JWinTX said:

---

eric76 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Tariffs are Trump's version of making the so-called evil foreign corporations pay their fair share

---

Tariffs are Trumps way of raising taxes on Americans while pretending the taxes are against everyone but Americans.

---

I'm sure you and ETFan felt the exact same about that "tax" Obamacare foisted upon us, right?

---

Was he as opposed to them as I was and still am?

Or are you just making **** up?

Why is anyone against making what we have to have here? THAT IS THE DAMN POINT. Greed is a losing plan.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the point is to change the environment we've been in for decades, which has discouraged companies from producing in the U.S. and discouraged American buyers from purchasing in the U.S.

---

Trying to wish away the power of economics is never a smart plan. The cost of American Labor has discouraged companies from manufacturing in the U.S. for the most price competitive industries. That is not changing anytime soon.

Buyers will pay for quality in certain areas but don't want to to pay 25-30% more for consumer electronics and other items simply due to a political slogan.

---

European countries, Japan, China. And India have all used tarrifs to bolster there domestic industries for decades while America kept getting taken behind the woodshed

There are mountains of empirical evidence that prove tarrifs actually work.

TrumpsBarber said:

---

Haha. Trump just overruled SCOTUS, declared the tariffs will remain and he is adding a 10% global tariff. He recited 2 laws, Section 1... etc and so forth.

---

Did you read above? They didn't outlaw it, they told him to use a different statue.

eric76 said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

eric76 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Tariffs are Trump's version of making the so-called evil foreign corporations pay their fair share

---

Tariffs are Trumps way of raising taxes on Americans while pretending the taxes are against everyone but Americans.

---

I'm sure you and ETFan felt the exact same about that "tax" Obamacare foisted upon us, right?

---

Was he as opposed to them as I was and still am?

Or are you just making **** up?

---

Right? I doubt we were on the same page there, and that's fine.

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Funny. SC overturns Trump and the liberal dipsh**s shriek "Trump clearly was doing illegal stuff!"

SC overturns Biden and same liberal dipsh**s shriek "SC is a threat to muh democracy and should be impeached!"

Reagan conservatives and CMs are so predictable in their lies.

---

I'm not one of the posters that asks where you were on the opposite issues years ago, but just a reminder:

Many RINOBAPWOCs (Republicans in Name Only But Actually Populists With Out Conservatism) here did the exact opposite:

SC overturns Biden student loan plan and the RINOBAPWOCs shriek "BIDEN CLEARLY DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL!"

SC overturns Trumps tariffs and the RINOBAPWOCs shriek "SC is a threat to muh democracy and don't represent the will of the people [insert ACB attack]"

I'll workshop the acronym a bit more and get back to everybody.

Pinochet said:

---

What will he do? The tariffs are illegal so they shouldn't exist. Why is that even a question? If he doesn't, he should be impeached. We would all say that a dem president should be impeached for doing illegal things too. If Joe Biden had decided to move forward with the student loan forgiveness that was struck down, would we have accepted that or do we all believe in the rule of law?

Will he direct CBP to pay the illegal tariffs collected back to the importers?

---

He has many options for a workaround.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Why is anyone against making what we have to have here? THAT IS THE DAMN POINT. Greed is a losing plan.

---

Then cut regulations and make it less expensive to make what we have to have here. Tariffs are just a rebranded corporate tax. And like any corporate tax increase, the American people end up footing the bill. Good for the Supreme Court for making Trump follow the established procedures and not launching giant, random corporate tax increases via tweets while he's on the crapper.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

Nice try.

He implemented/raised tariffs for every country in the world. And he did it illegally.

---

Because he checked the wrong administrative box for some of the tariffs. That is the extent of the error.

Quote:

---

There are mountains of empirical evidence that prove tarrifs actually work.

---

So

1) There are not mountains of empirical evidence that tariffs actually work . . .whatever "work" means. There is a broadly critical body of research in economics and that has not changed recently.

2) Saying we need to be more like the EU or Japan should be a conversation killer out of the gates. Those are uncompetitive economies.

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. President Trump announces the Supreme Court has actually STRENGTHENED the president's ability to enact tariffs, HUGE BACKFIRE

"SCOTUS made a president's ability to regulate trade and impose tariffs MORE POWERFUL and MORE CRYSTAL CLEAR, rather than less."… pic.twitter.com/Ne6fKczeRq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 20, 2026

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the point is to change the environment we've been in for decades, which has discouraged companies from producing in the U.S. and discouraged American buyers from purchasing in the U.S.

---

Trying to wish away the power of economics is never a smart plan. The cost of American Labor has discouraged companies from manufacturing in the U.S. for the most price competitive industries. That is not changing anytime soon.

Buyers will pay for quality in certain areas but don't want to to pay 25-30% more for consumer electronics and other items simply due to a political slogan.

---

European countries, Japan, China. And India have all used tarrifs to bolster there domestic industries for decades while America kept getting taken behind the woodshed

There are mountains of empirical evidence that prove tarrifs actually work.

---

In short…..

We've outperformed Europe for years and Japan's economy hasn't grown since they invented the first Nintendo.

India (is a slowly failing country) which has a billion people who cannot afford **** even if they don't have tariffs and China grew because they had a billion people living on farms who they moved to new factory towns.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the point is to change the environment we've been in for decades, which has discouraged companies from producing in the U.S. and discouraged American buyers from purchasing in the U.S.

---

Trying to wish away the power of economics is never a smart plan. The cost of American Labor has discouraged companies from manufacturing in the U.S. for the most price competitive industries. That is not changing anytime soon.

Buyers will pay for quality in certain areas but don't want to to pay 25-30% more for consumer electronics and other items simply due to a political slogan.

---

European countries, Japan, China. And India have all used tarrifs to bolster there domestic industries for decades while America kept getting taken behind the woodshed

There are mountains of empirical evidence that prove tarrifs actually work.

---

What tariffs may work for is to protect a domestic industry while it builds up to become competitive. It allows the domestic industry to be artificially competitive by forcing the foreign prices up. It has to be done with specificity to the industry needing the protection and not just some blanket thing with no goal or even idea what it is supposed to achieve. This is not at all a good long term "solution". If the industry cannot become competitive, then all it does is to artificially raise prices, to consumers indefinitely, thus creating a very long term hidden tax.

Trump's tariffs have none of that. They are solely because he isn't smart enough to understand that he is taxing Americans every time he does it.

And it clearly shows that Trump doesn't have a clue about Capitalism. Capitalism is about producing that which you can produce competitively and buying that which you cannot produce competitively from other nations. Read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. What Trump is hard at work doing is draining our wealth.

tysker said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The legal argument for them likely would have carried the day in many other circumstances.

---

Such as what?
What circumstances permit the use of emergency powers in this manner? A power that was already explicitly prescribed to Congress by the Constitution

---

The Court said IEEPA doesn't allow for the imposition of tariffs, so there are not any "other circumstances" that would allow for tariffs to be imposed under IEEPA.


"Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs", page 2.

---

Which makes sense, Constitutionally speaking. There is not another "legal argument that would have carried the day."

The POTUS does not have the power to enact tariffs using emergency powers. Its like 'no **** sherlock'

---

It depends on what your definition of "regulate" means.

The Biden EPA believed that the word "regulate" means that you could force lobster ships to carry and pay for EPA tax men when the lobsters went fishing. Had the Biden EPA not done that, Trump very well might have carried the day today, in a butterfly creates typhoons sort of way.

In another example, Trump's definition of regulate under the IEEPA is not nearly as big of a stretch as Obama claiming Obamacare not to be a tax.

Relying on the IEEPA to enact tariffs is not illegal because that is what the law says, it is illegal because that is what SCOTUS says.

One of the things that SCOTUS said today is that the POTUS does have the power to enact numerous other types of trade restrictions under IEEPA, just specifically not tariffs. That list of enumerated powers is long, and SCOTUS just affirmed they are at Trump's disposal.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Should have been 9-0. They were obviously illegal from the very beginning.

---

No, they were not.

They were not illegal until SCOTUS said they were. The legal argument for them likely would have carried the day in many other circumstances. But, for this court, for this issue, in 2026, Trump wasn't going to win.

---

Nah. Something is not legal until a Court says it is illegal. The first person to break a law doesn't get a free bite at the apple.

---

Had the court ruled otherwise, how would that change your answer? If the court would have said that it was OK for Trump to enact tariffs under IEEPA, would doing so have always been legal, even before SCOTUS had ruled? I mean, we are talking about a Schrodinger's Legality in that case. It is better to state that the legality was in question until after SCOTUS ruled.

And, this is not a case where there was zero percent chance that the court would rule otherwise. It was a rather close question. Not a surprising decision, but it very well could have went the other way with a different court makeup.

The decision that we got was delivered with kid gloves. SCOTUS could have brought the hammer, but was happy with a simple slap on the wrist.

MagnumLoad said:

---

So, we have been getting ripped off in trade for years and Congress did nothing. While corporations and congressional members got rich. No relationship, right? Now the black robes say only congress can do tarrifs. How convenient. This nation is being destroyed by greed and perversion. I think it is beyond hope. The greedy *******s care nothing about the will of the people. Falling off the bone done.

---

Don't blame the black robes that say only Congress can do tariffs. Blame our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and said only Congress can do tariffs.

Last I checked, conservatives are supposed to support the Constitution and correctly hated when Biden and the Dems did things that were unconstitutional like forgiving student debt. This website celebrated when those black robes blocked the across the board debt relief.

If the Court said tariffs under IEEPA were legal, then I would say tariffs under IEEPA were legal even before the Court said so.

You think this is like Schroedingers cat? Wtf are we even doing here

No Spin Ag said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Trump acted under an untested interpretation of the law. He didn't act in knowing and deliberate violation of it. Now that yhis interpretation has been rejected by scotus, going forward it will be considered to be unsupportable and unlawful.

The tariffs this applied to are invalidated and csnt be collected going forwards. I highly doubt they will be retroactively refunded.

---

The best thing about this term for Trump is that he is making it that much easier for every administration after him to impose their will because they will know fully what they can and can't do from day one.

It's long overdue for the presidential branch to test its limits.

---

Ho
Lee
Crap

You realize Trump will never admit to a loss or mistake. He will spin everything as a win. It is in his DNA.

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

We either adopt the free market, or face an economic catastrophe in the future. You can try to hand wave away that reality horse much you want, but it won't change anything.

---

I'm all in for free market. Let me know when the rest of the world agrees and we'll get started.

The only reason to go first is if you want to wither away to nothing.

---

You act like the rest of the world is using a cheat code that makes them more efficient than the free market. This is completely wrong. The free market is the most efficient system that exists and is itself the ultimate cheat code. We don't have to wait for the rest of the world. We can start kicking the crap out of them by going back to the free market which made us the worlds largest economic power in the first place.

aTmAg said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

We either adopt the free market, or face an economic catastrophe in the future. You can try to hand wave away that reality horse much you want, but it won't change anything.

---

When it comes to China, there is no such thing as a "free market".

BREAKING: Cantor Fitzgerald, now run by Howard Lutnick’s sons, has been buying the rights to potential tariff refunds at roughly 20–30% of the refund value. For example, a company that paid $10 million in tariffs might sell refund rights for $2–$3 million.

Supreme Court…

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 20, 2026

Interesting.

MagnumLoad said:

---

So, we have been getting ripped off in trade for years and Congress did nothing. While corporations and congressional members got rich. No relationship, right? Now the black robes say only congress can do tarrifs. How convenient. This nation is being destroyed by greed and perversion. I think it is beyond hope. The greedy *******s care nothing about the will of the people. Falling off the bone done.

---

The black robes did not say that only congress can do tariffs.

They did say:
1) Congress has the only constitutional authority to enact tariffs
2) Congress has specified when POTUS can use tariffs.
3) SCOTUS says that POTUS can't use IEEPA to enact tariffs, but can use IEEPA for a large number of other things, and can enact tariffs using other laws where Congress DID specify when the POTUS can use tariffs.

These polemic half-analyses are not helpful.

BkYdPitmaster said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

What will he do? The tariffs are illegal so they shouldn't exist. Why is that even a question? If he doesn't, he should be impeached. We would all say that a dem president should be impeached for doing illegal things too. If Joe Biden had decided to move forward with the student loan forgiveness that was struck down, would we have accepted that or do we all believe in the rule of law?

Will he direct CBP to pay the illegal tariffs collected back to the importers?

---

He has many options for a workaround.

---

Not sure about "many", but he has some.

Kansas Kid said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

So, we have been getting ripped off in trade for years and Congress did nothing. While corporations and congressional members got rich. No relationship, right? Now the black robes say only congress can do tarrifs. How convenient. This nation is being destroyed by greed and perversion. I think it is beyond hope. The greedy *******s care nothing about the will of the people. Falling off the bone done.

---

Don't blame the black robes that say only Congress can do tariffs. Blame our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and said only Congress can do tariffs.

Last I checked, conservatives are supposed to support the Constitution and correctly hated when Biden and the Dems did things that were unconstitutional like forgiving student debt. This website celebrated when those black robes blocked the across the board debt relief.

---

Literally no one was disputing that. The dispute was did Congress grant the President authority to levy tariffs under IEEPA. The answer was no, not under that Act. However, there are several other acts that a President can use to implement these tariffs where Congress has already delegated the authority to do so to the executive branch.

You do understand that, right?

Gap said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You are not making the least bit of sense. How are tariffs socialism?

---

Government ownership of the means of production is socialism. Trump just said (again!) that he saved Intel, after the US government bought a controlling share of the company. My friend, you need to keep up

---

Do you understand what the word controlling means? My friend, controlling isn't 10%.

The US received a 10% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion paid for with the CHIPS grant money. That act from 2022 was to boost American chipmaking.

---

Coming from a background in finance, 10% shareholders are reporting shareholders or controlling shareholders (Rule 144, Form 4, and also in excess of 13G/13D filings), so it's a bit of a term of art. That being said, 10% is generally where holders can easily secure Board membership, wield significant voting power, and influence company policy. 10% is squarely in the activist shareholder level of stock ownership.

So tell me, will you guarantee that the government will not use its (I'll use a term you prefer here) minority stake to influence Intel's decision-making at the expense of shareholder value? Will you guarantee that Intel will not receive a taxpayer-funded bailout if the company fails?

BusterAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

We either adopt the free market, or face an economic catastrophe in the future. You can try to hand wave away that reality horse much you want, but it won't change anything.

---

When it comes to China, there is no such thing as a "free market".

---

What are you even talking about? Of course there such thing as a free market. The entire reason China is so much more prosperous than in their past is because they adopted free market principles starting in the 70s. They now have private property, private ownership of production, etc. In several important ways, they are more free than we are.

Are they as free as we were during our peak? Nope. If they were, they would be even more prosperous today than they are now. Likewise, if we slashed our government to the size we had in the past, then we'd blow past China in manufacturing and in every other way.

Restricting our market even more will only exasperate our problems. Not reduce them.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the point is to change the environment we've been in for decades, which has discouraged companies from producing in the U.S. and discouraged American buyers from purchasing in the U.S.

---

Trying to wish away the power of economics is never a smart plan. The cost of American Labor has discouraged companies from manufacturing in the U.S. for the most price competitive industries. That is not changing anytime soon.

Buyers will pay for quality in certain areas but don't want to to pay 25-30% more for consumer electronics and other items simply due to a political slogan.

---

European countries, Japan, China. And India have all used tarrifs to bolster there domestic industries for decades while America kept getting taken behind the woodshed

There are mountains of empirical evidence that prove tarrifs actually work.

---

Yea man we should enact tariffs and enjoy the amazing innovation and economic growth enjoyed by India, Europe, and Japan over the last few decades.

/heavy sarcasm

Gap said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

So, we have been getting ripped off in trade for years and Congress did nothing. While corporations and congressional members got rich. No relationship, right? Now the black robes say only congress can do tarrifs. How convenient. This nation is being destroyed by greed and perversion. I think it is beyond hope. The greedy *******s care nothing about the will of the people. Falling off the bone done.

---

Don't blame the black robes that say only Congress can do tariffs. Blame our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and said only Congress can do tariffs.

Last I checked, conservatives are supposed to support the Constitution and correctly hated when Biden and the Dems did things that were unconstitutional like forgiving student debt. This website celebrated when those black robes blocked the across the board debt relief.

---

Literally no one was disputing that. The dispute was did Congress grant the President authority to levy tariffs under IEEPA. The answer was no, not under that Act. However, there are several other acts that a President can use to implement these tariffs where Congress has already delegated the authority to do so to the executive branch.

You do understand that, right?

---

"These tariffs"? Not exactly, he won't be able to replicate all of this under other authorities (which is why they spent a year going down the IEEPA path.)

Some of the tariffs or a portion of some of the tariffs? Yes.

tysker said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

tysker said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

ha ha trump is not backing down!

He will impose tariffs but call it something else.

---

Just call them taxes.
Taxation without representation has worked so well for leadership like Trump

---

While ideally I'd prefer we not impose more tariffs, what right do the countries we're 'taxing' (who are also trying to get the most of out us) have to representation?

---

American producers of imported goods and end consumers bear the burden of tariffs.
This is an economic policy we know didn't work anymore by the 1890s. And it didn't work again when the government tried in the 1930s or again in the 1970s.

---

red pen, blue pen economics.

All things held equal, for one market, you are right. But, now you have to factor in:

1) Currency manipulation;
2) A coordinated global effort to take advantage of the US's ideologically stubborn approach. Every single country in the world protected their own industrial market against US competition through tariffs; we did the same with only two products: trucks and airplanes.
3) Our trading partners' giant tariffs on the US
4) Our trading partners' giant restrictions on US capital investing in their assets.
5) the brazen theft of US intellectual property on the backs of cheaper goods.

Out of the above, #4 might really be one of the most important. Other countries purposefully deflate their currency so that they can sell us stuff, but then restrict what we can do with that currency in their economy. In a world where we could use those inflated USDs to buy the best assets in a foreign country, the trade deficits would be lower.

Macro is hard. Pretending it is as simple or straight forward as you do ignore that there is no "all else held equal" in the real world.

Mercantilist tariffs are a bad idea. That is not what we currently have in the US.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the point is to change the environment we've been in for decades, which has discouraged companies from producing in the U.S. and discouraged American buyers from purchasing in the U.S.

---

Trying to wish away the power of economics is never a smart plan. The cost of American Labor has discouraged companies from manufacturing in the U.S. for the most price competitive industries. That is not changing anytime soon.

Buyers will pay for quality in certain areas but don't want to to pay 25-30% more for consumer electronics and other items simply due to a political slogan.

---

European countries, Japan, China. And India have all used tarrifs to bolster there domestic industries for decades while America kept getting taken behind the woodshed

There are mountains of empirical evidence that prove tarrifs actually work.

---

In what way has America been taken to the woodshed?
Bolster, maybe, but not compete with the wealth and power of the US. Do you have any examples of countries not run by communists to back up your post?

aTmAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

We either adopt the free market, or face an economic catastrophe in the future. You can try to hand wave away that reality horse much you want, but it won't change anything.

---

When it comes to China, there is no such thing as a "free market".

---

What are you even talking about? Of course there such thing as a free market. The entire reason China is so much more prosperous than in their past is because they adopted free market principles starting in the 70s. They now have private property, private ownership of production, etc. In several important ways, they are more free than we are.

Are they as free as we were during our peak? Nope. If they were, they would be even more prosperous today than they are now. Likewise, if we slashed our government to the size we had in the past, then we'd blow past China in manufacturing and in every other way.

Restricting our market even more will only exasperate our problems. Not reduce them.

---

Has China "free marketed" in some ways? Yes*** But you're fooling yourself if you think there are any actual fully "free markets" in China or that they've got it better than "us" in any meaningful way. Don't grievance politic your way into thinking you want anything of the CCP.


*** They're chipping away at a decent chunk of their previous "free marketing". It's called "National Advance and Private Retreat"

tysker said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

We either adopt the free market, or face an economic catastrophe in the future. You can try to hand wave away that reality horse much you want, but it won't change anything.

---

I'm all in for free market. Let me know when the rest of the world agrees and we'll get started.

The only reason to go first is if you want to wither away to nothing.

---

Well Europe has a free trade zone.
The economic solution to dumping is to buy as much of that good as possible and bankrupt the seller. SO if China wants to dump subsidized steel into the marketplace, the rational decision is for every other country to buy as much as possible. Eventually, China will not be able to keep up with production because it will run out of other people's money.

Tariffs are Trump's version of making the so-called evil foreign corporations pay their fair share

---

China can subsidize steel production longer than US steel producers can remain solvent.

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You are not making the least bit of sense. How are tariffs socialism?

---

Government ownership of the means of production is socialism. Trump just said (again!) that he saved Intel, after the US government bought a controlling share of the company. My friend, you need to keep up

---

Going to assume you are discussing this earnestly. But a 9.9% stake is not a controlling interest.

Taking remaining grants that BIDEN provided to Intel (grants are gifts that do not have to be repaid), Trump negotiated a deal to accelerate the remaining grants in exchange for stock. The deal terms are below.

Glad to share this information as it is often misrepresented as the government taking over intel when instead Trump negotiated a fantastic deal for the American taxpayer.

Let me know if you have any questions on the below.

Quote:

---

The US government does not have a controlling interest in Intel. The US government holds a passive minority stake of approximately 9.9% (often rounded to 10% in reports) in Intel Corporation, acquired in August 2025 through an $8.9 billion investment funded by redirecting previously awarded CHIPS Act grants and Secure Enclave program funds. There is also a five-year warrant allowing the government to acquire an additional ~5% under specific conditions (e.g., if Intel reduces its ownership in its foundry business below 51%), but this has not been exercised.

Why This Is Not Controlling Passive ownership: The agreement explicitly states the stake is passive, with no board representation, no governance rights, no special information access, and no ability to direct company operations.

Voting alignment: The government has agreed to vote its shares in line with Intel's board of directors on most shareholder matters (with limited exceptions), meaning it cannot independently block or force major decisions.

Control threshold: In corporate governance, a controlling interest typically requires more than 50% of voting shares (majority control) or sometimes a large enough block (e.g., 3040%) combined with other factors to exert de facto influence. A ~10% stakeeven as the biggest single holderdoes not meet this standard, especially with the passive and aligned-voting restrictions.

---

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Funny. SC overturns Trump and the liberal dipsh**s shriek "Trump clearly was doing illegal stuff!"

SC overturns Biden and same liberal dipsh**s shriek "SC is a threat to muh democracy and should be impeached!"

Reagan conservatives and CMs are so predictable in their lies.

---

Do not mention Reagan conservatives in the same breath as CMs.

That is stupid.

The biggest difference between Reagan and Trump is communication style. You take that away, and Trump and Reagan are really very similar, starting with Make America Great Again.