Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 8:21pm:


Yep.

And he just loves 10-year-old boys.

So much so, he "adopted" one.

Spoiler alert: there's no record of Gaetz ever adopting the child - he was just living with him, as a single man.

Frank wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 4:51pm:


Let’s attempt to summarise the contrast since you seem apprehensive about delving into a more detailed explanation.

Biden’s tariff increase, which you highlighted, was part of a coherent, long-term strategy to bolster the US green economy. It began with significant investments in solar manufacturing, included incentives to attract private sector participation, and culminated, as you noted, in Biden’s decision to:

“Double tariffs on certain solar panel components that are made in China.”

This approach demonstrates clear objectives, relevant action, and measurable outcomes. Domestic alternatives mitigate the impact of these tariffs on consumers, allowing the economy to adapt while advancing renewable energy goals. In this case, the temporary discomfort serves a greater purpose, paving the way for sustainable growth.

In stark contrast, Trump’s proposed tariff policy for 2025 reeks of economic recklessness. His agenda includes a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico and Canada, alongside a further 10% tariff on Chinese goods, imposed indiscriminately from day one.

IF he wasn't simply lying during the campaign.

These blanket tariffs come without any meaningful preparation to develop domestic industries that could shield Americans from the resulting price hikes.

The risks are manifold: retaliatory measures from trade partners, economic instability, inflationary pressures, and the spectre of recession loom large. Unlike Biden’s deliberate approach, Trump’s plan offers no tangible goals or endgame, relying instead on the misguided notion that tariffs alone can coerce nations with greater economic endurance into compliance. China, in particular, has shown a willingness to absorb such shocks, confident in its resilience. The pain would ripple across economies, but the US stands to lose more, economically and politically.

Moreover, Trump’s timing is precarious. He is not stepping into the robust economic conditions left by Obama in 2017 but rather a landscape recovering from his own mismanagement during COVID-19 and its aftermath. The economy today lacks the buffers to withstand his chaotic policymaking. Should his policies trigger economic collapse, it will brand not only his presidency but the Republican Party as architects of disaster, leaving lasting political and economic scars.

In summary, Biden’s tariffs serve as a calculated investment in the future. Trump’s tariffs, by contrast, embody short-sighted opportunism, offering pain without purpose and a gamble that the US can ill afford.

You should have kept reading Frank.

From your same link:

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 9:30am:


Quote:


It's all part of their plan, as I've been saying from the start.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 9:30am:


Now you’re shifting the goalposts, claiming “principal reason” as your new defence. Convenient, isn’t it? But it doesn’t hold water. Biden’s administration has spent years methodically preparing alternatives to the targeted tariffed components used in US solar panel construction. This wasn’t just about tariffs, it’s part of a broader strategy to boost manufacturing, create jobs, and integrate more clean energy into the grid.

Quote:


That might be 45’s stated goal, using tariffs as a crude bargaining tool to coerce Canada, Mexico, and China into making changes to migration policy and drug enforcement. But no one ever claimed otherwise. The problem isn’t the stated objective; it’s the sheer recklessness of the approach.

From day one, 45’s plan is to slap blanket tariffs on imports with no groundwork, no strategy, no effort to build a foundation like Biden did in the example you’ve highlighted. Equating the two actions as identical is dishonest at best and ignorant at worst, they’re not remotely comparable.

45 is proposing a 25% tariff on all imports from these countries and an additional 10% on everything from China. Every product, every supply chain element, every imported component is fair game. The result? Consumers will inevitably pay more for nearly every product they purchase, whether imported or locally produced with imported inputs.

And because there’s no preparation, no thought to ensuring viable domestic alternatives, the majority of cases will leave consumers with no choice but to pay the tariffs. If the goal is to bolster local industries, he’ll need to articulate a coherent plan. What measures will accompany this blunt instrument? How will the chaos he’s introducing into the market, the uncertainty, skyrocketing prices, supply shortages, be mitigated?

How long are these tariffs intended to last? Will he reverse them on a whim? Are they a genuine policy tool or an empty bluff? And if they’re a bluff, what does that say about the credibility of anything he claims in the future?

Worse still, if his intention is to drive local investment, he’s achieving the opposite. Investors loathe uncertainty, and these tariffs, especially if they provoke retaliatory measures or a trade war, will send them running.

Then there’s inflation. You’ve conceded that prices will rise for everyone. Do you not see how this blanket approach will exacerbate inflation across the board? These are indiscriminate tariffs on all imports from these nations, not targeted, not strategic, just sweeping and blunt.

Do you grasp it yet?

Your attempt to equate 45’s ham-fisted tariff policy with Biden’s measured and deliberate approach is not only factually flawed but transparently motivated by your desperate need to cling to the illusion that "they’re the same."

They’re not.

And as much as you might wish to dismiss these points to preserve your worldview, doing so only exposes the vacuity of your argument. Frankly, if your opinions are that devoid of substance, you might be better off staying in your echo chamber, it’s safer than exposing yourself to further embarrassment.

If you can’t see the difference between a coherent, forward-looking policy and the reckless whims of a man who governs via tantrums, that’s on you.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, you're such a Troll and an Trumpite, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 11:39am:


How would YOU do it?

As President Biden says, American workers and businesses can outcompete anyone—as long as they have fair competition. But for too long, China’s government has used unfair, non-market practices. China’s forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft have contributed to its control of 70, 80, and even 90 percent of global production for the critical inputs necessary for our technologies, infrastructure, energy, and health care—creating unacceptable risks to America’s supply chains and economic security. Furthermore, these same non-market policies and practices contribute to China’s growing overcapacity and export surges that threaten to significantly harm American workers, businesses, and communities.



So not just solar panels, then.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:


Diplomacy.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 2:43pm:


Do their plans risk spurring inflation, and interest rates and force their people to pay the tariffs which will fund tax cuts for the rich because no locally manufactured alternatives exist, pushing the country closer to a recession, trade war and economic decline?