Trade Wars and Tariffs

#4,501
#4,501
BernardKingGOAT said:
That's not as clever as you thinkšŸ˜‰

I agree he's making great strides with the border.

Working to end wars? šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£

I certainly agree with improving trade deals with China, but he is incompetent at international trade. It isn't some real estate distributive negotiation. He doesn't understand how to negotiate in an integrated manner, which is required with international trade
Click to expand...

Yes. Thereā€™s one going on between Russia and Ukraine. Have you noticed?

No doubt he has Lighthizerā€™s digits. RL is one of the best trade officials weā€™ve ever had.
 
#4,502
#4,502
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Yes. Thereā€™s one going on between Russia and Ukraine. Have you noticed?

No doubt he has Lighthizerā€™s digits. RL is one of the best trade officials weā€™ve ever had.
Click to expand...
šŸ¤­ His handling of that has been a CF from day 1 in the WH. That he voted with China and NK, siding with Russia was spineless and self serving.

Whoever has been doing our trade negotiations is the worst we've had in my lifetime
 
#4,503
#4,503
Letā€™s review:

Huff thinks using a word like ā€œdivestā€ makes him smart.
n_huffhines said:
Historically, it's normal for presidents to divest to avoid controversy.
Click to expand...

Huff decides to smack talk another poster to try to make himself look as smart as he thinks he is.
n_huffhines said:
I picked one of the names you mentioned and did some very basic research to find out the answer is yes. LOL.

I suggest everybody ignore Thunder and just peek every once in a while. Life is much better on VN without him wasting your time on rants that could have been replaced by a Google search that he kept to himself.
Click to expand...

Huff drops the line into the pond, waiting for a nibble.
n_huffhines said:
If I take all my holdings out of Company X where I made my fortune and put it in a blind trust, did I not divest?
Click to expand...

Huff doesnā€™t get a bite, and gets an education instead.
hog88 said:
Thatā€™s not what he did. He put his holdings into a blind trust.
Click to expand...

Vol423 said:
No. You didn't. Furthermore, I'm not even sure you understand the mechanics of what you're suggesting. "If I take all my holdings out of Company X where I made my fortune and put it in a blind trust", as you worded it, would mean selling all of the stock or other equity interest in a business that you started and ran. The resulting cash would then be put in a blind trust.

Theoretically, you could not divest of your ownership but instead place the business in a blind trust. A founder of a business would naturally be reluctant to do that as he would have zero control over the company or knowledge of its operations.

Most former presidents were life-time politicians who just had stock portfolios, real estate and other purchased assets. They didn't run global business operations of companies they founded.
Click to expand...

Huff owns up to his foolishness, and pretends to now understand the moderately complex concepts he has had explained to him. (Notice the attempt to redirect to what he believes to be admirable attributes of his idol in order to refocus the conversation from his ignorance.
n_huffhines said:
OK, now I'm on the same page as you. Nobody completely divests, but they divest from holdings they think might compromise them. For example:

Obama - ExxonMobil and GE stock
HW - sold off a lot of directly held stocks

Funny enough, Hillary liquidated holdings in 2007. I wonder if Obama made her. There were military contractors in there.
Click to expand...

Now, Huff feels a bit of shame, and tries to defend himself with the old, ā€œI was right, except for when I was wrongā€ strategy. (Secretly, he hopes no one notices he argues both sides here, so he can establish firm position in the future when called out for his intellectual livermush.
n_huffhines said:
Except that I found that Obama and HW did divest, and he said the "Bushes", so my initial response was correct, even though W didn't technically divest. I'm not wrong and a quick Google search would've helped the man.

Thanks for showing up, though.
Click to expand...

Finally Huff fully commits, now hoping what he believes to be a clever ā€œgotchaā€ will distract everyone from the fact that he remains a clown.
n_huffhines said:
Did my first response name presidents who divested? The answer is yes. Was it an easy answer to find? Yes.

But that doesn't matter. You thought you had me and you can't let it go.
Click to expand...

There are you receipts, Huff.

Love your new haircut, it is very ā€œTennesseeā€ of you.
IMG_5328.jpeg

Do your worst Huff; whatever it is, it canā€™t be worse than what you have done to yourself already,

RW, out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, rekinhavoc, BreatheUT and 4 others
#4,505
#4,505
Ritzwatch said:
Letā€™s review:

Huff thinks using a word like ā€œdivestā€ makes him smart.


Huff decides to smack talk another poster to try to make himself look as smart as he thinks he is.


Huff drops the line into the pond, waiting for a nibble.


Huff doesnā€™t get a bite, and gets an education instead.




Huff owns up to his foolishness, and pretends to now understand the moderately complex concepts he has had explained to him. (Notice the attempt to redirect to what he believes to be admirable attributes of his idol in order to refocus the conversation from his ignorance.


Now, Huff feels a bit of shame, and tries to defend himself with the old, ā€œI was right, except for when I was wrongā€ strategy. (Secretly, he hopes no one notices he argues both sides here, so he can establish firm position in the future when called out for his intellectual livermush.


Finally Huff fully commits, now hoping what he believes to be a clever ā€œgotchaā€ will distract everyone from the fact that he remains a clown.


There are you receipts, Huff.

Love your new haircut, it is very ā€œTennesseeā€ of you.
View attachment 740729

Do your worst Huff; whatever it is, it canā€™t be worse than what you have done to yourself already,

RW, out.
Click to expand...
šŸ¤£šŸ˜‚
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ritzwatch and 508mikey
#4,506
#4,506
FLVOL_79 said:
Those dont actually look bad. I looked for American made watches before I started buying pretty much only Omega, but I didnt really see anything. RGM has some decent looking dress watches but most are a bit on the small side for me.

Just got this new speedmaster 2 weeks ago:
View attachment 739275
Click to expand...
Nice watchā€¦. Iā€™m too cheap to buy one over $600. Iā€™ve got several Bulovas, but thatā€™s it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, FLVOL_79, GroverCleveland and 1 other person
#4,510
#4,510
Velo Vol said:
We're still paying higher tariffs than we were before against a country with whom we have a trade surplus.

Great deal!

Click to expand...

Fabulous news! At least that Rolls Royce Iā€™m looking at isnā€™t going to be tariffed at 27.5%. Thatā€™s a win isnā€™t it?

Seriously is that the big trade announcement Rump was touting yesterday? I guess the 0.5% will be happy. Thatā€™s the only people he cares about anyway.

Who am I kidding? He cares about one person in this world. Himself. He doesnā€™t give a rip about the American public. I have serious doubts he likes his own family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#4,511
#4,511
NashVol11 said:
That's not a quality that most mature adults value in a President, which was Ashevolle's point. You are telling on yourself
Click to expand...

Do you like the ones that canā€™t hold unscripted press conferences without staged softball questions that hide behind their wifeā€™s skirt?

Whatā€™s your feeling about the Dems in Congress current potty mouth initiative? Do you value their stunning and brave eff bomb filled speeches?
 
#4,512
#4,512
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Do you like the ones that canā€™t hold unscripted press conferences without staged softball questions that hide behind their wifeā€™s skirt?

Whatā€™s your feeling about the Dems in Congress current potty mouth initiative? Do you value their stunning and brave eff bomb filled speeches?
Click to expand...
Do you see me going "oh wow epic troll job, it made my entire week when AOC was sassy toward MTG because it was GLORIOUS"? Exactly
 
#4,514
#4,514
Can one of you tariff fans explain to me why what Trump says about free trade being good for Chinese citizens doesn't also apply to Americans?

 
#4,517
#4,517
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Do you like the ones that canā€™t hold unscripted press conferences without staged softball questions that hide behind their wifeā€™s skirt?

Whatā€™s your feeling about the Dems in Congress current potty mouth initiative? Do you value their stunning and brave eff bomb filled speeches?
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible that someone can be disgusted with both. It's not binary
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, mrorange211, tbh and 1 other person
#4,520
#4,520
n_huffhines said:
I'm talking about people who got wealthier while they were president. Did they beat the market?
Click to expand...
I don't think that is how they got as much money as they did, probably more of an "and" situation than an "or". I think I remember Bush getting into trouble because he was doing some trading. Obama had a couple book deals, Biden had 10% and was selling access to Obama's White House, and Trump makes money from selling everything.
 
#4,521
#4,521
n_huffhines said:
It's the most important trade deal because it's the first, and now we know what Trump's looking to do. The takeaways are not great:

- Increased protectionism is here to stay.
- Increased tariff taxes on American consumers are here to stay.
- Trump's looking to make deals for favored industries, it's not some sort of 4-D chess move to end up with freer trade. Can't dole out favors and specifically help myself and my friends if I allow freer trade across the board.

I tell you what, we're sure showing the Marxists how to centrally plan an economy from the top down. It's fkn great.
Click to expand...
I agree it sets precedent, but really I think the precedent was set in his first term when he reworked those trade deals. He made a big stink about them, tossed out the old, brought in "new" that was mostly the same, worse in some areas, and maybe better in some others.

Trump's only move is he wants to slap his name on something, and then he knows he can sell it as some great accomplishment to his followers. its the age old government making a problem and then the government giving itself more power to not fix the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#4,522
#4,522
LouderVol said:
I agree it sets precedent, but really I think the precedent was set in his first term when he reworked those trade deals. He made a big stink about them, tossed out the old, brought in "new" that was mostly the same, worse in some areas, and maybe better in some others.

Trump's only move is he wants to slap his name on something, and then he knows he can sell it as some great accomplishment to his followers. its the age old government making a problem and then the government giving itself more power to not fix the problem.
Click to expand...

He didn't rework this deal, he added 10% tariff to everything except aluminum and steel. That's a new deal. Not a re-working. He literally doesn't even remember the USMCA deal in term 1, and called it a horrible deal, so I highly doubt it has any bearing on what we should expect.

People pointed out the only lasting tariffs were against China in term 1 and thought that was gonna happen here. It's clearly not what's happening.
 
Last edited:
#4,523
#4,523
I am disappointed with Bessent statement we will not decouple..maybe its a smokescreen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top