SCOTUS: About those stupid tariffs...
- Thread starter RoryN
- Start date
MasterAnimus
Don't mind my mind
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Posts
- 354
The administration has gone from
"Producers will pay for it" to
"It is a negotiation tactic" to
"It is a revenue-generation tool"
Anything but what it actually is - a tax. Justice Roberts rightfully called it: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chief-justice-roberts-calls-trump-163310084.html
What remains to be seen - how much of the tariffs will stay.
"Producers will pay for it" to
"It is a negotiation tactic" to
"It is a revenue-generation tool"
Anything but what it actually is - a tax. Justice Roberts rightfully called it: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chief-justice-roberts-calls-trump-163310084.html
What remains to be seen - how much of the tariffs will stay.
DeluxAuto
AntiSocial Extrovert
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Posts
- 22,320
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 61,420
Mic drop.
It's a series of taxes imposed by the man-child as revenge against people he sees as not liking him.
The only President in history to have refused to say that he represents all Americans. The only President in history to say that the only good member of the opposition is a dead one.
The only President in history to proudly mock the disabled, people who have foreign accents, to invent grade-school insults based on people's names.
The only President since the Civil War to say that it was OK to be proud of a racist heritage, to fly a Confederate flag inside the White House, to smear faeces on the walls and floor of the White House.
The President who enables racists to be racists. Who shamelessly extorts billions of dollars from industry so that their pollutants are allowed to kill people and nature.
The only President in history to have refused to say that he represents all Americans. The only President in history to say that the only good member of the opposition is a dead one.
The only President in history to proudly mock the disabled, people who have foreign accents, to invent grade-school insults based on people's names.
The only President since the Civil War to say that it was OK to be proud of a racist heritage, to fly a Confederate flag inside the White House, to smear faeces on the walls and floor of the White House.
The President who enables racists to be racists. Who shamelessly extorts billions of dollars from industry so that their pollutants are allowed to kill people and nature.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 65,758
A point brought up on the Remnant today that basically hits what I mean in reference to emergency powers and the abuse of them - if tariffs are a response to a national security issue, then you're suggesting that an ad by Ontario about tariffs is considered a national security issue that must be responded to?
The objection I have isn't whether the President should take care to protect our country from harm....it's that his actions don't do that nor are they in response to any real threat. He responds to people who criticize him or that put him or the administration in any bad light.
Secondly - if our security is an issue - should the administration be touring that security rather than touting the revenue gained? In the end, the rationalizations aren't synching up with the rhetoric. Should our President be required to explain themselves, at the very least, to Congress? To the people?
And before you answer - imagine a Democratic President taking the same actions with the same explanations (or maybe an action you disagree with)
This is the kind of thing Congress should be clearing up, if the President is not doing so.
The objection I have isn't whether the President should take care to protect our country from harm....it's that his actions don't do that nor are they in response to any real threat. He responds to people who criticize him or that put him or the administration in any bad light.
Secondly - if our security is an issue - should the administration be touring that security rather than touting the revenue gained? In the end, the rationalizations aren't synching up with the rhetoric. Should our President be required to explain themselves, at the very least, to Congress? To the people?
And before you answer - imagine a Democratic President taking the same actions with the same explanations (or maybe an action you disagree with)
This is the kind of thing Congress should be clearing up, if the President is not doing so.
Similar threads
