The Supreme Court won’t.Somebody has to save the world economy from this idiot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Supreme Court won’t.Somebody has to save the world economy from this idiot.
Nice to see that Jeanine Pirro still enjoys drinking her box wine during working hours.
What a clown show of an administration. JFC.Nice to see that Jeanine Pirro still enjoys drinking her box wine during working hours.
Maybe he will send them a RUMP watch.It’s Trump….ain’t no paying back AND, who pays interest?!
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.
But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
He will just tell them to eat it, since they got to own the libs.Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.
But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
I feel bad for them also, it's a demanding job with little gratitude or reward, but if any group should have had an idea how bad the tariffs are, this group should have.1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
Good to see a court with common sense.
Don't feel that bad. Most farmers aren't really being hurt. I couldn't find a good survey but these two data points allow for quite a bit of extrapolation when you look at production share and such. I'm expecting that bottom 74% are fairly unscathed and the top 6% already deep in the public trough.I feel bad for them also, it's a demanding job with little gratitude or reward, but if any group should have had an idea how bad the tariffs are, this group should have.
He will just tell them to eat it, since they got to own the libs.
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
Does the House bill set the minimum amount of the undertaking in order to enforce through contempt? If not, courts could set the undertaking at $1 under FRCP 65(c).Hey Rand, I don't care that all much what you've always said.
I do care that what you do, and what you've done is largely rubber stamp the unilateral power Trump now claims. Let's see what you have to say about the anti-contempt provisions of the House bill.
$1 is OK, per my understanding. But the thing is, the bond has to have been paid at the beginning of the case. If the bond wasn't paid at the outset, then there is no jurisdiction.Does the House bill set the minimum amount of the undertaking in order to enforce through contempt? If not, courts could set the undertaking at $1 under FRCP 65(c).