daz28

I thought the Secret Service didn't take him "down to The Capitol".

Lutnik would have never been to Epstein Island, and in business with him, if the marxist democrats had never paid informants to get information on the goings on there-Todd Blanche logic. Blaming the chicken for the egg. LOL When do we start arresting the media and the talking heads they employ to make democrats and republicans hate each other? That would be a great place to start if justice and fixing our country were a priority. It's now the news anymore, and EVERYONE knows that.

It sounds like a good thing. The world needs more of just the data/facts, and less of what someone's opinion of what it means.

Maga....well maybe only one world war is America first. LOL A giant mess again, that can't be fixed.

Yeah, I was only talking about when he's on a prompter.

He's terrible reading the prompter, tonight or any night. 2 minutes or 2 hours. That's just a fact.

This is like 3rd grade reading/speaking skills.

Well, this is interesting: In July, Wired reported that Cantor Fitzgerald, which Lutnick chaired until he was appointed to Trump’s Cabinet, was allowing its traders to purchase the rights to hundreds of millions of dollars of refunds in the event the tariffs were struck down in court. The firm now happens to be headed by Lutnick’s sons Kyle and Brandon.

What's with Les Wexner's lawyer, Michael Levy? His law firm handled Enron and Sam Bankman-Fried. Since when does a lawyer threaten a client with death if he gives an answer more than 5 words? It really seems like if we could just get a case against 1 or 2 of them, they're going to talk.

Personally, I don't believe tariffs will bring manufacturing back, but if we're going to attempt this, we have to be all in. Half-assing it will hurt us without a doubt. I'm no economist, but to me there's a catch 22 with the entire principle. I'd imagine we rebuilt Europe and Asia post WW2 so we'd have customers for our booming industry. What good is producing things if no one can afford to buy them? This kind of seemed to work, but the big shift took place during the 2000's in China, which were almost completely dominated by republicans(an inconvenient truth). Sure, the dominoes were maybe already set up, but they did nothing to curb it. That brings me back to why I'm against tariffs. One, trump wants to destroy their economies, which puts us back at square one as manufacturers, with no customers. Two, unemployment is already very low. We'd have to import the workers needed. Then there's the silly notion that there's no money for investment. That's simply not true. Corporations are making record profits. The problem is the money has all been funneled to the top, so if they do invest, they would be trying to sell to an ever-shrinking consumer class that's saddled with debt, not disposable income. One other thing that is really bothering me is that much, maybe most of the money that trump is claiming to have gathered for investment is FOREIGN money. If things stay the way they are, we'd just continue low wages, while funneling the money up to Saudi's and the like. No bueno and no thanks. Again, I'm no economist or global trade expert, but these are my common-sense thoughts on the matter.

I disagree with the Baldwin Kavanaugh tweet, and read a lot of what they were discussing in dissent, but it was mostly unrelated to tariffs, while merely showing that many times the executive has been delegated congressional authorities(mostly stuff from 1790). I 100% agree with the Andrew Kolvit tweet from what I've read about the 3 laws that he listed. They're extremely vaguely written, and would be hard for courts to deny.

That's only one avenue. There are others. Also, with that 150 days, a Republican Congress can just not call for a vote, and he can either ignore it, or just restart the 150 days. Unfortunately, there's several loopholes. I'd assume they knew they'd probably lose this one(privately), but were just hopeful for the best result. The only thing I'm 100% certain of is that there's many other levers he can pull, that are legal and have very ambiguous wording, a trump specialty.

I don't see any benefit for them to do so. trump has painted himself in a corner here with this deployment. If he takes no action, and/or ineffective action, then not only will he appear weak, but it will also fuel the rumors of Kompromat.

I think that they were just too stupid to cite the proper applicable laws, but this one made the chance for unlimited sweeping tariffs most likely. There's absolutely no question that Congress has delegated tariff power to the executive in several laws. Congress screwed up big time here. I'm against the tariffs, but I think the biggest mistake will be doing this with half measures. For example, I guarantee that the supposed $18 trillion in investment will not happen under uncertainty. He's making these pledges seem like guarantees, but anyone with a brain knows that's not how business works. My humble opinion is either go through with it in full measure, or scrap it completely.

From what I've researched there's at least 3 more different ways he can still apply the tariffs. Some of them have limitations, but this is only fault of Congress for delegating tariff powers in so many ways. One allows 15% up to 150 days, and then Congress CAN, but doesn't have to vote(simple majority) on it(so winning midterms would be essential). Another allows 50% without much interference at all. This is definitely not the win that people are thinking it is. Many of these haven't been tried, so the courts could get involved, but the language seems fairly clear and mostly ambiguous, like so many laws are.