View Full Version : Trump announces running for POTUS in 2020
FlyingHunter
02-27-18, 11:27
President Donald Trump announced that he's running for re-election in 2020, and Brad Parscale, who served as the Trump campaign's 2016 digital guru, has been named campaign manager.
In an announcement posted on the president's campaign website, his son, Eric Trump, called Parscale "an amazing talent" who was "pivotal to our success in 2016." Top Trump adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner said that Parscale "was essential in bringing a disciplined technology and data-driven approach to how the 2016 campaign was run."
During the election cycle I was never a fan of President Trump. I voted third party because I thought Clinton had the election in the bag and I genuinely did not think that either of the major party candidates was the best choice.
Since assuming office, President Trump has surprised me by doing an exceptional job. That, combined with the repeated lies told about him in the media literally every day, has put me firmly on his side for the next election. He can lose my trust, but at this point, he certainly has it.
BoringGuy45
02-27-18, 14:15
I was disappointed when he was the GOP nominee.
I was sure he was going to lose, and probably by a landslide, as he has a less-than-stellar reputation in terms of his character, and he just says shit that you shouldn't say.
I was ready to either vote 3rd party or forgo voting for president altogether, but changed my mind in the voting booth and pushed the button for Trump.
I was happy that Hillary lost, and that for the first time since I reached voting age, my vote counted (I lived in deep blue CT until 2013).
I was disappointed in Trump's first few months, as it looked like he was all over the place in how to actually be president, and it looked at first like they'd have him out of office by the end of 2017 with all the Russia crap.
But for the past 6 or so months, I think he's hit his stride and is doing quite well. I love how the left has gone so insane over him!
Hopefully, he can pull off the same magic 2 years from now. I'm in his corner for now.
That's ballsy to announce 13 months into your presidency, but it'll sure give the left something new to bitch about....
I'm having doubts about voting for him in 2020. If he keeps going forward with his 21 to buy rifles and bumpstock ban I doubt I will.
I do like how he pisses so many people off to the point of them losing their shit though.
BoringGuy45
02-27-18, 15:12
I'm having doubts about voting for him in 2020. If he keeps going forward with his 21 to buy rifles and bumpstock ban I doubt I will.
I think we need to cut him some slack on the gun thing. I know many in the gun community have adopted the "not one step back" stance in this fight, but outside of it, we have to remember that when magazine and "assault weapons" bans are not on the table, that's a victory.
Besides, what will not voting, voting 3rd party, or voting Dem do, except put someone who is actually anti-gun in the White House?
IIRC he filed for it on Innauguration Day. Something about being able to start amassing a war chest.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-27-18, 15:31
Make America Greater Again Again
Averageman
02-27-18, 16:09
I'm having doubts about voting for him in 2020. If he keeps going forward with his 21 to buy rifles and bumpstock ban I doubt I will.
I do like how he pisses so many people off to the point of them losing their shit though.
He thrives on emotional response;
"You want Citizenship for DACA dreamers? Okay how about 1.8 million of them instead of the 700,000 Obama promised?"
"NO !" they cry as they tear their clothing, froth out the mouth and roll around on the ground. "It's not Enough!"
Then he says "Okay" and begins to tear apart the program, only to be temporally stalled in the Courts, yet the SCOTUS is sure to rule in his favor.
You have to understand it is all a negotiation to him, if you don't know how to play the game, it is okay, he does...
I stood behind Trump since the day he rode down that gold plated escalator with his wife and announced that he was officially running for president. There is a pretty good reason that the establishment has tried everything from violent protest, congressional hearings, wire tapping, hiring foreign intelligence and leaking a fake dossiers to stop this man. We don't know why, but I'm sure there is a reason. Maybe the swamp is scared, maybe they have reason to be scared. Maybe the level of corruption is beyond what we can imagine. Maybe Trump is saving this swamp draining for re-election time. But regardless, I think he is doing a great job. Make America Great Again!
I'll gladly vote for him again just to see "that face" on everyone's face again.
https://gdb.voanews.com/dba4da7c-8e3d-427d-9b56-537380823a08_w250_r1_s.jpg
Well, he's back inside their OODA loop again.
I was behind Trump from the very beginning as well. Honestly I thought HRC would win regardless of who the Republicsn would nominate. Backing Trump at least gave me the ability to trigger people on a massive scale. It still does. The surprise and elation I felt on election night were quickly replaced with jubilation at the sight of all the snowflakes melting down.
Watching him win in 2020 would make it even better.
I don't agree with his thoughts on gun control right now but there will never be a POTUS with whom you agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. Saying you won't vote for Donald J because he wants to raise the purchase age to 21 is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Doc Safari
02-27-18, 17:41
I was behind Trump from the very beginning as well. Honestly I thought HRC would win regardless of who the Republicsn would nominate. Backing Trump at least gave me the ability to trigger people on a massive scale. It still does. The surprise and elation I felt on election night were quickly replaced with jubilation at the sight of all the snowflakes melting down.
Watching him win in 2020 would make it even better.
I don't agree with his thoughts on gun control right now but there will never be a POTUS with whom you agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. Saying you won't vote for Donald J because he wants to raise the purchase age to 21 is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
100% my opinion. On the gun thing I think he's talking big knowing Congress has to pass the stuff and won't do diddly. He's safe and looks like a crusader. I think we might get school marshalls and 21 for gun purchases but that's it.
Good news... He knows that he needs the Pro-2nd Amendment voting block to get re-elected. He won't screw up that part for sure now... At least during THIS term.
<--- If the election were tomorrow, I'd vote for him again. Lets see how he does the next couple of years now. Not as good as Reagan, but I like what I see so far.
Good news... He knows that he needs the Pro-2nd Amendment voting block to get re-elected. He won't screw up that part for sure now... At least during THIS term.
<--- If the election were tomorrow, I'd vote for him again. Lets see how he does the next couple of years now. Not as good as Reagan, but I like what I see so far.
Let's not forget that Reagan signed the 1986 FOPA WITH the Hughes Amendment. I don't know what compromise Daddy is trying to go for, but let's see how this played out.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-27-18, 19:24
Actually, I'd love to see him go one better and assume the 2020 win and announce that he'll run in 2024- and watch the Progressive's heads explode....
FlyingHunter
02-27-18, 19:31
Actually, I'd love to see him go one better and assume the 2020 win and announce that he'll run in 2024- and watch the Progressive's heads explode....
Ha! That's funny. But then again, this week in China:
Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/02/26/why-chinas-president-may-never-have-retire-and-what-means/372443002/
Chinese President Xi Jinping may never have to retire.
Xi, 64, broke with decades of Chinese political precedent Sunday when he proposed altering China's constitution to scrap a two-term presidential time limit.
Actually, I'd love to see him go one better and assume the 2020 win and announce that he'll run in 2024- and watch the Progressive's heads explode....
You can’t imagine the screaming from the left if the man said it, knowing full well he couldn’t, just to piss them off.
I know plenty of people who dislike him. It’s him or the Democrat (shit, maybe HillDog for round two). You get to pick one. I’d personally rather see the following on the shelves at the local book merchant: “What Happened, Again.”
Let's not forget that Reagan signed the 1986 FOPA WITH the Hughes Amendment. I don't know what compromise Daddy is trying to go for, but let's see how this played out.
You do know he didn't have a line item veto right?
Did you also know FOPA undid the worst parts of the 1968 GCA and this was the first time it had reached a Presidents desk?
Do you know what Hughes and company were actually going for?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?138963-H-R-3155-Racketeer-Weapons-and-Violent-Crime-Control-Act
Actually, I'd love to see him go one better and assume the 2020 win and announce that he'll run in 2024- and watch the Progressive's heads explode....
Ivanka 2024. First woman President.
Ivanka 2024. First woman President.
As much as I've been hearing Kamala Harris' name thrown around lately, I've been hearing a lot about Michelle O in 2020 also... Do they have to play the same card over and over???
Diamondback
02-27-18, 23:39
Ivanka 2024. First woman President.
Please, for the love of God NO! We've been lucky POTUS listens to Eric and Don Jr. more on gun stuff...
Please, for the love of God NO! We've been lucky POTUS listens to Eric and Don Jr. more on gun stuff...
Would be worth it to watch the massive leftist cardiac arrest.
I love it that the left has crapped a cow about him declaring for 2020 already. Makes my day!!
Would be worth it to watch the massive leftist cardiac arrest.So worth it
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
As much as I've been hearing Kamala Harris' name thrown around lately, I've been hearing a lot about Michelle O in 2020 also... Do they have to play the same card over and over???Of course, it's their MO. Nothing original, just the same old worn out ideas.
They will trot out Joe B. or Bernie just for show.
It makes me nauseous.
Are you guys not keeping up with our fearless orange leader's capitulation in regards to gun laws? Do some digging. This guy is ready to do some serious dealing with the left.
Doc Safari
02-28-18, 15:00
Are you guys not keeping up with our fearless orange leader's capitulation in regards to gun laws? Do some digging. This guy is ready to do some serious dealing with the left.
I've heard some excerpts on Hannity's radio show. He agreed to read Di Fi's assault weapons crime statistics.
Do you have other links you can provide?
"I like taking the guns early," the president said. "... Take the guns first, go through due process second." (Donald Trump)
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-meets-with-republicans-democrats-on-school-safety-live-stream-updates/
there are piles of other sources. A multitude of options are being tossed around.
"I like taking the guns early," the president said. "... Take the guns first, go through due process second." (Donald Trump)
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-meets-with-republicans-democrats-on-school-safety-live-stream-updates/
there are piles of other sources. A multitude of options are being tossed around.
I'm not a 'yuge' fan of President Trump, but.....
Put in the context in which it was offered - getting guns out of the hands of mentally unstable folks - it doesn't sound as bad.
Also there was this:
Trump criticizes gun-free zones
President Trump said gun-free zones are harming the country, claiming 98 percent of mass shootings in the U.S. have occurred in gun-free zones since 1950.
"You've gotta have defense, too," he said.
The president said other reforms needed include improving mental health and strengthening background checks.
I couldn't disagree more. Who gets to determine who is mentally ill and who is not? The man is in favor of forcibly taking the firearms whenever the feds feel like an individual doesn't meet some arbitrary and undefined litmus test. He said, unequivocally, that he's not in favor of due process. Going back and retroactively applying "due process" after the fact aint due process. In fact, its the antithesis of due process.
I couldn't disagree more. Who gets to determine who is mentally ill and who is not? The man is in favor of forcibly taking the firearms whenever the feds feel like an individual doesn't meet some arbitrary and undefined litmus test. He said, unequivocally, that he's not in favor of due process. Going back and retroactively applying "due process" after the fact aint due process. In fact, its the antithesis of due process.
I guess having trained police officers in the use-of-force for a couple decades, plus hanging and teaching with lawyers, I kind of understand due process a little differently than you might.
In exigent situations, you can make seizures of people and property without a warrant so long as you have probable cause.
Law enforcement officers who have reasonable belief (probable cause) that a person has committed a crime involving the use, or threatened use of a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm may use lethal force to stop that persons escape (seize them) absent other means to apprehend.
Citizens are given the right to defend themselves based on their apprehension of threat.
All of these occur outside of what many understand as due process. That they occur without apparent due process does not mean that due process is not applied, rather in some cases it is after the fact. Things get sorted out.
Maybe I have more faith in the system because I know what I stand for and ascribe those traits to others.
My guess is that won't satisfy you, but it is what I got.
I'm not a 'yuge' fan of President Trump, but.....
Put in the context in which it was offered - getting guns out of the hands of mentally unstable folks - it doesn't sound as bad.
Also there was this:
Trump criticizes gun-free zones
President Trump said gun-free zones are harming the country, claiming 98 percent of mass shootings in the U.S. have occurred in gun-free zones since 1950.
"You've gotta have defense, too," he said.
The president said other reforms needed include improving mental health and strengthening background checks.Hitler putting the Jews in the ovens didn't sound bad back in the day either.
Hitler putting the Jews in the ovens didn't sound bad back in the day either.
It absolutely did. That is why it was done in remote parts of Poland and written directives didn't exist. And that was in an environment with a strong anti jewish sentiment and a secret program to rid europe of all jews.
Dionysusigma
02-28-18, 22:20
I love how the left has gone so insane over him!
I do like how he pisses so many people off to the point of them losing their shit though.
I'll gladly vote for him again just to see "that face" on everyone's face again.
https://gdb.voanews.com/dba4da7c-8e3d-427d-9b56-537380823a08_w250_r1_s.jpg
Backing Trump at least gave me the ability to trigger people on a massive scale.
You can’t imagine the screaming from the left if the man said it, knowing full well he couldn’t, just to piss them off.
I’d personally rather see the following on the shelves at the local book merchant: “What Happened, Again.”
Would be worth it to watch the massive leftist cardiac arrest.
So worth it
I love it that the left has crapped a cow about him declaring for 2020 already. Makes my day!!
This recurring theme is... confusing. It's like you would gladly let him defecate on you, just so someone you disagree with had to put up with the stench. :confused:
That election was the only presidential race that I intentionally left that section of the ballot blank - I didn't want either of them to win. Besides, though it's the most visible branch of the government, Congress is where the real power lies.
All the president is anymore is a face for whatever party they belong to - without congressional and judicial support, nothing will happen, and it was intentionally designed that way by the Founding Fathers. If a company does well, its CEO makes the papers. If it does poorly, the Board and/or shareholders fire them and replace them. That's their job: to be a Public Relations magnet or poster boy. All the actual legwork has always come from subordinates, and influence from outside.
It absolutely did. That is why it was done in remote parts of Poland and written directives didn't exist. And that was in an environment with a strong anti jewish sentiment and a secret program to rid europe of all jews.
Thanks!
BoringGuy45
02-28-18, 22:53
This recurring theme is... confusing. It's like you would gladly let him defecate on you, just so someone you disagree with had to put up with the stench. :confused:
That election was the only presidential race that I intentionally left that section of the ballot blank - I didn't want either of them to win. Besides, though it's the most visible branch of the government, Congress is where the real power lies.
Are you implying that we are traitors for voting?
Dionysusigma
02-28-18, 22:57
Are you implying that we are traitors for voting?
Are you implying that, because tomatoes are fruit, ketchup is a smoothie?
I don't follow.
This recurring theme is... confusing. It's like you would gladly let him defecate on you, just so someone you disagree with had to put up with the stench. :confused:
No, it was more like standing next to cow shit or eating pig shit. Trump is far, far, far from the ideal candidate (I wanted Rand Paul) but if you cannot distinguish the huge difference between Trump and Clinton then it's probably good you left that part blank.
BoringGuy45
02-28-18, 23:30
Are you implying that, because tomatoes are fruit, ketchup is a smoothie?
I don't follow.
As in we were cutting off our noses to spite our faces? We were willing to sabotage the nation just to watch the snowflakes cry? That's how I interpreted it. No, those of us who voted for Trump did so because, once again, we felt he was the lesser of two evils, and not voting, or voting 3rd party, wasn't going to do anything except put the greater of two evils in office.
I think all of us felt that watching the left have a conniption was a nice byproduct of our candidate winning, not our reason for voting for Trump.
As in we were cutting off our noses to spite our faces? We were willing to sabotage the nation just to watch the snowflakes cry? That's how I interpreted it. No, those of us who voted for Trump did so because, once again, we felt he was the lesser of two evils, and not voting, or voting 3rd party, wasn't going to do anything except put the greater of two evils in office.
I think all of us felt that watching the left have a conniption was a nice byproduct of our candidate winning, not our reason for voting for Trump.
This a hundredfold... I’m not enough of a spoiled child to “take my ball and go home,” just because I’m offered the choice between a cold baloney sandwich and a plate of shit. I know that I can have the baloney sandwich and live to fight another day. I watched Obama use his phone and pen to screw with my world for eight years, many of which were without a cooperative Congress. I felt that a lot of Trumps platform was great, and a lot needed some work (wall built yet?). But I’ve seen some very positive change in the last 405 days, and much without the help of a congress that is single party controlled. Is there more work to be done? Yes. But my life is far better off than if Clinton was in office so I will take what I can get.
Seeing the Democrats fall all over themselves trying to come up with SOMETHING about Trump is simple an amazing side show. Russia, porn star sex, cabinet discord, etc... Anything they can to try and salt the earth, and yet the economy keeps humming along, businesses keep doing better and lots of jobs are coming back stateside. The American people full well know who they elected and the average man is better off than he was a year ago. Now it’s Trump calling for gun control... The man is proposing a re-evaluation on bump stocks that have already been evaluated and found to be legal. But the proposal says “I’m doing something.” Then a raise in age limits (which would have to pass Congress and won’t), just to say he’s “doing something.” Clinton would have flooded us with executive orders after Vegas, let alone Florida.
It’s a constant battle and midterm elections are coming up. Don’t leave the ballot blank. The left isn’t...
This recurring theme is... confusing. It's like you would gladly let him defecate on you, just so someone you disagree with had to put up with the stench. :confused:
That election was the only presidential race that I intentionally left that section of the ballot blank - I didn't want either of them to win. Besides, though it's the most visible branch of the government, Congress is where the real power lies.
All the president is anymore is a face for whatever party they belong to - without congressional and judicial support, nothing will happen, and it was intentionally designed that way by the Founding Fathers. If a company does well, its CEO makes the papers. If it does poorly, the Board and/or shareholders fire them and replace them. That's their job: to be a Public Relations magnet or poster boy. All the actual legwork has always come from subordinates, and influence from outside.
I couldn't stand Obama, started hating Bush 2 in his second term and didn't like Clinton at all. However I never lost my damn mind like some of these people have. I mean screaming at the sky on the 1st anniversary of inauguration day? Seriously? That's the point I was making, not that I enjoy him being President but I find peoples reaction to it entertaining to say the least.
I couldn't stand Obama, started hating Bush 2 in his second term and didn't like Clinton at all. However I never lost my damn mind like some of these people have. I mean screaming at the sky on the 1st anniversary of inauguration day? Seriously? That's the point I was making, not that I enjoy him being President but I find peoples reaction to it entertaining to say the least.
I agree with the above. The left is so out of their minds with Trump that watching those buttons being pushed is about the most entertaining thing I've seen in years. I did vote for Trump and while I can't stand 99% of his tweets he has done a lot of good. Although I am starting to worry about the stance he is taking with the NRA and guns!
As in we were cutting off our noses to spite our faces? We were willing to sabotage the nation just to watch the snowflakes cry? That's how I interpreted it. No, those of us who voted for Trump did so because, once again, we felt he was the lesser of two evils, and not voting, or voting 3rd party, wasn't going to do anything except put the greater of two evils in office.
I think all of us felt that watching the left have a conniption was a nice byproduct of our candidate winning, not our reason for voting for Trump.
Exactly. Given the option of Trump or Clinton was like being given the option of a shit sandwich or a gatorade piss bottle...and we'll gladly drink the piss bottle as long as we get to see the other side eat the shit sandwich. I can understand the reasoning in voting for Trump in order to keep Clinton out.
The thing I don't understand is how folks just seemed to forget who Trump was. I'm 35 years old, and for as long as I can remember, Trump seemed to be about as socialy liberal as they came, and I never bought into him changing his stances overnight. It comes as no surprise to me that we are quite possibly facing the biggest threat to our 2nd amendment that we've seen in quite a long time.
Common theme in multiple threads: "see, I told you Trump was a liberal"..
1) no matter what he does, you know it will be less than HRC or Bernie would have done. And those were the picks
2) the one thing the trumpster cares about more than any possible liberal leanings is to be President... And he's not stupid no moatter how media tries to say he is.
I'm pretty confident he knows he would lose his base and thus reelection if he crosses the 2A line.
He's too dependent in the Electoral College on pro 2A states to risk it.
So logic tells me, he's playing slow roll just like he did on DACA. Get some positive press from his previous enemies, but counting on Congress to hold the line.
It's that simple, he's got pretty strong motivation not to piss off gun owners
As in we were cutting off our noses to spite our faces? We were willing to sabotage the nation just to watch the snowflakes cry? That's how I interpreted it. No, those of us who voted for Trump did so because, once again, we felt he was the lesser of two evils, and not voting, or voting 3rd party, wasn't going to do anything except put the greater of two evils in office.
I think all of us felt that watching the left have a conniption was a nice byproduct of our candidate winning, not our reason for voting for Trump.
This exactly. When it comes time for me to vote again in a presidential election, I’ll cast that vote,again, for the lesser of two evils based on how closely the candidate’s agenda matches mine. Position on gun control is important to me, but it’s not the only issue that drives my vote.
Digital_Damage
03-03-18, 07:40
I'm sure it has been covered a million times...
But it is fairly clear Trump is a massive ****ing idiot.
This is such a cluster **** of inept behavior that extends well beyond the 2A.
I had heard that a lot of Trump's staff had other jobs lined up post-election in anticipation of the loss they all assumed was coming. But I kinda think that Trump himself also assumed he was going to lose in 2016, and after losing he could then make the rounds getting all kinds of great media attention ranting about how the system was rigged against him etc etc. He could tweet constantly about Hillary's missteps and how he would have done it better, and not have to do any actual work.
Then comes the election and his opponent is so incompetent, so unlikable, and so corrupt, that she actually loses, despite the system even being rigged in her favor. I have to wonder if Trump had a moment of "Oh you've gotta be shitting me..." when he found out he actually won.
I don't believe even if he didn't really want the job though, that his ego would allow him to step down or not seek reelection.
Diamondback
03-03-18, 10:19
Like the old saw about a dog chasing a car, somehow CATCHING it and finding himself with no idea what to do with it?
Pretty much. Even so, Hillary would obviously be worse. I mean, it's entirely possible she would behave in a more presidential manner in office, but her being there would be worse for me.
That being said, I am currently not happy with what we got either, and considering what's probably still to come, I suspect I'll be even less happy soon enough.
skywalkrNCSU
03-03-18, 10:53
If he goes through with this steel tariff then I don’t see him winning re-election. That would be a punch to the gut of the economy and the easiest way to get re-elected is for the economy to do well during the first term.
RetroRevolver77
03-03-18, 11:01
If he goes through with this steel tariff then I don’t see him winning re-election. That would be a punch to the gut of the economy and the easiest way to get re-elected is for the economy to do well during the first term.
We lost a lot our production capabilities and more importantly, we are losing the ability to process raw materials. Keeping our steel for production use will keep those abilities strong. The fact is, we have to import steel just to keep prices within the confines of the degradation of our dollar. We have become weak because of the globalists running the government in this country.
skywalkrNCSU
03-03-18, 11:29
We lost a lot our production capabilities and more importantly, we are losing the ability to process raw materials. Keeping our steel for production use will keep those abilities strong. The fact is, we have to import steel just to keep prices within the confines of the degradation of our dollar. We have become weak because of the globalists running the government in this country.
Thinking that imposing a tariff on steel and aluminum is going to help the economy shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge on the economics of trade. If we need to have some production capabilities for strategic purposes we would be FAR better off subsidizing those industries at a minimum level to keep them afloat.
Here is what happens when you impose the tariffs being discussed. Anything with steel and aluminum in it goes up in price in a noticeable way. You know how many things we buy have steel and aluminum in them? A whole lot. The extra costs are not going to be eaten by the companies using that material, it will be passed to the consumer. This takes money out of the hands on your everyday consumer to spend on other goods and will hurt other industries that have nothing to do with steel/aluminum because disposable income is lowered. It is deadweight loss.
Then when some of these companies realize that it is too expensive to manufacture their goods in the US they are going to Mexico or Canada and then they will ship the final product to the US. This results in an increase in cost for goods we buy along with a large loss of jobs, far outweighing the jobs gained in the industries that tariffs were supposed to protect.
That doesn't even begin to discuss the issues from when China retaliates and puts trade restrictions on US goods. Now anyone sending goods over to China is likely going to be impacted and their revenue will be hit likely causing a lack of income and a decrease in jobs.
This is basic economics and is one of the few topics that nearly all economists agree on. You can keep spouting rhetoric about globalists and whatever garbage but that doesn't matter at all because this move will be painful to the US economy on so many levels. There are a lot of things I don't like about Trump but this is above and beyond the stupidest thing he has proposed and the market has already shown how it feels about it.
Averageman
03-03-18, 11:46
Thinking that imposing a tariff on steel and aluminum is going to help the economy shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge on the economics of trade. If we need to have some production capabilities for strategic purposes we would be FAR better off subsidizing those industries at a minimum level to keep them afloat.
Here is what happens when you impose the tariffs being discussed. Anything with steel and aluminum in it goes up in price in a noticeable way. You know how many things we buy have steel and aluminum in them? A whole lot. The extra costs are not going to be eaten by the companies using that material, it will be passed to the consumer. This takes money out of the hands on your everyday consumer to spend on other goods and will hurt other industries that have nothing to do with steel/aluminum because disposable income is lowered. It is deadweight loss.
Then when some of these companies realize that it is too expensive to manufacture their goods in the US they are going to Mexico or Canada and then they will ship the final product to the US. This results in an increase in cost for goods we buy along with a large loss of jobs, far outweighing the jobs gained in the industries that tariffs were supposed to protect.
That doesn't even begin to discuss the issues from when China retaliates and puts trade restrictions on US goods. Now anyone sending goods over to China is likely going to be impacted and their revenue will be hit likely causing a lack of income and a decrease in jobs.
This is basic economics and is one of the few topics that nearly all economists agree on. You can keep spouting rhetoric about globalists and whatever garbage but that doesn't matter at all because this move will be painful to the US economy on so many levels. There are a lot of things I don't like about Trump but this is above and beyond the stupidest thing he has proposed and the market has already shown how it feels about it.
I have to ask you this because I am curious as to your opinion.
If we maintain the status quo we will remain in a deficit due to our own products not reaching foreign markets due to tariffs and tax situations in foreign markets, correct?
If we demand equal tariffs and taxes on our products in foreign markets are we not just asking to level the playing field or are we putting an onerous burden on the Countries that manipulate their domestic markets in order to keep our products out?
One thing about Globalism is that it touted free trade in International markets. We agreed to slow down American production to equalize economies and in essence tie one hand behind our back in order to bring other Countries economies up.
We have done this for decades now and now feel the economic "pinch" along with a strategic necessity to remain self reliant in some economic and military area's. How is this then a Tariff, when all we are asking for is equal treatment economically in foreign markets?
skywalkrNCSU
03-03-18, 12:17
I have to ask you this because I am curious as to your opinion.
If we maintain the status quo we will remain in a deficit due to our own products not reaching foreign markets due to tariffs and tax situations in foreign markets, correct?
If we demand equal tariffs and taxes on our products in foreign markets are we not just asking to level the playing field or are we putting an onerous burden on the Countries that manipulate their domestic markets in order to keep our products out?
One thing about Globalism is that it touted free trade in International markets. We agreed to slow down American production to equalize economies and in essence tie one hand behind our back in order to bring other Countries economies up.
We have done this for decades now and now feel the economic "pinch" along with a strategic necessity to remain self reliant in some economic and military area's. How is this then a Tariff, when all we are asking for is equal treatment economically in foreign markets?
Here is the thing about a tariff, it really only hurts the country that imposes it. It ends up artificially raising the cost of goods in that country and has many more unintended consequences like I mentioned in the previous post. It not only hurts the consumers and companies who use those goods but it drives other jobs out of the country meaning we have less jobs than before and higher cost of goods.
We should not be trying to compete with other countries on goods they can produce far cheaper because that allows us to take advantage of their low cost to produce. Like I mentioned before, this does not count things that we need for national security purposes, sometimes we just need to bite the bullet there but it's better to just subsidize the amount we need rather than hurting everyone in the economy. If China can produce a widget for $1 because they pay their people pennies a day and whatnot and we can use that widget in all sorts of things in this country but it costs us $5 to produce it why should we bother? Let's take advantage of China and not tie up our resources producing something at an inefficient rate. This allows us to use our resources for things more valuable that producing that widget where we cannot possibly compete in the global market.
Freeing up our resources allows us to innovate and come up with goods and services that other countries want to buy from us because they are too tied up manufacturing widgets since that is all the skill their labor force has. This is how we start to turn around our deficit and it is by innovation. No other country around the world wants to buy US steel because they can just get it from China so if we pour resources into production of something that someone else can already do better then we are just hurting ourselves. We raise the costs of goods sold in the US, we raise the cost of goods manufactured in the US that we sell to foreign markets, and we lose more manufacturing jobs compared to those gained.
When a country imposes trade restrictions it causes that country to operate in an inefficient manner. This ties up resources they could be using elsewhere, prevents innovation, and causes the products they do produce to be less desirable in the international market because the cost of those goods has increased.
I know that wasn't a direct answer to a lot of your questions but people tend to miss the point with who gets hurt and what really happens when trade restrictions are in place. We can't control if China puts a tariff on US goods but we shouldn't be trying to sell China goods that they can already produce at a lower cost, we should be trying to sell China goods and services that they cannot get elsewhere. When that is the case they will either need to remove a trade restriction or the company here will raise the price to the Chinese consumers to account for the tariff. It pretty much always ends up being passed down to the consumer at the end of the day. What we can control is if we put trade restrictions on Chinese goods and unfortunately if we do that then a country like China is likely to retaliate and that doubles down on the hurt we have in this case. Basically, if China wants to hurt their economy to spite us there is nothing we can do except take advantage of what China can provide us.
I am not a PhD in economics but this is a topic I studied pretty intensively so I am not talking out of my ass with this. Every economics professor I had was either conservative or libertarian and this was a subject that was universally agreed upon.
I googled 'can the us steel industry keep up with demand after the tariffs' and found this article:
The Trump administration's hard-edged proposals to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports would boost a flagging sector of American business. No doubt.
The problem is they would probably have unintended consequences that could hurt the economy.
Something that occurred to me, based on simple economics is that 'the price of domestic steel and aluminum could also rise because of market forces.' Want to bet that as production ramps up the price of domestic steel will stabilize just below the level of the tariff?
The Commerce Department on Friday sent President Trump several recommendations, including across-the-board tariffs and stiffer targeted penalties on certain nations that sell steel and aluminum in the United States. Trump has until April to decide.
Both metals are crucial raw material for autos, airplanes and appliances made in the United States. The construction, oil and utility industries use them for beams, pipelines and wires, as well as cans for food and drinks.
Imports make up about a third of the 100 million tons of steel used by American businesses every year, and more than 90% of the 5.5 million tons of aluminum used here. For years, imports have caused trouble, and led to plant closings, for the U.S. steel and aluminum industries.
It's not clear how much imports will fall if Trump follows through with the tariffs. It's also not clear whether American steel mills and aluminum smelters can increase production enough to match the overseas supply that would be lost.
The American Iron and Steel Institute, the trade group for steelmakers, applauded the proposed tariffs and said domestic steel mills could increase production enough to close the gap. But experts question that claim.
They point out that imports make up far too much of the market for some products, such as steel pipes and tubes, to have domestic mills make it up. And a steel mill that makes one type of steel product, such as sheet steel used in the body of a car, can't easily be converted to make another type of steel product, such as pipelines or tubing.
"There's a necessity to that imported material," said Philip Gibbs, a metals analyst for KeyBanc Capital Markets. "In places like oil country, which uses pipe and tube, you'd definitely feel it. You would need to resuscitate a lot of mills that have been shut down in the last three or four years. It'd take a lot of capital to do that."
The Commerce Department says that 10 furnaces, which produce molten steel, have closed since 2000. In addition, eight aluminum smelters have closed or cut back operations since the start of 2015, according to the Aluminum Association.
Even the Aluminum Association, which represents the domestic industry, concedes that some aluminum has to be imported.
The U.S. aluminum industry could satisfy more demand than it does today, but not all domestic demand, said spokesman Matt Meenan.
The aluminum trade group is cautious about the proposed tariffs. It says they should be targeted at China but not Canada and the European Union.
Aluminum imports from those countries support American aluminum jobs, the trade group said, because they are an important part of the business operations of the remaining U.S. industry.
So American companies would still need to buy imported steel and aluminum, even with tariffs in place.
And that leads to a problem for the broader economy.
Imported steel and aluminum would become more expensive because of tariffs. And the price of domestic steel and aluminum could also rise because of market forces. That means manufacturers could be forced to raise prices for products built in the United States, like cars and appliances.
And American-made cars, planes and appliances could wind up with far fewer American-made parts. Because domestic parts suppliers depend on imported steel and aluminum, they could be forced to raise prices and lose market share to foreign competitors.
"If you impose tariffs, you might think you're doing a good job saving jobs," said KeyBanc's Gibbs. "But at the end of the day, people will farm out components and products offshore."
Even some members of Congress who have steel or aluminum factories in their states are worried about the possible tariffs. At a White House meeting earlier last week, both Republicans and Democrats urged caution on trade action on steel and aluminum.
"Mr. President, I think we do need to be careful here," Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, told Trump at a White House meeting that the press was allowed to attend. "We make aluminum and we make steel in Missouri, but we buy a lot of aluminum and we buy a lot of steel as well."
"We've got to be careful because we don't want to increase the cost to our consumers of all these steel products that go into our other manufacturing," said Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio who served as United States Trade Representative during the Bush administration.
Another big concern: The tariffs could trigger retaliation. Other countries could impose tariffs on American exports.
"I think everyone in this room supports you holding China accountable for its overcapacity," said Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican. But he said that the kind of tariffs Trump was considering can "do as much damage as good."
Trump seemed poised to take action on imports, no matter the cost to other industries.
"I look at it two ways: I want to keep prices down, but I also want to make sure that we have a steel industry and an aluminum industry," he said.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/19/news/economy/steel-aluminum-us-economy/index.html
Another good article: https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/report/the-us-steel-market-needs-free-trade-not-favoritism
skywalkrNCSU
03-03-18, 12:35
I wish I could find the study but it was something I read in back when I was taking an econ course on foreign trade that if we completely did away with the trade restrictions we have in place for the sugar industry we could pay every single US worker in the sugar industry a six figure salary to do absolutely nothing and the economy would be better off by importing sugar. That was how much the tariff raised the cost of goods sold in the US and how many other jobs were lost because it was then cheaper to produce the candy or whatever in Mexico with non-US sugar and then import it.
Digital_Damage
03-03-18, 12:54
If he goes through with this steel tariff then I don’t see him winning re-election. That would be a punch to the gut of the economy and the easiest way to get re-elected is for the economy to do well during the first term.
I don't see him getting a nomination...
The economy is tanking and if it continues its slide it can easily be said his term will be the worst is modern history. He has not accomplished ANYTHING of value for the people, he got some fat cats fatter and that is about it.
I don't see him getting a nomination...
The economy is tanking and if it continues its slide it can easily be said his term will be the worst is modern history. He has not accomplished ANYTHING of value for the people, he got some fat cats fatter and that is about it.
Really? Every business i deal with has been swamped since the election, though its a small sample.
I just dont see steel being a big thing again. The market is saturated. Cheap steel brought in can be used to manufacture finished goods or semi-processed materials to be used for “raw materials” of other markets. Terrifs can be effective, but its in rare cases like dumping, etc.
Averageman
03-03-18, 14:03
Here is the thing about a tariff, it really only hurts the country that imposes it. It ends up artificially raising the cost of goods in that country and has many more unintended consequences like I mentioned in the previous post. It not only hurts the consumers and companies who use those goods but it drives other jobs out of the country meaning we have less jobs than before and higher cost of goods.
We should not be trying to compete with other countries on goods they can produce far cheaper because that allows us to take advantage of their low cost to produce. Like I mentioned before, this does not count things that we need for national security purposes, sometimes we just need to bite the bullet there but it's better to just subsidize the amount we need rather than hurting everyone in the economy. If China can produce a widget for $1 because they pay their people pennies a day and whatnot and we can use that widget in all sorts of things in this country but it costs us $5 to produce it why should we bother? Let's take advantage of China and not tie up our resources producing something at an inefficient rate. This allows us to use our resources for things more valuable that producing that widget where we cannot possibly compete in the global marke
When a country imposes trade restrictions it causes that country to operate in an inefficient manner. This ties up resources they could be using elsewhere, prevents innovation, and causes the products they do produce to be less desirable in the international market because the cost of those goods has increased.
I know that wasn't a direct answer to a lot of your questions but people tend to miss the point with who gets hurt and what really happens when trade restrictions are in place. We can't control if China puts a tariff on US goods but...
I am not a PhD in economics but this is a topic I studied pretty intensively so I am not talking out of my ass with this. Every economics professor I had was either conservative or libertarian and this was a subject that was universally agreed upon.
Here's my point, I have studied this a bit also and this has always confused me;
If trade restrictions by Tariff hurt us, why is the Chinese economy able to do it so well? As a matter of fact it's not just the Chinese, there is a long list of Countries who choose to impose Tariff's and Taxes on imported goods and the EU is a big example of how it is done.
So why can they get away with it and not be dealing with negative consequences?
I would agree if our resources are finite as in numbers of skilled laborers to make steel, we would rather be making technology based products and leave the raw industrial stuff to lesser economies to deal with.
There is how ever a rub in that. China sells us many products that go in to our M.I.C. and we are now dependent upon them to keep our Battleships, Tanks and Aircraft moving, so much so we have lost the edge in some of that production to the point of near emergency levels.
Ever get a out of spec. bolt?
If you have perhaps it was because the market is flooded with out of spec. hardware and it breaks or stretches to the point of failure. The reason why is over the last twenty years the market has been flooded with cheap hardware being manufactured in China and sold under the guise of being in spec. Heat treatment is usually the reason, bad machining is sometimes also, but these bolts are being applied to our Combat Vehicles.
So not only are we having tariffs applied to our goods being sold in China, we are buy Grade A and receiving crap for the price we are paying in return.
In the end I would think we may well have to fire up the furnaces and start smelting some ore, and making our own computer cards again, because if we don't we cannot rely on our trade enemies to remain in the "enemies in trade" only category, it becomes a National Security issue. I believe the Japanese did the same thing to us with rubber imports in WWII.
The whole "Global Economy" may work well in theory, but when massive economies place tariff's and taxes on our goods and artificially inflate the values of their currency, perhaps it is time to realign things.
All of this at this point is rumor and conjecture. It's a negotiable point isn't it?
I don't see a problem with negotiating.
skywalkrNCSU
03-03-18, 14:33
Here's my point, I have studied this a bit also and this has always confused me;
If trade restrictions by Tariff hurt us, why is the Chinese economy able to do it so well? As a matter of fact it's not just the Chinese, there is a long list of Countries who choose to impose Tariff's and Taxes on imported goods and the EU is a big example of how it is done.
So why can they get away with it and not be dealing with negative consequences?
I would agree if our resources are finite as in numbers of skilled laborers to make steel, we would rather be making technology based products and leave the raw industrial stuff to lesser economies to deal with.
There is how ever a rub in that. China sells us many products that go in to our M.I.C. and we are now dependent upon them to keep our Battleships, Tanks and Aircraft moving, so much so we have lost the edge in some of that production to the point of near emergency levels.
Ever get a out of spec. bolt?
If you have perhaps it was because the market is flooded with out of spec. hardware and it breaks or stretches to the point of failure. The reason why is over the last twenty years the market has been flooded with cheap hardware being manufactured in China and sold under the guise of being in spec. Heat treatment is usually the reason, bad machining is sometimes also, but these bolts are being applied to our Combat Vehicles.
So not only are we having tariffs applied to our goods being sold in China, we are buy Grade A and receiving crap for the price we are paying in return.
In the end I would think we may well have to fire up the furnaces and start smelting some ore, and making our own computer cards again, because if we don't we cannot rely on our trade enemies to remain in the "enemies in trade" only category, it becomes a National Security issue. I believe the Japanese did the same thing to us with rubber imports in WWII.
The whole "Global Economy" may work well in theory, but when massive economies place tariff's and taxes on our goods and artificially inflate the values of their currency, perhaps it is time to realign things.
All of this at this point is rumor and conjecture. It's a negotiable point isn't it?
I don't see a problem with negotiating.
Just because some other countries have trade restrictions in place and are doing well doesn’t mean that they aren’t being hurt by those restrictions. China has been able to do so well because they have been able to produce so much so cheap. Their competitive advantage is a whole lot of man power for not much cost. However, they are now starting to lose out to India who is producing goods even cheaper.
These countries can get by operating in inefficient ways because they don’t care about the quality of life for their citizens but once a poorer country gets the means to ramp up production of their own it starts a race to the bottom. We can either try to win that race, which is not a good thing, or we can take advantage of it.
It’s like the sugar industry example I mentioned before, yeah we are getting by with those restrictions in place but we could be better off if we removed them. The biggest difference between that and the steel restrictions is China can hurt us right back whereas the Caribbean countries that would supply us with sugar don’t have the same leverage. China cares less about its citizens than the US does so they don’t mind hurting them for a while to put the squeeze on us for a tariff like Trump is talking about. They know the blowback we will face from it plus the extra pressure from a trade war will be disastrous for the US and it will get us to back off.
If we want to compete with the Chinese on steel, which would be stupid, a better method would be subsidizing US production. At least then there wouldn’t be so many other consequences such as increased cost of goods across a myriad of industries, lost jobs, and lost revenue from exports due to a trade war which China can stomach more than us.
Really? Every business i deal with has been swamped since the election, though its a small sample.
I just dont see steel being a big thing again. The market is saturated. Cheap steel brought in can be used to manufacture finished goods or semi-processed materials to be used for “raw materials” of other markets. Terrifs can be effective, but its in rare cases like dumping, etc.
Tariffs on sugar cost consumers more the 2 billion dollars a year, the cost is always passed on to consumers.
Tim Worstall , Contributor (Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own)
A remarkably large number of people seem to think that imposing tariffs on imports into the United States would be a good idea. That number, unfortunately, including the President-elect, Donald Trump. However, we do have an American industry which is protected by exactly such trade tariffs, the sugar one. And we even know what the effects of those sugar tariffs are--they make all Americans poorer. So, if that is true then what is the effect of the more general tariffs Donald Trump and others want going to be? Well, obviously, they're going to make everyone poorer, aren't they?
And if we're honest about it making the citizenry poorer is not normally regarded as a general aim of economic policy.
That the US sugar industry is protected is well known:
The United States (U.S.) is the fifth largest sugar producer and fifth largest consumer of sugar in the world. The U.S. sugar industry has enjoyed trade protection since 1789 when Congress enacted the first tariff against foreign-produced sugar. Since then, the U.S. government has continued to provide trade support and protection for its domestic sugar industry.
The framework for the current U.S. sugar program has its roots in the so-called “Farm Bill” enacted in 1990. The farm bill is the primary vehicle for setting U.S. sugar policy and that policy is currently based on three main pillars: price support through preferential loan agreements, domestic market controls and tariff-rate quotas.
Very well protected in fact. And the effects of the protection are also well known:
In fiscal year (FY) 2013, Americans consumed 12 million tons of refined sugar, with the average price for raw sugar 6 cents per pound higher than the average world price. That means, based on 24 billion pounds of refined sugar use at a 6-cents-per-pound U.S. premium, Americans paid an unnecessary $1.4 billion extra for sugar. That is equivalent to more than $310,000 per sugar farm in the United States.
Now, we could just regard that as a transfer from one group of Americans to another. And perhaps sugar farmers are such righteous beings that we should be forced to pay them more. But the net effect is not zero, it's negative:
U.S. sugar policy costs taxpayers millions of dimes per year. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the sugar program imposes a $49 million net cost on the economy.[9] According to a study commissioned by the Sweetener Users Association, the program costs consumers $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion.[10] According to a study by the American Enterprise Institute, the program costs consumers $2.4 billion per year, with a net economic cost of $1 billion per year.
Note that while the estimates vary there's no one there stating that the program doesn't have a negative overall cost. And a negative overall cost is the same as stating that everyone is being made poorer. They're the same statement in fact.
So, now we've got Donald Trump:
Though threats of tariffs could be a bargaining tool, Trump has been talking up the idea for years. In a 2011 book, he called for a 20 percent tax on any foreign country shipping goods into the U.S. He promised them consistently throughout his campaign, and doubled down in the first news conference since his election, pledging a "major border tax" for firms that shift jobs abroad. Trump has suggested a tax of 45 percent on imports from China and 35 percent on goods from Mexico. His nominee for U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, noted in a 2011 article that using tariffs to promote American industry has been a part of the Republican Party’s toolkit since its founding.
The effect of the already existing tariffs is to make Americans poorer, the effect of the new tariffs will be to? Yes, well done, to make Americans poorer.
Which really leaves us with only the one question. Why does the about to be President dislike Americans so much that he wants them all to be poorer? And yes, there is actually good reason why 100% of economists asked said that import tariffs are a bad idea.
Averageman
03-03-18, 16:25
And that is an example, I understand that and yes, we do need sugar and I would agree that is a very questionable strategy.
Sugar however isn't Steel or Aluminium, and although sugar is essential to us, we aren't building our infra structure with sugar, we're building it and nearly ever combat vehicle with aluminum and steel.
We've gotten out of the business of refining, in no small part due to factors such as the EPA, Globalization and Labor costs, but it is and will remain essential to the nation as a whole and we must retain the capabilities to produce our own.
I do believe China is dumping steel and steel products on the market.
Really? Every business i deal with has been swamped since the election, though its a small sample.
I just dont see steel being a big thing again. The market is saturated. Cheap steel brought in can be used to manufacture finished goods or semi-processed materials to be used for “raw materials” of other markets. Terrifs can be effective, but its in rare cases like dumping, etc.Same old Trump haters doing their thing...
In general I'm not a fan of tariffs or protectionism.
But the steel & aluminum import thing is far more complex than most are realizing.
Steel cost is already very volatile due to increased Chinese demand and decreased production. That has swung far more than 25% in the last 2 years more than once.
End of the world? Not!
Example: average car has 2,000 pounds of steel and 300 lbs of aluminum in it. Let's assume material prices went up the full 25%, which they won't. But for the sake of argument let's assume that. The average material cost increase on a car would be $175.
Noise level, far outweighed by the already volatile Market.
Cost increase for a can of soup or a can of coke? Under 1/2 Cent. Impact on a dishwasher would be .25 to $0.50.
This is a shot across the bow. Maybe it'll save a dying industry, who knows. But it's also a big international trade dependence thing. If we allow China to put our steel and aluminum production out of business, and then they start cutting capacity or diverting more of it domestically like they've been doing, our manufacturing is at risk. There is also a big issue with counterfeit / out of spec import steel and aluminum.
China wants to retaliate with tariffs of its own? Oh noes, furniture, clothes, and cheap toys might go up in price. (That's the majority of what we import from them) Maybe to the point that domestic production becomes viable again. We used to have thriving Industries in these areas. We already make a bunch of electronics in Mexico due to NAFTA, it wouldn't hurt some of the consumer business to come back there. Or Korea.
I've watched the long term effect of NAFTA, and think now that the American worker got screwed. Yes, giant Global corporations might have benefited slightly, but it didn't save them from going bankrupt, or being close to doing so. Same for the globalization of information and business workers.
My read was that TPP was on its way to being as bad as NAFTA or worse.
I'm not opposed to these types agreements in general, but believe they should not be disadvantageous to the US just for the sake to get an agreement.
Back to the tariff, this may be Trump trying to jump start a critical industry. Might be a crazy ivan move to get other nation's serious about trade. Maybe he's locking in rust belt votes. Or he may just be stupid.
Whatever it is, it's not the end of the world (yet). I took advantage of one of the recent market dips to rebalance to my advantage. Will do it again if it dips again.
If the market crashes over this, then it was going to do so anyway.
I have a similar view on brexit. Many of the same voices said it was going to be the end of England. Economy will crash. It hasn't been, nor is it likely to be. Long-term I believe England will benefit. There are other EU countries grumbling at the expense and constraint of the EU, and making noises about exiting.
I sure like the Shengen zone in the EU. Like that my euro sim roams in all EU countries with no surcharge. There's clearly something benefit for those type of agreements. But in the case of the EU there's some very high costs and constraints. Brexit may reel that in some, just like showing some backbone on trade might just get the attention of our trading partners.
Averageman
03-03-18, 19:55
Yeah, what he said..
Tariffs on sugar cost consumers more the 2 billion dollars a year, the cost is always passed on to consumers.
In the example I used, certain countries were dumping steel. We punished them with a tariff. That increase was not passed to the customer, because the customer did not receive the "discount" from the steel that was sold to them below production cost. Like I said, rare cases. Encouraging companies to produce here is preferred, from a high level, but I dont know enough about the raw steel industry to say what is good or bad.
Not every fluctuation in cost is passed to consumers, as prices of daily items would change every week.
And that is an example, I understand that and yes, we do need sugar and I would agree that is a very questionable strategy.
Sugar however isn't Steel or Aluminium, and although sugar is essential to us, we aren't building our infra structure with sugar, we're building it and nearly ever combat vehicle with aluminum and steel.
We've gotten out of the business of refining, in no small part due to factors such as the EPA, Globalization and Labor costs, but it is and will remain essential to the nation as a whole and we must retain the capabilities to produce our own.
I do believe China is dumping steel and steel products on the market.
I agree, they absolutely are.
In the totality of things, the least expensive thing for us to do might be to incentivize some of the steel and aluminum (particularly aluminum) producers who closed to open back up and then support the steel and aluminum industries as strategic resources.
FlyingHunter
03-04-18, 08:03
Enjoyed watching CNN degrade into seizures this morning after Trumps comments:
U.S. President Donald Trump praised Chinese President Xi Jinping Saturday after the ruling Communist party announced it was eliminating the two-term limit for the presidency, paving the way for Xi to serve indefinitely, according to audio aired by CNN.
“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN.“And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.
It is not clear if Trump, 71, was making the comment about extending presidential service in jest. The White House did not respond to a request for comment late Saturday.
Enjoyed watching CNN degrade into seizures this morning after Trumps comments:
U.S. President Donald Trump praised Chinese President Xi Jinping Saturday after the ruling Communist party announced it was eliminating the two-term limit for the presidency, paving the way for Xi to serve indefinitely, according to audio aired by CNN.
“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN.“And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.
It is not clear if Trump, 71, was making the comment about extending presidential service in jest. The White House did not respond to a request for comment late Saturday.Reuters: "President Trump praises Chinese leader extending tenure for life"
I heard the clip. He was making jokes, it was told as a joke, and it got a big laugh.
Yet the media, as always, is selectively interpreting / quoting to make it as damaging for Trump as possible.
He also joked about the "chaos in the White House" that "who knows who might be next to go maybe Melania"
Fox showed eight separate clips from every major mainstream news organization yesterday where the headline was "White House Chaos". Nice repeatable sound bite.
Statistically highly unlikely that eight separate journalistic sources would arrive at the exact same sound bite to describe the turnover situation.
This occurred so often during the election, that I do believe there is a chance that there is agreement / collusion to use common sound bites to reinforce memes. This just happens too often and too consistently.
Sugar however isn't Steel or Aluminium, and although sugar is essential to us, we aren't building our infra structure with sugar, we're building it and nearly ever combat vehicle with aluminum and steel.
The sugar industry in FL. is one of the most blatant examples of crony capitalism that exists. It has huge ripple impact on the state of Florida including water, development, ecological, Etc that is felt state wide. It makes the water agencies some of the most powerful in the state and routinely negatively impacts the Everglades and the Florida Keys due to water diversion and pollution.
It's not a strategic material, there are less expensive alternatives that have much lower ecological impact.
It should absolutely not be subsidized or protected, though I would draw the line at restricting it entirely.
These are mega-corporations, not "farmers". It is done at mega level of scale more similar to Industrial then farming. And they have very negative impact on legitimate Farmers like cattlemen who have been there a hundred years or more.
FL DEP and Fed EPA are coming down hard on Cattlemen, aquaculture, etc, while the sugar industry who has much higher negative impact is allowed to walk.
Steel, completely different situation. It's a strategic material, and increasing world demand is impacting availability.
Good bad or indifferent, what Trump is advocating for is a Level Playing Field very different than the sugar situation. I don't think we'll ever get it, and only time will tell regarding any tariff long term impacts.
Counterfeit steel grades and fasteners is already a big deal. We even talked about it in this forum. Chinese rebar failing strength tests. We are seeing examples of Chinese electronics being non trustworthy as they either use counterfeit chips or worse have built-in back doors or call home spy hooks. We've seen it in drones, home automation light switches, and cell phones.
This occurred so often during the election, that I do believe there is a chance that there is agreement / collusion to use common sound bites to reinforce memes. This just happens too often and too consistently.
It is common practice that one, maybe two, source(s) will post their coverage to the "pool" of content available for all/most stations or networks to use in their own coverage. AP, Rueters, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. all contribute to "pool" content. Content from CSPAN dn the White House is open for use by anyone and usually posted to the "pool" as well. Most media places will just grab what is available from the pool that supports their views rather than spending money on the resources to have their own coverage, it is easier to just "drag and drop". The majority of the media is "Left" and/or Democrats, or their views fluctuate with the direction the wind blows. Very likely there were back room deals that are still in place encouraging the one-sided angle in coverage.
It is common practice that one, maybe two, source(s) will post their coverage to the "pool" of content available for all/most stations or networks to use in their own coverage. AP, Rueters, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. all contribute to "pool" content. Content from CSPAN dn the White House is open for use by anyone and usually posted to the "pool" as well. Most media places will just grab what is available from the pool that supports their views rather than spending money on the resources to have their own coverage, it is easier to just "drag and drop". The majority of the media is "Left" and/or Democrats, or their views fluctuate with the direction the wind blows. Very likely there were back room deals that are still in place encouraging the one-sided angle in coverage.AP would be the extreme example of that, and yes it would very much be the norm in printed / web type headlines.
TV Newscaster specific phraseology is much less likely to use the same exact sound bites. Statistically, is very unlikely.
Watch your local news broadcasts across channels, you'll see the same event described and positioned with very different leading sentences.
I worked for and with multiple television stations in college. Have a niece who is a newscaster for one of the major Atlanta television stations currently.
TV news does not operate in lock step like we are seeing normally. Granted, I did not have exposure to national news operations, though did to the news feeds. (The news wires literally used to be a row of teletypes even into the 80s)
Sometimes the catch phrase just makes sense and sticks. But it seems to be happening too consistently.
Kind of interesting, even Bill Maher went off on a tear on how big media is intentionally conflating things into fake news and false moral outrage. (IE: intentionally misrepresenting Trump's joking comment.)
He went as far as to say that they have lost sight of their critical role: get the truth to the people. Called out Puffington Host, Salon, and some others by name.
Here the link to the Maher segment on fake news I mentioned. And he's right... If it's "Twitter is upset" or "unnamed sources report", it's bogus. Somewhere along the line journalistic integrity slipped.
https://youtu.be/UL67FQ_uGBg
He's a pretty solid Trump hater, but still mentions that no wonder Trump supporters are furious at fake news.
AP would be the extreme example of that, and yes it would very much be the norm in printed / web type headlines.
TV Newscaster specific phraseology is much less likely to use the same exact sound bites. Statistically, is very unlikely.
Watch your local news broadcasts across channels, you'll see the same event described and positioned with very different leading sentences.
I worked for and with multiple television stations in college. Have a niece who is a newscaster for one of the major Atlanta television stations currently.
TV news does not operate in lock step like we are seeing normally. Granted, I did not have exposure to national news operations, though did to the news feeds. (The news wires literally used to be a row of teletypes even into the 80s)
Sometimes the catch phrase just makes sense and sticks. But it seems to be happening too consistently.
Kind of interesting, even Bill Maher went off on a tear on how big media is intentionally conflating things into fake news and false moral outrage. (IE: intentionally misrepresenting Trump's joking comment.)
He went as far as to say that they have lost sight of their critical role: get the truth to the people. Called out Puffington Host, Salon, and some others by name.
Not disagreeing with you, just want to make that clear. The last 10 years or so TV news is becoming more consolidated, at least on the affiliate levels. More and more stations are being bought up by a ever shrinking number of corporations. Toss is the transition to digital all those years back and its now pretty normal for one location to be broadcasting multiple networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW). I can't speak for cable networks having never worked for one, but I have worked for over-the-air stations the past 15 years. The younger generations of reporters, often by direction of "Corporate" build/produce their shows around what the big networks provide for affiliate use. Drag and drop to download is much easier than going out and actually gathering stories on their own. I lost count of how many times I've almost had to resort to drawing pictures to explain to newsroom personnel that "no, loss of internet does not constitute an on-air emergency and I will not being calling in an engineer for you." I actually had a News Director tell me back during the election they were instructed that for every 1 Trump nuetral story they needed 2 Pro-Hillary stories, and at least 1 anti-Trump story.
Not disagreeing with you, just want to make that clear. The last 10 years or so TV news is becoming more consolidated, at least on the affiliate levels. More and more stations are being bought up by a ever shrinking number of corporations. Toss is the transition to digital all those years back and its now pretty normal for one location to be broadcasting multiple networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW). I can't speak for cable networks having never worked for one, but I have worked for over-the-air stations the past 15 years. The younger generations of reporters, often by direction of "Corporate" build/produce their shows around what the big networks provide for affiliate use. Drag and drop to download is much easier than going out and actually gathering stories on their own. I lost count of how many times I've almost had to resort to drawing pictures to explain to newsroom personnel that "no, loss of internet does not constitute an on-air emergency and I will not being calling in an engineer for you." I actually had a News Director tell me back during the election they were instructed that for every 1 Trump nuetral story they needed 2 Pro-Hillary stories, and at least 1 anti-Trump story.That's the level of editorial disruption we need to be concerned about.
Disappointing but not surprising.
That's the level of editorial disruption we need to be concerned about.
Disappointing but not surprising.
And that is just at a small market level.
Fortunately the Programming Director is a patriot and has some say in content for newscasts. Between him, myself, and some people from corporate we've met and discovered were just as unhappy with thing, we've managed to get small changes in place and are making headway on bigger ones. I can neither confirm nor deny that occasionally we've had technical difficulties at coincidentally opportune times (sorry Colbert watchers, FCC said we HAD to test the Emergency Alert System during his monologue).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.