COVID inflation is going to look like an anthill in comparison to what's coming.
Tracking toy tariffs
- Thread starter Justice
- Start date
Ru1977
The Irishman
Apparently people are into groceries again, have you heard this?
RicksNerdLife
Studious
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2025
- Messages
- 539
It's best not to try and understand or rationalize whatever the fuck points this one thinks he's making. You'll only end up infuriated and confused.
There's a reason he was the first and only person I've blocked on here.
EnigmaticClarity
Studious
Without a doubt. Most things made in China would double in price if you moved manufacturing back to America like Navarro wants--or more. The poor among us lead far better lives with cheaper clothing and other goods, and on the aggregate that makes us stronger.
Not an expert, but Navarro really isn't that well respected. If you Google to get a gist of his background. He loses various elections in the San Diego area as a Democrat, writes some get rich quick stock trading books, becomes a tenured professor where he notices an influx of Chinese students, writes some books critical of China, and supposedly gets on Trump's radar through Kushner who found those books on Amazon.
EnigmaticClarity
Studious
That's the sense I get of what people think of him as well. As far as I can tell he wouldn't be known at all at the national level outside of hardcore politicians if he hadn't been an advisor to Trump throughout both of his administrations.
The only thing I agree with him on is that China is a threat. Everything about how to deal with that threat I can't tell what he's thinking because the way he communicates his ideas is too slanted for me to follow for long. I've tried to watch his documentaries, but I haven't been able to get more than five minutes into them before the biased propaganda angle he takes forces me to turn them off. I probably mostly agree with Michael Moore, but he's similar to Navarro in presenting ideas in an overly-biased way that I can't stand.
Anyone who uses logical fallacy and/or ad hominem to express their ideas are fools I refuse to suffer so I haven't been able to subject myself to Navarro's ideas for long. But he doesn't strike me as dumb; just an ideologue unethical enough to try to push his ideas through biased rhetoric. Plenty of people are like that, and forums around the Internet are full of people who use similar tactics to communicate.
and he campaigned on making them cheaper but does the complete opposite with his other dumb ideas
meat products I think will go up too, lots of migrant workers in meat packing plants
Justice
for Starhawk!
Just consider yourself lucky. Last time a one-armed Sherpa delivered a package to me I had to do the truffle shuffle to get it.
EnigmaticClarity
Studious
A federal appeals court just ruled Trump's tariffs as illegal in a 7 to 4 vote:
thehill.com
The court is allowing them to stay in place until October 14 to allow Trump to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution grants tariff power to Congress, but Congress passed two laws in 1962 and 1974 allowing presidents to change tariff policy temporarily in response to national security threats or in response to tariffs from other nations. Trump has been claiming we're in an emergency now, but the federal court disagreed.
It's hard to see how the Supreme Court could see this differently. The Constitution clearly gives this power to Congress, and the only way presidents can affect it at all is via Congressional laws giving them that power in extremely limited circumstances. Conditions aren't much different now than they were during Trump's first term or really at any point over the past few decades so how they'll paint a picture of an emergency seems insane.
I don't get why he wasn't just asking Congress to do this anyway. He's got control of both houses so why not do it permanently? Him trying to do it himself is a major reason companies haven't been taking him seriously; it needs to be done by law with a specific time period of 10+ years for it to have real effects on how companies plan to manufacture and ship their products.
Federal appeals court rejects Trump’s emergency tariffs
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected President Trump’s assertion that emergency powers justify his worldwide tariffs, a blow to his efforts to refashion global trade. In a 7-4 decision,…
thehill.com
The court is allowing them to stay in place until October 14 to allow Trump to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution grants tariff power to Congress, but Congress passed two laws in 1962 and 1974 allowing presidents to change tariff policy temporarily in response to national security threats or in response to tariffs from other nations. Trump has been claiming we're in an emergency now, but the federal court disagreed.
It's hard to see how the Supreme Court could see this differently. The Constitution clearly gives this power to Congress, and the only way presidents can affect it at all is via Congressional laws giving them that power in extremely limited circumstances. Conditions aren't much different now than they were during Trump's first term or really at any point over the past few decades so how they'll paint a picture of an emergency seems insane.
I don't get why he wasn't just asking Congress to do this anyway. He's got control of both houses so why not do it permanently? Him trying to do it himself is a major reason companies haven't been taking him seriously; it needs to be done by law with a specific time period of 10+ years for it to have real effects on how companies plan to manufacture and ship their products.
Last edited:
RicksNerdLife
Studious
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2025
- Messages
- 539
Most Trump tariffs are not legal, US appeals court rules
A divided U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal, undercutting the Republican president's use of the levies as a key international economic policy tool.
RunestoneCowboy
Ponderous
As much as I love this temporary setback for Trump, I think we all know how this will play out in the Supreme Court. Alito and Thomas will never rule against Trump because they're nakedly partisan activists pushing Federalist Society-orchestrated outcomes. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and yes, even Roberts will say, "But who determines what is or isn't an emergency and how long an emergency lasts? Why, the President, of course!", as they toss out decades of stare decisis precedent.
Last edited:
EnigmaticClarity
Studious
In this case Congress already has done their job, albeit not the current one. They'd have to reinterpret the 1962 and 1974 laws in some biased way as RunestoneCowboy suggested. And as he said Alito and Thomas absolutely will so it's on the others. I'd slightly bet they will find against Trump this time, but I wouldn't bet much on it because it'll be close.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 2,109
I'm like.. second-hand buddies?... with a guy that works for CanadaPost. They are literally not even talking about the US problem right now. It's ALL about the contract negotiations and trying to make CP 'more profitable' within Canada so Canadians will stop abandoning the service for more expensive, but more reliable/stable, services.
They do not care about the US at all right now. ToySnowman is living in a fantasy.
I think SCOTUS will rule against Trump. They tried to keep him from firing the Fed a few months ago. They're desperate to do what they can to prop him up.