Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 149K
  • Politics 
 
superrific said:
Alas. Article I, section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

States already make "trade deals" with countries but they are informal and not really binding.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of Article 1.

You seem to be disillusioned as to the Constitution having any weight at all in this moment in history. It doesn't. It is only our acquiescence to it that keeps the flimsy thing together at all. We have leadership that doesn't value it and won't enforce it. The populace is not far behind.
 
wmheel1287 said:
I'm aware of Article 1.

You seem to be disillusioned as to the Constitution having any weight at all in this moment in history. It doesn't. It is only our acquiescence to it that keeps the flimsy thing together at all. We have leadership that doesn't value it and won't enforce it. The populace is not far behind.
Click to expand...
Please don't try to lecture me about the constitution. I'm fully aware of the threat.

But states still can't do trade deals. How would that even work? If the constitution means nothing, then Trump would just shut it down. If the constitution does mean something, they aren't allowed. Why would any foreign nation commit to a treaty with a state, when the likelihood of getting any benefits from it are low (because the trade deal is illegal and/or contrary to federal policy).

In addition, states' free trade deals would not be able to overcome federal tariffs (which as a practical matter get levied at ports of entry), so what would be the point?
 


“My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”
 
superrific said:
Trump still doesn't understand the auto industry. After all those talks with industry executives, how does he not understand that he can't shut down Canada's auto industry permanently without also shutting down America's auto industry (at least the Big Three, leaving only the foreign models)?
Click to expand...
You think he listens when anyone else talks?
 
It's not clear he listens to himself. It could just be a memory thing. That's a lot of lies for one old man to remember.
 
superrific said:
Please don't try to lecture me about the constitution. I'm fully aware of the threat.

But states still can't do trade deals. How wouldq1 that even work? If the constitution means nothing, then Trump would just shut it down. If the constitution does mean something, they aren't allowed. Why would any foreign nation commit to a treaty with a state, when the likelihood of getting any benefits from it are low (because the trade deal is illegal and/or contrary to federal policy).

In addition, states' free trade deals would not be able to overcome federal tariffs (which as a practical matter get levied at ports of entry), so what would be the point?
Click to expand...
I didnt lecture you about a thing. I expressed an opinion about your lecture.

I don't even lecture my own students.
 
wmheel1287 said:
I didnt lecture you about a thing. I expressed an opinion about your lecture.

I don't even lecture my own students.
Click to expand...
"You seem to be disillusioned as to the Constitution having any weight at all in this moment in history. It doesn't," is a lecture. In that sentence, you are placing yourself as the authority, correcting "disillusioned" me.

If you were expressing an opinion, you would say, "I don't know if the Constitution has any weight."

You weren't aware of that provision in Article I. Why not just admit it? Instead, you decided to say that the constitution doesn't matter, which is silly and in denial about how things work even in a corrupt oligarchy, and took a condescending tone to boot. And I'm sensing a Zenmode digression from you about the meaning of the word lecture.
 
altmin said:

Loading…

www.cnbc.com

Ontario’s Ford suspends U.S. electric surcharge, says Lutnick agrees to trade talks​

Click to expand...
This is the stupidest time line. What we're seeing here is that everyone on both sides knows that nobody actually wants tariffs. But Trump wrote a check he can't cash, and is therefore insisting on this stupid in-and-out dance. And Canada is responding tit for tat -- especially Ford, who is temperamentally similar to Trump.

So they threaten nonsense to get to trade talks, which we could have had all along, and the trade talks are going to change nothing, because it was never serious in the first place.
 
superrific said:
"You seem to be disillusioned as to the Constitution having any weight at all in this moment in history. It doesn't," is a lecture. In that sentence, you are placing yourself as the authority, correcting "disillusioned" me.

If you were expressing an opinion, you would say, "I don't know if the Constitution has any weight."

You weren't aware of that provision in Article I. Why not just admit it? Instead, you decided to say that the constitution doesn't matter, which is silly and in denial about how things work even in a corrupt oligarchy, and took a condescending tone to boot. And I'm sensing a Zenmode digression from you about the meaning of the word lecture.
Click to expand...
The arrogance you display here on this forum is astounding. I'd rather engage with 10 of Zenmode than one of you. I am exceptionally sorry that I broke my own personal rule of responding to anything you say.
 
wmheel1287 said:
The arrogance you display here on this forum is astounding. I'd rather engage with 10 of Zenmode than one of you. I am exceptionally sorry that I broke my own personal rule of responding to anything you say.
Click to expand...
Yep. Standard pattern.

You: suggests that something can't happen
Me: it can't happen because of the constitution
You: [Pee-Wee Herman voice?] I knew that. You are so naive that to think that the constitution matters
Me: It still can't happen, and please don't talk down to me about a subject you don't know.
You: I wasn't talking down or lecturing
Me: providing examples of lecturing
You: How arrogant!!!!1!!1!1!1

I stand by my consistent sentiment that the most arrogant thing is to talk down to people who know way more than you do about a subject. It's astonishing to me that you have so little shame as to try to tell a law professor how the law works.
 
superrific said:
This is the stupidest time line. What we're seeing here is that everyone on both sides knows that nobody actually wants tariffs. But Trump wrote a check he can't cash, and is therefore insisting on this stupid in-and-out dance. And Canada is responding tit for tat -- especially Ford, who is temperamentally similar to Trump.

So they threaten nonsense to get to trade talks, which we could have had all along, and the trade talks are going to change nothing, because it was never serious in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top