "turncoat" or a "D.E.I. hire," as well as menacing actions directed at her and her family. These have included intimidating pizza deliveries to her family members' homes and a bomb threat against her sister.
NPR

While some right-wing commentators and activists have publicly criticized her judicial decisions and character, describing her as "weak" or "disappointing" when she does not align with their political expectations, these sentiments have escalated beyond political discourse into targeted harassment. Justice Barrett has noted that her family has been threatened, and authorities have treated events like the unrequested pizza deliveries as signals that hostile individuals were monitoring her family's location."
The New York Times

Threats and harassment against Justice Barrett have included public criticism from some political figures and commentators, with some expressing frustration with her decisions when they do not align with certain political expectations. These expressions have sometimes included intense criticism of her character and judicial independence."
Mrw York Times

DiabloWags said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Supreme Court is a junior member of the political parties. They are irrelevant to Americans.

---

And yet, a Poll finds 64% of Americans disapprove of Trumps tariffs. Thus, if SCOTUS is the only "check and balance" to a policy that is clrarly a TAX on Americans, they are not irrelevant.

---

The tariffs will go on, court is irrelevant- plus they don't care about it being a tax- just some offense against the holy writ.

I'm gonna go with an Incomplete. It's barely been a year. Some areas are excellent, others have failed so far and others are TBD.

How much more time do you need to see go by before offering a rating on a Scale of 1 - 10?
2 Year mark?

What areas would you say are "excellent"?

I would imagine closing the Border is one of them.
What are the others?

I'm asking because I honestly can't name them.
Personally, I would put him at 1 for 5.
20%

But the fact that he's pardoned so many felons, literally negates that 20% for me.

DiabloWags said:

---

How much more time do you need to see go by before offering a rating on a Scale of 1 - 10?
2 Year mark?

What areas would you say are "excellent"?

I would imagine closing the Border is one of them.
What are the others?

I'm asking because I honestly can't name them.
Personally, I would put him at 1 for 5.
20%

But the fact that he's pardoned so many felons, literally negates that 20% for me.

---

Have to disagree with you there. Trump campaigned on pardoning felons who attempted a fascist style government overthrow for Trump. 10/10 for Trump on that.

EU says it will accept no increase in US tariffs after Supreme Court ruling: 'a deal is a deal'

Don't you think they would have all brought guns if they were trying for a fascist takeover?

Here's a better question and one that is on TOPIC:

Why is it that Trump supporters can't admit that his tariffs aren't working?

Are they blind to the fact that we ran a $1.24 TRILLION dollar trade deficit last year?

Why is it that Trump supporters are immune to FACTS like the above?

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/why-tariffs-arent-shrinking-the-u-s-trade-deficit-30a4dd0a?st=vdQawv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

For someone who has claimed on at least one occasion that she didn't vote for Trump because of his tariff policy 88 does spend a lot of time going to bat for it. Seems in retrospect maybe they were for tariffs after all. Just an observation.

To call Coney a DEI hire (a white wealthy woman from Notre Dame) is hilarious.

I am not a fan of her at all (though like her tariff decision), but what about her character can be questioned? Thomas or Alito, I get the questioning there.

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN

Go Bears Forever

BearlySane88 said:

---

Is that against the rules? Would probably be worth it for everyone to see the ranting messages you send me.

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

For someone who has claimed on at least one occasion that she didn't vote for Trump because of his tariff policy 88 does spend a lot of time going to bat for it. Seems in retrospect maybe they were for tariffs after all. Just an observation.

---

I never said I was for or against tariffs, just that I didn't vote for Trump because of tariffs. You're welcome for clearing that up for you

Thanks for not answer my question at all

BearlySane88 said:

---

Thanks for not answer my question at all

---

Your question about tariffs had no basis in fact.
There is no balance of payments deficit because we have floating exchange rates.

Thus, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act is not applicable.

Thanks.

My question wasn't about tariffs. Maybe you do have reading comprehension issues.

BearlySane88 said:

---

My question wasn't about tariffs. Maybe you do have reading comprehension issues.

---

Trump doesn't care about the Judicial Branch.
That's why he immediately had a tantrum and gave SCOTUS the middle finger with yet another illegal tariff.
That's why he called out 2 conservative judges and their families.

Apparently, you don't have a problem with that.
For you, Trump can do no wrong.

That's why I don't take you seriously.
And don't feel a need to always answer your questions.

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

My question wasn't about tariffs. Maybe you do have reading comprehension issues.

---

Trump doesn't care about the Judicial Branch.
That's why he immediately had a tantrum and gave SCOTUS the middle finger with yet another illegal tariff.
That's why he called out 2 conservative judges and their families.

Apparently, you don't have a problem with that.
For you, Trump can do no wrong.

That's why I don't take you seriously.
And don't feel a need to always answer your questions.

---

Then why did you try and answer a question about tariffs that I didn't ask?

No he can do wrong, he should be deporting more people.

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

My question wasn't about tariffs. Maybe you do have reading comprehension issues.

---

Trump doesn't care about the Judicial Branch.
That's why he immediately had a tantrum and gave SCOTUS the middle finger with yet another illegal tariff.
That's why he called out 2 conservative judges and their families.

Apparently, you don't have a problem with that.
For you, Trump can do no wrong.

That's why I don't take you seriously.
And don't feel a need to always answer your questions.

---

Then why did you try and answer a question about tariffs that I didn't ask?

No he can do wrong, he should be deporting more people.

---

Because you clearly don't understand the difference between a trade deficit and a balance of payments deficit.

We have the former.
Not the latter.

That still wasn't the question you responded to

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

My question wasn't about tariffs. Maybe you do have reading comprehension issues.

---

Trump doesn't care about the Judicial Branch.
That's why he immediately had a tantrum and gave SCOTUS the middle finger with yet another illegal tariff.
That's why he called out 2 conservative judges and their families.

Apparently, you don't have a problem with that.
For you, Trump can do no wrong.

That's why I don't take you seriously.
And don't feel a need to always answer your questions.

---

Then why did you try and answer a question about tariffs that I didn't ask?

No he can do wrong, he should be deporting more people.

---

Because you clearly don't understand the difference between a trade deficit and a balance of payments deficit.

We have the former.
Not the latter.

---

There is conflation between the concept of trade deficit and balance of payments. They are not the same thing as pointed out.

Just to take the discussion even more sideways, there are some real concerns with trade deficit data.There are major problems from inaccurate, outdated, or misaligned data. inconsistencies in measuring digital services, and the complete inability of the US government to account for globalized supply chains. For example, Apple phones are assembled in China, and even though 97% of the components come from outside China (including the US), the entire value of the assembled phone is credited to China as China is the last country of origin of the product before it enters the US. Anotiher issues is that the figures don't take into account profits on US affiliates, so the profit Apple make on the phone also isn't included became the phone is assembled in low wage China.

And it gets worse. The U.S. often runs a surplus in services, which can be harder to measure accurately than physical goods. Services, including financial, consulting, and intellectual property, are often undercounted in trade statistics.

Given the high degree of global supply chains, especially with respect to tech products, there is a strong consensus among economists that the U.S. trade deficit with China is vastly overstated. Put another way, Trump may be trying to fix a problem with China that is vastly overstated or may not exist, by using tariffs.

I'm happy to provide some reading refences for those of you that have insomnia.
.

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Here is decent article getting into Gorsuch. Four separate judges from both wings of SCOTUS wrote opinions to tell Gorsuch he was full of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/tariffs-case-supreme-court-justices-bicker-biden-trump-treatment-rcna259922

---

I read that article differently.
Given the Court's 2022 decision on West Virginia vs EPA
Which I posted about on Page 3 of this thread:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/133265/replies/2658196

---

WV vs EPA involved internal EPA rules. That those rules may have a global impact does not create a foreign affairs issue. Tariffs are targeted events toward specific foreign countries. That is foreign affairs. Gorsuch and the article are being disingenuous.

It is difficult to get into this without turning a post into a law review article. But sentence 2 of paragraph 2 is kind of silly. See page 153 of the opinion for context and explanation of K's handling of the Foreign Affairs / Major Question issue.

---

Alito and Thomas said the major question doctrine "should not apply" to foreign affairs. Gorsuch noted their acceptance of the Doctrine, but criticized "their readiness to carve out exceptions."

Could they be wrong?

Neil Gorsuch takes aim at fellow Supreme Court justices in tariff decision

https://share.google/0jvAgoq7HXaWzgRQt

Yes, Gorsuch is wrong. See the page reference I noted previously from the opinion.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Yes, Gorsuch is wrong. See the page reference I noted previously from the opinion.

---

Do you believe that Trump's imposition of a 15% global tariff based on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act is legal?

I do not know.
I do not care enough to go research it.
He announced the tariffs. Someone will sue. It will work its way through the courts eventually. The sun will come up tomorrow and the day after and the day after while that process plays out.

And this in my opinion is the problem with Trump and why this policy is not "brilliant".

All he does is breed UNCERTAINTY and CHAOS.

As I have repeatedly stated here, his new tariffs are based NOT on a trade imbalance, but a balance of payments deficit ... that does not exist.

Poster Ludwig's Fountain first brought this basic question up on Page 4 of this thread.

Ever since we went off the gold standard, we have enjoyed floating exchange rates. Thus, there is no balance of payments deficit. This is basic Econ. 101.

So now, companies will once again have to sue the Abminisrration and go back into court.

This is not how you MAGA.
This is how you cripple businesses, especially small businesses.