Will Trump be impeached?

[LSchicago]

As far as I can tell, Pocahontas is the most likely Dimocrat candidate. I can't understand why someone wouldn't vote for Trump. You prefer to have higher unemployment and have the US be in a recession? Just don't like his personality and that's more important to you than whether the US is doing well? Prefer the more corrupt, typical politician over someone who actually tries hard to fulfill his campaign promises? You think you are poor and that the Dims are going to help you while you sit on the couch?

Hate to tell you this, but we are currently headed into a recession. All indicators point to 2020 being a recession year. Tariffs are being implemented at an alarming rate, wages have been mostly stagnant for decades.Most clothing in my store went up 20% in the last 2 months. It will get worse before American manufacturing returns in any scale. The 2008 recession was bad, almost a depression. Hopefully this one is not as bad.

Sponsored

 

[cosmo]

Yes BUT you asked why this is wasn't being pursued before. It was. As VERY well documented, Giuliani and others started the investigation in the middle of the Mueller investigation. It takes time to dot all the i's

Thank you, I've looked and can see that now.

This is how you get you and your family rich as pigs feeding on the public's dime. Disgusting.

Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE!

And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=uORvV_1570186012

...and? How is Viscoil or NRGLab tied into any of this?

Trump is trying to root out corruption in government. It was one of the basic things he said he would do in his platform.
Don't even try to say that you can't investigate someone's crimes because they are running for office or they are in office. It doesn't make any sense and I don't believe it even if some fake news organization or swampy government official says it.

Absolutely ridiculous argument. I bet you couldn't hold back a smile when you wrote it.

This is very similar to the whole "Russian collusion" thing that the news media and Dims were harping on for over 2 years. Collusion is not against the law either. There's nothing in the criminal code about collusion. Just people telling untruths to try to win a political game.

Try to win with a truthful argument. I have an open mind.

Absolutely just because Biden is running doesn't mean it makes him immune. But it does make it so that Trump himself as a candidate cannot illicit help in an investigation from a foreign country. Pretty straightforward. He needed to let the proper channels investigate this issue. By involving himself, that brings up the aforementioned foreign campaign contribution. He had already removed the obstacles he believed to be in the way (his old AG, and the American-Ukrainian envoy woman), but stepped over the line.

What is Trump doing with China that you think is illegal? And which DNC crimes are you talking about?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/03/...e-server/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Asking for investigations into his political opponent Biden. As well as... Elizabeth Warren! So you may have Biden being investigated for a legitimately interesting reason, but what about Warren?

The DNC is the accused party regarding the Ukraine and Hillary on dirt about Trump.

Are you seriously equating the granting of a copyright which Ivanka would have paid money for to getting hired by an oil company and getting paid millions?

The only barriers to a copyright should be whether it has some uniqueness and whether it's already being used. When you write something like that it makes me feel as though I should just put you on ignore and stop wasting my time.

At least come up with a good argument. Granting a copyright? Really?

Not equating, but raising issues regarding family members involved in political circumstances.

Go ahead and put me on ignore, I really don't care. I don't think you actually look at any link I provide to you anyway, and I believe you wouldn't believe any link outside of fox news and even then would only believe articles written by those that are currently in good tidings with Trump.

 

[Hack]

Hate to tell you this, but we are currently headed into a recession. All indicators point to 2020 being a recession year. Tariffs are being implemented at an alarming rate, wages have been mostly stagnant for decades.Most clothing in my store went up 20% in the last 2 months. It will get worse before American manufacturing returns in any scale. The 2008 recession was bad, almost a depression. Hopefully this one is not as bad.

I get that all the libs and the fake news media are saying that we are going into a recession, but the US economy has been very robust. Obama blamed Bush and said 2% growth was the new normal. Obama said we would never have good growth again.
Economy is good. Not perfect, but good. We have had a lot of growth under Trump and record numbers of women and minorities are now in the workforce.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/and...-strong-despite-predictions-of-doom-and-gloom

Wages are up.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6091319395001/
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mik...r-incomes-and-record-employment-for-americans

Absolutely just because Biden is running doesn't mean it makes him immune. But it does make it so that Trump himself as a candidate cannot illicit help in an investigation from a foreign country. Pretty straightforward. He needed to let the proper channels investigate this issue. By involving himself, that brings up the aforementioned foreign campaign contribution. He had already removed the obstacles he believed to be in the way (his old AG, and the American-Ukrainian envoy woman), but stepped over the line..

I disagree that there is/should be a law that says the US President can't have other countries help our investigators. If there's no evidence of wrongdoing, no problem. The election isn't for over a year. Let the investigation play itself out. If no one is guilty of any crimes, they should welcome an investigation. The Dems already took 2 years investigating Trump when there was zero evidence.

And the proper channels will be investigating. Certain people just want the president to be stopped. At any cost. Many of the top, long term Democrats are crooked. And the US intelligence officials as well - those who used the Hillary bought fake dossier to get a FISA warrant and spied on Trump during the last campaign. They used foreign assets as well.

Edit: yes I don't read CNN and Newsweek. Not anymore. They have burned their bridges with me. Way too many lies and lies of omission.

 

[Weather Man]

...and? How is Viscoil or NRGLab tied into any of this?.

LOL, really?

 

[Gregs24]

I love bjstangs copy and paste from the White House publicity about how good they are. They don't mention anything that hasn't gone so well, or consider that any of the achievements may not actually be that marvellous !

I'm sure impeachment will come to Trump, but he will stay in power for the time being as he will have enough Republican support to keep him in office. Unfortunately a large part of the rest of the world don't see Trump as an asset to the US and actually just see a bully boy who needs to get his own way or he spits the dummy. Anybody who has to keep telling everybody about how smart and intelligent he is has a few issues !

The US can do a lot better than Trump (irrespective of whether you are a Democrat supporter or Republican)

 

[Weather Man]

Judicial Watch Uncovers Secret Mueller Discussions [Weekly Update]
https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fi...r-discussions/

Judicial Watch Uncovers Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The Boss’ Doesn’t Know We’re Talking
Court Forces State Dept To Release Smoking Gun Clinton Email
A Judicial Watch Election Law Victory in California


Judicial Watch Uncovers Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The Boss’ Doesn’t Know We’re Talking

Rod Rosenstein, who was once a deputy attorney general, is a key figure in enabling, at a minimum, the Deep State’s seditious attacks on President Trump.

More proof is in new documents uncovered by a Judicial Watch lawsuit. Specifically, we forced the release of 145 pages of Rosenstein’s communications that include a one-line email from Rosenstein to Mueller stating, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” They also include “off the record” emails with major media outlets around the date of Mueller’s appointment.

We filed a lawsuit to get these documents after the Department of Justice failed to respond to our September 21, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice  (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). We were seeking:

Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.

The time period referred to in this suit is critical. On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a  memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. That day, President Trump fired Comey. Just three days later, on May 12, Rosenstein sent an email assuring Robert Mueller that, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” (It is not clear if the “boss” is then-AG Sessions or President Trump.)

In a May 16, 2017, email , sent the day before Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein emailed former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General and current Kirkland & Ellis Partner Mark Filip stating, “I am with Mueller. He shares my views. Duty Calls. Sometimes the moment chooses us.”

The next day, May 17, Rosenstein  appointed  former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

During the same period, between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein  met with  then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials to discuss wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump.

The documents also show that, again during the same time period, Rod Rosenstein was in direct communication with reporters from60 Minutes, The New York Times and The Washington Post. In an email exchange dated May 2017, Rosenstein communicated with New York Times reporter Rebecca Ruiz to provide background for this article about himself. Ruiz emailed Rosenstein a draft of the article, and he responded with off-the-record comments and clarifications.

In an email exchange on May 17, 2017, the day of Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein exchanged emails with 60 Minutes producer Katherine Davis in which he answered off-the-record questions about Mueller’s scope of authority and chain of command:
Rosenstein: “Off the record: This special counsel is a DOJ employee. His status is similar to a US Attorney.”

Davis: “Good call on Mueller. Although I obviously thought you’d be great at leading the investigation too.”

On May 17, 2017, in an email exchange with Washington Post journalist Sari Horwitz with the subject line “Special Counsel,” Rosenstein and Horwitz exchanged:
Rosenstein “At some point, I owe you a long story. But this is not the right time for me to talk to anybody.”

Horwitz: “Now, I see why you couldn’t talk today! Obviously, we’re writing a big story about this Is there any chance I could talk to you on background about your decision?”

These astonishing emails further confirm the corruption behind Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller. They also show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media reporters.

Here’s some more background on the incredible finds from this one Judicial Watch lawsuit.

On September 11, we released 14 pages  of records from the Department of Justice showing officials’ efforts in responding to media inquiries about DOJ/FBI talks allegedly invoking the 25th Amendment to “remove” President Donald Trump from office and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a “wire” to record his conversations with the president.

On September 23, we released a two-page memo , dated May 16, 2017, by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe detailing how then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire into the Oval Office “to collect additional evidence on the president’s true intentions.” McCabe writes that Rosenstein said he thought it was possible because “he was not searched when he entered the White House.”

As the “coup” targeting President Trump continues through the House impeachment abuse, it is important to remember that its origins are in the Deep State agencies – especially the FBI and DOJ.


Court Forces State Dept To Release Smoking Gun Clinton Email

The Clinton email scandal is far from over. A federal court ordered discovery in a major Judicial Watch lawsuit that will ultimately result in nearly 20 witnesses having to testify under oath to our attorneys. And, and thanks to the court’s orders, we’re also getting new documents proving the Clinton email cover-up. Specifically, the State Department released a previously hidden email showing that top State Department officials used and were aware of Hillary Clinton’s email account.

On December 24, 2010, Daniel Baer, an Obama State Department deputy assistant secretary of state, writes to Michael Posner, a then-assistant secretary of state about Clinton’s private email address:

Baer: “Be careful, you just gave the secretary’s personal email address to a bunch of folks …”

Posner answers: “Should I say don’t forward? Did not notice”

Baer responds: “Yeah-I just know that she guards it pretty closely”

Posner had forwarded Clinton’s email address, which was contained in an email sent to State Department senior leadership, about WikiLeaks.

It appears that the State Department produced this email in 2016 in redacted form , blacking out Clinton’s personal email address and the discussion about Clinton’s wanting to keep her email address closely guarded.

We sought the email after a former top Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) State Department official testified to us about reviewing it between late 2013 and early 2014.

The testimony and the email production come in discovery granted to us on the Clinton email issue in a FOIA lawsuit ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Clinton also faces potential questioning under oath in this lawsuit.

Despite a recent court order requiring production of the email, the DOJ and State Departments only produced it 10 days ago after we threatened to seek a court order to compel its production.

In other words, we just caught the State Department and DOJ red-handed in another email cover-up. They all knew about the Clinton email account but covered up the smoking-gun email showing this guilty knowledge for years.

The scope of court-ordered discovery that produced this email find includes: whether Secretary Clinton used private email in an effort to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); whether the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 and 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our FOIA request.

During a recent hearing , Judge Lamberth specifically raised concerns about a Clinton email cache , [email protected], discussed in a letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and wants Judicial Watch to “ shake this tree ” on this issue.

Judge Lamberth also criticized the State Department’s handling and production of Clinton’s emails in this case stating, “There is no FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.”

The court rejected DOJ and State efforts to derail further Judicial Watch discovery. Judge Lamberth called their arguments “preposterous” and cited a prior Judicial Watch FOIA case in which he ordered U.S. Marshals to seize records from a Clinton administration official.

Judge Lamberth detailed how the State Department “spent three months from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear,” and that after discovering the State Department’s actions and omissions, “Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now.”

Judge Lamberth stated his goal was to restore the public’s faith in their government, which may have been damaged because of the Clinton email investigation.

The court granted us seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose our depositions of them.

On December 6, 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:

John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS), testified under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
In the interrogatory responses of E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically the Executive Office of the President.
Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testified that both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.
The court will next decide will whether Judicial Watch attorneys can question Mrs. Clinton directly under oath – so stay tuned….


A Judicial Watch Election Law Victory in California

We thwarted Leftist Californians’ efforts to keep President Trump off the 2020 ballot.

A federal judge enjoined a California law requiring presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns. The injunction was requested by Judicial Watch, President Trump, and other challengers to the law.

California’s Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act (“SB 27”) requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns for the past five years for public posting on the internet. Candidates who refuse to do so are barred from having their names printed on California’s March 2020 primary ballot.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenged the law on behalf of four California voters, including two Republicans, a Democrat, and an Independent. The lawsuit alleged that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and that it violates voters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to associate with like-minded voters and to express their preferences by means of their votes ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477)). President Trump, the Republican National Committee, and other candidates and private litigants also filed legal challenges.

In his decision , Judge Morrison C. England of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California observed that “there has never been a legal requirement that any candidate for federal office disclose their tax returns.” While he noted that SB 27 “was primarily intended to force President Trump to disclose his tax returns,” Judge England agreed with Judicial Watch that the law particularly harmed California voters by diminishing their ability “to cast an effective vote” and to select the “presidential candidate of their choice.”

Judge England ruled that Judicial Watch was likely to succeed on every one of its claims. He stated that California’s scheme “tramples the Framers’ vision of having uniform standards” for candidate qualifications. He also found that the public had an “extraordinary” interest in “ensuring that individual voters may associate for the advancement of political beliefs and cast a vote for their preferred candidate for President.” And he agreed with President Trump that SB 27 was preempted by the federal Ethics in Government Act.

As Judge England noted, nonpartisan counsel for the California legislature had issued a written opinion stating that a prior version of SB 27 was unconstitutional. Then-Governor Jerry Brown had vetoed that prior version, also citing constitutional concerns.

Leftist California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters and the U.S. Constitution. The court found this anti-Trump scheme to game the 2020 elections to be obviously unconstitutional.

Outrageously, California’s political leadership will continue to abuse and waste taxpayer money by trying to appeal this sensible decision. They should give up and stop trying to prevent voters from being able to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice next year.

---------

I suspect Rosenstein has been co-operating in return for special treatment... He knows where the bodies are buried.

His “sentence” may be a very good plea deal...
__________________

 

[rick81721]

I'm sure impeachment will come to Trump, but he will stay in power for the time being as he will have enough Republican support to keep him in office. Unfortunately a large part of the rest of the world don't see Trump as an asset to the US and actually just see a bully boy who needs to get his own way or he spits the dummy. Anybody who has to keep telling everybody about how smart and intelligent he is has a few issues !

The US can do a lot better than Trump (irrespective of whether you are a Democrat supporter or Republican)

Like anyone should care how "the rest of the world" views Trump or any other president? Hilarious!

 

[Gregs24]

Like anyone should care how "the rest of the world" views Trump or any other president? Hilarious!

If you genuinely think that is true then Trump and his isolationist views will no doubt suit you down to the ground. The reality is everybody in the world has to get on with each other, trade with each other and try not to fight with each other and the heads of state are each countries representatives. How they act and are viewed from the outside is crucially important in how those countries interact with each other. Trump has done a lot of damage internationally and the US will suffer from that in the end.

You don't have to agree with me (and it seems you probably won't), but you do have to accept that the US is only a part of a global community whether you like that or not. That global community is bigger than all of the countries that make it up - even the good old US of A

 

[Weather Man]

If you genuinely think that is true then Trump and his isolationist views will no doubt suit you down to the ground. The reality is everybody in the world has to get on with each other, trade with each other and try not to fight with each other and the heads of state are each countries representatives. How they act and are viewed from the outside is crucially important in how those countries interact with each other. Trump has done a lot of damage internationally and the US will suffer from that in the end.

You don't have to agree with me (and it seems you probably won't), but you do have to accept that the US is only a part of a global community whether you like that or not. That global community is bigger than all of the countries that make it up - even the good old US of A

It isn't isolationist to expect the head of your country to put your countries interests first. It also isn't isolationist to negotiate trade deals that are fair for both. It also isn't isolationist to expect members of a defense pact to pay their fair share. Numerous European countries were able to expand their social net on our defense dime. Now, compared to the D, and yes even R, presidents in our recent past, Trump was definitely a shock in actually holding Europeans feet to the fire. How dare he actually represent the American taxpayer AND point out Europeans weren't living up to SIGNED agreements.

Hell, even the majority of Brits figured out that being told what to do by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels wasn't a good deal for Brits. It's fun watching your version of the swamp turn itself inside out trying to void out a fair vote.

 

[Gregs24]

It isn't isolationist to expect the head of your country to put your countries interests first. It also isn't isolationist to negotiate trade deals that are fair for both. It also isn't isolationist to expect members of a defense pact to pay their fair share. Numerous European countries were able to expand their social net on our defense dime. Now, compared to the D, and yes even R, presidents in our recent past, Trump was definitely a shock in actually holding Europeans feet to the fire. How dare he actually represent the American taxpayer AND point out Europeans weren't living up to SIGNED agreements.

Hell, even the majority of Brits figured out that being told what to do by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels wasn't a good deal for Brits. It's fun watching your version of the swamp turn itself inside out trying to void out a fair vote.

Ahh good old Brexit. The trouble was that the vote was just too close and effectively a 50:50 split so give or take half the country is always going to be upset. Incidentally the European Parliament is elected, we had the elections this summer.

Trying to use trade tariffs to change trading patterns is doomed to failure. I posted this in another thread:

What you have to understand is that if there is a trade deficit it is because US citizens are choosing to buy goods / services from overseas rather than at home - it isn't the US government or overseas governments problem. What you then have to ask is why ?

They are better value / quality than home grown products. Tariffs only work if they manipulate this deficit in value / quality and make people buy US products, but when the country you are buying from reciprocates then there is status quo - well other than everybody is paying more for the same thing. So the ONLY way US companies can sell more is to be better value / quality than the imports. If the Chinese workers are paid $2 per hour and US workers $10 per hour for the same product you CANNOT compete on price, therefore you have to add value to your US product to make it more desirable.

Any attempts to manipulate import prices via tariffs are doomed to failure (even if the other countries don't retaliate). Consumers are fickle and will always seek the best perceived value.

Look at mobile phones - Apple are far from the biggest selling brand but they are by far the most profitable brand. Why? Brand value. They don't need tariffs to protect them from cheap Chinese imports - they produce a high quality product with a rabidly protected brand value. Likewise Rolls Royce who really don't want to sell too many cars or they will dilute their exclusive brand.

It is a global market these days whether you like it or not and only the very fittest will survive.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Ahh good old Brexit. The trouble was that the vote was just too close and effectively a 50:50 split so give or take half the country is always going to be upset. Incidentally the European Parliament is elected, we had the elections this summer.

Trying to use trade tariffs to change trading patterns is doomed to failure. I posted this in another thread:

What you have to understand is that if there is a trade deficit it is because US citizens are choosing to buy goods / services from overseas rather than at home - it isn't the US government or overseas governments problem. What you then have to ask is why ?

They are better value / quality than home grown products. Tariffs only work if they manipulate this deficit in value / quality and make people buy US products, but when the country you are buying from reciprocates then there is status quo - well other than everybody is paying more for the same thing. So the ONLY way US companies can sell more is to be better value / quality than the imports. If the Chinese workers are paid $2 per hour and US workers $10 per hour for the same product you CANNOT compete on price, therefore you have to add value to your US product to make it more desirable.

Any attempts to manipulate import prices via tariffs are doomed to failure (even if the other countries don't retaliate). Consumers are fickle and will always seek the best perceived value.

Look at mobile phones - Apple are far from the biggest selling brand but they are by far the most profitable brand. Why? Brand value. They don't need tariffs to protect them from cheap Chinese imports - they produce a high quality product with a rabidly protected brand value. Likewise Rolls Royce who really don't want to sell too many cars or they will dilute their exclusive brand.

It is a global market these days whether you like it or not and only the very fittest will survive.

Do you REALLY not understand the tariffs are to encourage others to desist from their unfair tariffs and unfair trade practices? They aren't meant to be permanent.

 

[rick81721]

Trump has done a lot of damage internationally and the US will suffer from that in the end.

You don't have to agree with me (and it seems you probably won't), but you do have to accept that the US is only a part of a global community whether you like that or not. That global community is bigger than all of the countries that make it up - even the good old US of A

A lot of damage? Care to list specifics? That is the tired old charge made of all recent republican presidents - just more leftist spin. Trump is standing up for the US in trade deals that favored other nations for years - nothing wrong with that. And trying to undo the damage Obama did with his idiotic Iranian "deal". PS at least Trump is making an effort to get N. Korea to become a better global citizen, what did Obama do??

 

[Weather Man]

Trying to use trade tariffs to change trading patterns is doomed to failure. I posted this in another thread:

What you have to understand is that if there is a trade deficit it is because US citizens are choosing to buy goods / services from overseas rather than at home - it isn't the US government or overseas governments problem. What you then have to ask is why ?

They are better value / quality than home grown products. Tariffs only work if they manipulate this deficit in value / quality and make people buy US products, but when the country you are buying from reciprocates then there is status quo - well other than everybody is paying more for the same thing. So the ONLY way US companies can sell more is to be better value / quality than the imports. If the Chinese workers are paid $2 per hour and US workers $10 per hour for the same product you CANNOT compete on price, therefore you have to add value to your US product to make it more desirable.

Any attempts to manipulate import prices via tariffs are doomed to failure (even if the other countries don't retaliate). Consumers are fickle and will always seek the best perceived value.

Look at mobile phones - Apple are far from the biggest selling brand but they are by far the most profitable brand. Why? Brand value. They don't need tariffs to protect them from cheap Chinese imports - they produce a high quality product with a rabidly protected brand value. Likewise Rolls Royce who really don't want to sell too many cars or they will dilute their exclusive brand.

It is a global market these days whether you like it or not and only the very fittest will survive.

The days of the USA allowing countries to protect their markets while we let them free trade in ours are done with Trump. They will allow a fair reciprocal deal, or they will feel pain. Numerous countries HAVE negotiated deals, EU will also.

Sponsored