What is the legal basis for the new tariffs - I thought the Supreme Court had overturned the last lot ?
I believe he's using a different law than the one that he used for the tariffs that were in question at the SCOTUS. I don't know all the details, but I assume the law he's using now doesn't quite give him the same sweeping powers that the other one would have, had his right to use it been upheld.
He's using this statute to justify his action. Quoting:
The tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows presidents to levy tariffs in cases of unfair trade practices, with Trump alleging in this case the tariffs are justified because the countries don’t properly ban the importation of goods produced using forced labor.
He is saying the reason he is advancing new tariffs is because the countries in question are benefitting from forced labor, such as receiving products made in slave labor camps of China.
The Chinese, of course, claim they have no slave labor camps.
And Trump is ignoring products made in the United States that are produced within our own prison system.
While our 13th amendment prohibits slavery it does allow for forced labor as punishment for a crime. Many civil rights advocates are now demanding that loophole be closed.
He threatening tariffs on the EU because they fine US tech companies (and companies from other countries) for breaking EU rules. He has s making it out to be something it is not. If you break the rules you pay a fine, end of.
The US is also trying to balance being exclusionary when it comes to tech access versus objecting to digital sovereignty initiatives which are meant to address that exclusion, as it then cuts US companies out of markets.
The US is also trying to balance being exclusionary when it comes to tech access versus objecting to digital sovereignty initiatives which are meant to address that exclusion, as it then cuts US companies out of markets.
Yes. The EU wants to favour its own companies the same way the US wants to favour its companies. They see the likes of Meta as dominating of the market. Local European alternatives are not given a chance to prosper. What is the point of any government if it doesn’t support that country’s business?
Is it wrong, or sinful, or whatever, to simply wish that Trump would DIE?
Various commentators in the UK Guardian (and probably elsewhere) have recently described this awful simulacrum of a human being as one of the greatest existential threats to the world...
I appreciate, of course, that other (and perhaps even worse) evils might follow him.
While Trump is surrounded by evildoers, none of the others have the same cult of personality surrounding them.
Yeah. Elon Musk wasn't getting particularly great publicity when he was heading DOGE, for example.
I think Vance and Rubio are probably the only ones among the current second-rankers who've got both the desire for the top-job and the ability to project appeal outside the MAGA cult.
I think Vance and Rubio are probably the only ones among the current second-rankers who've got both the desire for the top-job and the ability to project appeal outside the MAGA cult.
Hmmm . . . I don't know. I have no use for Vance. Rubio was honorable before he sold his soul to the devil.
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
Hmmm . . . I don't know. I have no use for Vance. Rubio was honorable before he sold his soul to the devil.
Rowan Williams reviewed a book by Vance for the Guardian. He said it was mostly quite good if you ignore all the things it doesn't say.
He finished by suggesting that if Vance wants to find people who are really hostile to Christian values he could start with people who start unnecessary wars and implement murderous immigration policies.
They didn't in The Lord of the Rings (Aragorn had to spend most of the rest of his life fighting). Why should real life be any different?
True enough. IIRC, the Nazgul shrivelled and disappeared into nothingness when Sauron died, but the orcs and other nasties just rushed around mindlessly, having lost their master, at least for a while...maybe that's what will happen to many of the MAGA-types when Trump vanishes?
I think Vance and Rubio are probably the only ones among the current second-rankers who've got both the desire for the top-job and the ability to project appeal outside the MAGA cult.
Hmmm . . . I don't know. I have no use for Vance. Rubio was honorable before he sold his soul to the devil.
Well, I was certainly not including you, nor indeed myself, among those in the non-MAGA camp who'd find anyone in the current cabinet appealing.
I’d say Hegseth and Kennedy have the same combination of malice and stupidity, although they don’t have the material for a dystopian leader cult. For that there is Elon Musk, who could only be a power behind the throne, short of a constitutional amendment.
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
Well, I was certainly not including you, nor indeed myself, among those in the non-MAGA camp who'd find anyone in the current cabinet appealing.
I wonder if the slogan for Democrats should be MAAA -- Make America America Again!
That's basically essentialist liberal-nationalism. As a Canadian, I can assure you is not confined to any one country, but I find in pretty unconvincing everywhere(*).
(*) I will admit that in all nations, it has much broader appeal than:
We've always been a buncha fucking violent racists anyway, but we've still gotta fight the far-right to keep this horrible country from becoming even more of a cesspool than it already is.
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
This of course ignores anyone who is white and starving or at least homeless and not eaten for a while. I suspect that the people in your third paragraph would say that is their own fault.
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
This of course ignores anyone who is white and starving or at least homeless and not eaten for a while. I suspect that the people in your third paragraph would say that is their own fault.
They feign concern ("charity begins at home") despite reverting to "why should my taxes pay for someone else's children" the moment the subject changes.
My understanding of “Charity begins at home” is twofold: support your offspring without question (exactly how is up to you) and an instruction that charity doesn’t end at home.
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
This of course ignores anyone who is white and starving or at least homeless and not eaten for a while. I suspect that the people in your third paragraph would say that is their own fault.
Well, sure. My point wasn't that the right-wingers are correct. It's that both sides of the argument assume the same false premise, ie. governments give foreign aid for altruistic reasons.
They didn't in The Lord of the Rings (Aragorn had to spend most of the rest of his life fighting). Why should real life be any different?
True enough. IIRC, the Nazgul shrivelled and disappeared into nothingness when Sauron died, but the orcs and other nasties just rushed around mindlessly, having lost their master, at least for a while...maybe that's what will happen to many of the MAGA-types when Trump vanishes?
When we as kids wanted to to be heroes, we wanted to smite Nazgul, not clean up the Shire after Saruman damaged it. Joke on all of us.
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
This of course ignores anyone who is white and starving or at least homeless and not eaten for a while. I suspect that the people in your third paragraph would say that is their own fault.
Well, sure. My point wasn't that the right-wingers are correct. It's that both sides of the argument assume the same false premise, ie. governments give foreign aid for altruistic reasons.
But the point is that aid goes to a lot of places where the people are majority white. Why perpetuate the idea that givers of aid are white and recipients are non-white?
My understanding of “Charity begins at home” is twofold: support your offspring without question (exactly how is up to you) and an instruction that charity doesn’t end at home.
[Aside...Long ago I was on a school parents committee when the school's involvement in a charity was being discussed. A man (of the large, loud, intimidating, table thumping kind) announced, "Yes - charity begins at home, and that's where it should stay!" The proposed involvement was defeated. It must have been forty years ago: I still recall being shaken by it and by my inability to oppose it effectively.]
And speaking of DOGE, guess which Administration is now realizing that there were strategic reasons for U.S. Aid and are trying now to fix the self-inflicted wound?
The Trump administration is preparing to ramp up funding by hundreds of millions of dollars for programs designed to counter China’s growing influence around the world, after it had put a halt to many of those initiatives last year during a flurry of budget and personnel cuts.
Many of those proposed programs are designed to “reclaim diplomatic leverage” through investments in areas where the U.S. had previously been spending money but stopped as the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, carried out deep cuts to government budgets and personnel last year.
Those cuts, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and eliminated several hundred diplomatic posts worldwide, also affected previously approved projects, including some aimed at countering China.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
This of course ignores anyone who is white and starving or at least homeless and not eaten for a while. I suspect that the people in your third paragraph would say that is their own fault.
Well, sure. My point wasn't that the right-wingers are correct. It's that both sides of the argument assume the same false premise, ie. governments give foreign aid for altruistic reasons.
But the point is that aid goes to a lot of places where the people are majority white. Why perpetuate the idea that givers of aid are white and recipients are non-white?
Because I was doing an impersonation of a right-winger who thinks foreign-aid just goes to undeserving brown people, in order to illustrate how they think.
Granted, some of them would probably object to aid going to eg. the more impoverished parts of Eastern Europe as well, but in my experience, those aren't the countries they emphasize.
Comments
I believe he's using a different law than the one that he used for the tariffs that were in question at the SCOTUS. I don't know all the details, but I assume the law he's using now doesn't quite give him the same sweeping powers that the other one would have, had his right to use it been upheld.
The Chinese, of course, claim they have no slave labor camps.
And Trump is ignoring products made in the United States that are produced within our own prison system.
While our 13th amendment prohibits slavery it does allow for forced labor as punishment for a crime. Many civil rights advocates are now demanding that loophole be closed.
Not going to happen in the near future, though.
Yes. The EU wants to favour its own companies the same way the US wants to favour its companies. They see the likes of Meta as dominating of the market. Local European alternatives are not given a chance to prosper. What is the point of any government if it doesn’t support that country’s business?
Various commentators in the UK Guardian (and probably elsewhere) have recently described this awful simulacrum of a human being as one of the greatest existential threats to the world...
I appreciate, of course, that other (and perhaps even worse) evils might follow him.
Leeches always find a host whose blood they can suck.
Yeah. Elon Musk wasn't getting particularly great publicity when he was heading DOGE, for example.
I think Vance and Rubio are probably the only ones among the current second-rankers who've got both the desire for the top-job and the ability to project appeal outside the MAGA cult.
Hmmm . . . I don't know. I have no use for Vance. Rubio was honorable before he sold his soul to the devil.
The Trump Administration's policy of acting first and thinking later is fundamentally flawed.
He finished by suggesting that if Vance wants to find people who are really hostile to Christian values he could start with people who start unnecessary wars and implement murderous immigration policies.
True enough. IIRC, the Nazgul shrivelled and disappeared into nothingness when Sauron died, but the orcs and other nasties just rushed around mindlessly, having lost their master, at least for a while...maybe that's what will happen to many of the MAGA-types when Trump vanishes?
Well, I was certainly not including you, nor indeed myself, among those in the non-MAGA camp who'd find anyone in the current cabinet appealing.
I think in most countries, the debate around foreign-aid goes something like this...
TENDER HEARTED: Of course foreign-aid is good. Children are dying!
RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES: Fuck 'em. If they didn't wanna starve, they shoulda been born white.
IOW they both believe that the rationale for aid is humanitarian, and neither can acknowledge the basic truth that the reasons behind it are primarily realpolitik.
I wonder if the slogan for Democrats should be MAAA -- Make America America Again!
That's basically essentialist liberal-nationalism. As a Canadian, I can assure you is not confined to any one country, but I find in pretty unconvincing everywhere(*).
(*) I will admit that in all nations, it has much broader appeal than:
We've always been a buncha fucking violent racists anyway, but we've still gotta fight the far-right to keep this horrible country from becoming even more of a cesspool than it already is.
This of course ignores anyone who is white and starving or at least homeless and not eaten for a while. I suspect that the people in your third paragraph would say that is their own fault.
They feign concern ("charity begins at home") despite reverting to "why should my taxes pay for someone else's children" the moment the subject changes.
Well, sure. My point wasn't that the right-wingers are correct. It's that both sides of the argument assume the same false premise, ie. governments give foreign aid for altruistic reasons.
When we as kids wanted to to be heroes, we wanted to smite Nazgul, not clean up the Shire after Saruman damaged it. Joke on all of us.
But the point is that aid goes to a lot of places where the people are majority white. Why perpetuate the idea that givers of aid are white and recipients are non-white?
[Aside...Long ago I was on a school parents committee when the school's involvement in a charity was being discussed. A man (of the large, loud, intimidating, table thumping kind) announced, "Yes - charity begins at home, and that's where it should stay!" The proposed involvement was defeated. It must have been forty years ago: I still recall being shaken by it and by my inability to oppose it effectively.]
Because I was doing an impersonation of a right-winger who thinks foreign-aid just goes to undeserving brown people, in order to illustrate how they think.
Granted, some of them would probably object to aid going to eg. the more impoverished parts of Eastern Europe as well, but in my experience, those aren't the countries they emphasize.