President-elect Donald Trump on Monday promised massive hikes in tariffs on goods coming from Mexico, Canada and China starting on the first day of his administration.
The move, Trump said, will be in retaliation for illegal immigration and “crime and drugs” coming across the border.
“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”
Trump said America’s neighbors can “easily solve this long simmering problem.”
Similarly, Trump said that China will face higher tariffs on its goods – by 10% above any existing tariffs – until it prevents the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
“I have had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States – But to no avail,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
The president-elect claimed in the post that Chinese officials promised him the country would execute drug dealers caught funneling drugs into the United States but “never followed through.”
CNN has reached out to the embassies of Mexico, Canada and China for comment.
After the announcement, the Canadian dollar fell 1.2% against the US dollar, and the Mexican peso fell 2% against the dollar. China’s yuan, though controlled by the government, traded higher – above 7.6% – in offshore markets.
US stock futures, which were higher before Trump’s announcement, fell somewhat – Dow futures were down 160 points, or 0.3%. Nasdaq futures were 0.4% lower, and the broader S&P 500 was also down 0.4%. US Treasury bond prices fell.
The United States’ top import from Canada is oil, which reached a record 4.3 million barrels per day in July, according to the US Energy Information Administration. America also imports cars, machinery and other various commodities, plastics and wood from Canada, according to the United Nations’ Comtrade.
America gets the majority of its cars and car parts from Mexico, which surpassed China as the top exporter to the US in 2023, according to trade data released by the Commerce Department earlier this year. Mexico is also a major supplier of electronics, machinery, oil and optical apparatus, and a significant amount of furniture and alcohol comes from the country into the United States.
The United States imports a significant amount of electronics from China, in addition to machinery, toys, games, sports equipment, furniture and plastics.
During Trump’s first term, CNN reported that he implemented tariffs on about $380 billion worth of goods that applied to thousands of Chinese-made products, including baseball hats, luggage, bicycles, TVs and sneakers. The Trump tariffs also hit foreign steel, aluminum, washing machines and solar panels.
Many US imports from Canada and Mexico are exempted from tariffs because of the USMCA trade agreement between the three nations that Trump pushed for during his first administration. It’s not clear how Trump would plan to implement the proposed tariffs without violating the USMCA.
Trump campaigned on using tariffs as a cudgel against foreign countries – as he did in his first administration – to grow domestic manufacturing while increasing tax revenue to pay for large revenue gaps that his proposed tax cut plan would create.
Tariffs effectively serve as a tax on goods imported to the United States. Although Trump has repeatedly said targeted foreign countries pay the tariffs, they are in fact paid by companies that purchase the imported goods – and those costs are typically passed onto American consumers. Most mainstream economists believe tariffs will be inflationary, and the Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated Trump’s proposed tariffs would cost the typical US household over $2,600 a year.
Scott Bessent, Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary, has said that tariffs would not add to inflation if they are implemented correctly. Wall Street cheered Bessent’s appointment, because he is widely expected to roll out tariffs gradually.
Although Bessent, if confirmed by the Senate, will be partly responsible for implementing the tariffs, in coordination with the Commerce secretary and US Trade Representative, Trump as president would wield significant power to levy tariffs with the stroke of a pen. He did just that when he was last in the White House, placing large tariffs on goods, primarily from China.
The problem with tariffs is that they often result in retaliatory actions by targeted countries, kicking off a trade war – and that’s exactly what happened during Trump’s first term. That blunted the tariffs’ effect on domestic manufacturing, because manufacturers’ goods became less attractive to overseas buyers.
Trump has promised significantly larger tariffs during his second term. Although he continues to discuss many different numbers, he has proposed a tariff upward of 60% on all Chinese goods, as well as an across-the-board tariff of either 10% or 20% on all other imports into the US.
Well, this should be interesting.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Man... he is going full-on brutal as **** , day 1. This is going to be the most aggressive 100 days of any president I think we'll ever see in our lifetimes. He's been planning this day for 4 years.
I guarantee that Mexico folds, and folds quickly. They know their economy relies on the United States... all the companies that produce in Mexico are going to pressure the president. It doesn't matter how socialist and liberal the Mexican president is, they're going to have to respond.
Tariffs effectively serve as a tax on goods imported to the United States. Although Trump has repeatedly said targeted foreign countries pay the tariffs, they are in fact paid by companies that purchase the imported goods – and those costs are typically passed onto American consumers. Most mainstream economists believe tariffs will be inflationary, and the Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated Trump’s proposed tariffs would cost the typical US household over $2,600 a year.
Personally speaking, we all knew there was going to be a price to pay for the Biden/Harris Administration policies. I see this as one of them. This transition will not be pain free for us and it most surely won't be pain free for any of the affected countries.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I guarantee that Mexico folds, and folds quickly. They know their economy relies on the United States... all the companies that produce in Mexico are going to pressure the president. It doesn't matter how socialist and liberal the Mexican president is, they're going to have to respond.
Just my opinion but, Mexico could have stopped or at least slowed down the border issues long ago but, due to a weak Biden/Harris Administration, they had no incentive. Now, they will have one.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-25-2024).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Tariffs and retaliatory tariffs lead inevitably to one thing... higher prices for the consumer (yes, you and I) on both sides of the border.
As I previously stated:
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Personally speaking, we all knew there was going to be a price to pay for the Biden/Harris Administration policies. I see this as one of them. This transition will not be pain free for us and it most surely won't be pain free for any of the affected countries.
Just my opinion but, Mexico could have stopped or at least slowed down the border issues long ago but, due to a weak Biden/Harris Administration, they had no incentive. Now, they will have one.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. If anything, I was confirming what you had stated.
Putting tariffs on goods is a shifty way for a government to increase revenue without raising taxes... and it all comes out of the pockets of the average working stiff.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. If anything, I was confirming what you had stated.
Putting tariffs on goods is a shifty way for a government to increase revenue without raising taxes... and it all comes out of the pockets of the average working stiff.
Understood. This is a situation that good border security could have avoided. Although, admittedly I didn't realize there was nearly the issue with Canada as with Mexico. I guess that just hasn't been on the news nearly as much. I assume (and really don't know) that the issue with Canada is drugs? Or, have I missed something?
I wasn't disagreeing with you. If anything, I was confirming what you had stated.
Putting tariffs on goods is a shifty way for a government to increase revenue without raising taxes... and it all comes out of the pockets of the average working stiff.
very good proven way to make a DEPRESSION GREATER WORK FINE IN THE EARLY 30'S
Originally posted by Patrick: Tariffs and retaliatory tariffs lead inevitably to one thing... higher prices for the consumer (yes, you and I) on both sides of the border.
Higher prices for things imported which could be manufacture here. We need to reinvigorate our manufacturing base and abilities.
I feel the same for cheap groceries because of illegal alien cheap labor. Who knows what the real economic cost for groceries would be. There is no such thing as a job that Americans won't do.
I don't really have any problem with Canadian goods, and not a huge problem with Mexican goods. But GM doesn't need to be building cars in China, for US consumption. (Let them build all they want for the Chinese.) Heck... maybe if there are good manufacturing and tech jobs in Mexico, the people will stay there. (Overly simplistic, of course, but whatever.)
I think this tariff thing needs to be "tempered" a bit, to allow manufacturers to spool up production stateside if, indeed, they decide to.
I think this tariff thing needs to be "tempered" a bit, to allow manufacturers to spool up production stateside if, indeed, they decide to.
Trump has stated that on Day One of his presidency, he will mandate a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, Mexico and China. I suspect he's simply posturing (for his ego), but we'll see.
For one thing, there may be legal reasons due to the USMCA agreement that Trump can't simply do (to Canada and Mexico) what he says he wants to do. (I don't give a hoot about China.)
But let's say that Trump is actually able to follow through with this threat. With 60% of the US's imported oil coming from Canada (and another 10% from Mexico), a 25% increase in price to the US consumer has gotta hurt. Even if the US ups it's own oil production to cover for this imported oil, it's not going to occur overnight, far from it. And this applies to everything else (cars, lumber etc) that the US imports.
If Trump gets his way, the US consumer will get burned big time. And yes, there'll be huge negative ramifications here in Canada as well. Everyone loses, on both sides of the border. There's a reason why free trade deals between countries are often sought after... as they can be mutually beneficial.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-27-2024).]
Trump has stated that on Day One of his presidency, he will mandate a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, Mexico and China. I suspect he's simply posturing (for his ego), but we'll see.
For one thing, there may be legal reasons due to the USMCA agreement that Trump can't simply do (to Canada and Mexico) what he says he wants to do. (I don't give a hoot about China.)
But let's say that Trump is actually able to follow through with this threat. With 60% of the US's imported oil coming from Canada (and another 10% from Mexico), a 25% increase in price to the US consumer has gotta hurt. Even if the US ups it's own oil production to cover for this imported oil, it's not going to occur overnight, far from it. And this applies to everything else (cars, lumber etc) that the US imports.
If Trump gets his way, the US consumer will get burned big time. And yes, there'll be huge negative ramifications here in Canada as well. Everyone loses, on both sides of the border. There's a reason why free trade deals between countries are often sought after... as they can be mutually beneficial.
Trump has absolute authority to impose tariffs against Mexico and Canada, regardless of whatever is in the USMCA.
In 1962, Congress granted the Executive Branch authority to impose tariffs under what was called the "Trade Expansion Act of 1962." This allows the President to unilaterally impose tariffs under the guise of national security, without requiring congress to act. It was passed to assist John F. Kennedy in dealing with Cuba (and other countries at the time).
Because illegal immigration most absolutely is a national security threat, Trump will have absolute authority to impose these tariffs, even if Congress decides they don't want to allow it. They'd have to pass a law specifically rescinding this right, and then the Senate would have to pass it, and then Trump would need to sign it, which of course he wouldn't, so then it would have to go back to the House and they'd have to overrule him, which they wouldn't get enough support to. Everyone wants this.
What I would suggest, is that Mexico and Canada both fall in line and get their **** together. The adults are back in the White House, and we're not going to play stupid games anymore. Trudeau has already said he will cooperate fully, and the President of Mexico has frantically called Trump and said she will work with Trump to help stop the flow if migrants.
Although, admittedly I didn't realize there was nearly the issue with Canada as with Mexico.
There isn't. It's just Trump talking out of his azz.
Am I suggesting there is absolutely no flow of illegal whatever from Canada to the US. No. However, it pales in comparison to whatever is illegally crossing the border from Mexico to the US. And let's not forget the illegal whatever coming into Canada from the States. This isn't a one way problem.
What I would suggest, is that Mexico and Canada both fall in line and get their **** together. Trudeau has already said he will cooperate fully...
I suspect that your interpretation of "cooperate fully" in this case is somewhat different than actual reality.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
...and the President of Mexico has frantically called Trump and said she will work with Trump to help stop the flow if migrants.
Help me out here, Todd. Where exactly does it say in your linked to news story that the President of Mexico has "frantically" called Trump? Not only do I not see evidence of anyone being frantic (other than maybe yourself being frantic with hyperbole), but it appears that Trump wasn't even worth a phone call from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. She sent him a letter. When you get wound up like this, do you just make up stuff or what?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The adults are back in the White House...
Good one Todd, good one. Yeah, we'll see.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-27-2024).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Not only do I not see evidence of anyone being frantic (other than maybe yourself being frantic with hyperbole), but it appears that Trump wasn't even worth a phone call from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. She sent him a letter. When you get wound up like this, do you just make up stuff or what?
"Just had a wonderful conversation with the new President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo. She has agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border. We also talked about what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States, and also, U.S. consumption of these drugs. It was a very productive conversation!"
Trump has stated that on Day One of his presidency, he will mandate a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, Mexico and China. I suspect he's simply posturing (for his ego), but we'll see.
You may be correct, but what I am sure of is, the lack of leadership during the Biden/Harris years is what caused all of these border crossings and facilitated a greater flow of drugs. I suspect DJT is ensuring everyone knows there's a new sheriff in town and this crap is going to come to an end or else.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
Originally posted by Patrick: I suspect he's simply posturing (for his ego), but we'll see.
Yes you will, although you should have learned something from history. Circa 2016.
Leftoids are a special breed. What would tariffs do for his ego ?
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: But let's say that Trump is actually able to follow through with this threat. With 60% of the US's imported oil coming from Canada (and another 10% from Mexico), a 25% increase in price to the US consumer has gotta hurt. Even if the US ups it's own oil production to cover for this imported oil, it's not going to occur overnight, far from it. And this applies to everything else (cars, lumber etc) that the US imports.
Again, history, circa 2016. All Presidential candidates since the mid 70's promised to become energy independent. Trump did not make that promise yet he was the only one who made it happen. We were exporting fossil fuels.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: If Trump gets his way, the US consumer will get burned big time. And yes, there'll be huge negative ramifications here in Canada as well. Everyone loses, on both sides of the border. There's a reason why free trade deals between countries are often sought after... as they can be mutually beneficial.
Originally posted by Patrick: It's just Trump talking out of his azz.
Is that like Obama and Biden sending a stern letter of disapproval ? Trump, while not in office yet, is beginning negotiations. Trump will not back down !
There isn't. It's just Trump talking out of his azz.
Am I suggesting there is absolutely no flow of illegal whatever from Canada to the US. No. However, it pales in comparison to whatever is illegally crossing the border from Mexico to the US. And let's not forget the illegal whatever coming into Canada from the States. This isn't a one way problem.
Trump talking out his azz? If nothing else is true, DJT is telling those countries that they better get with the program and attempt to help stop that flow or, there will be consequences. They have been warned.
Based on news reports, the flow of immigrants and drugs appears to be significantly greater coming from the rest of the world through Mexico than Canada but, that doesn't mean there isn't a significant flow from or through Canada. We don't have sufficient Intel to really know that.
This may not be a "one way problem" but, I have no doubt any flow whatsoever is greater coming into the US than it is going out. This is not an attempt to point fingers at any country but, as RayB says, follow the money.
There was nothing about a phone call in your original link ("In a letter that she sent to Trump..."). And even in this new link that you've provided, I see nothing about the Mexican President being "frantic".
The threat of imposing massive tariffs no doubt pumps up his ego. Trump so desperately wants to be seen as "The Man", as even he knows he's regarded by other world leaders as a clown.
This may not be a "one way problem" but, I have no doubt any flow whatsoever is greater coming into the US than it is going out.
I'll agree that the smuggling of people across the border is probably more of an issue of them entering the States from Canada than it is the other way around (however, it absolutely pales to the numbers crossing to the US from Mexico)... but in regards to the smuggling of drugs and firearms across the border, I'd like to see some factual information that would support any claim that the outflow of these goods from Canada to the States surpasses what comes from the States into Canada. It's huge problem for both countries. Blaming it all on Canada is nothing but grandstanding by Trump.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-28-2024).]
I'll agree that the smuggling of people across the border is probably more of an issue of them entering the States from Canada than it is the other way around (however, it absolutely pales to the numbers crossing to the US from Mexico)... but in regards to the smuggling of drugs and firearms across the border, I'd like to see some factual information that would support any claim that the outflow of these goods from Canada to the States surpasses what comes from the States into Canada. It's huge problem for both countries. Blaming it all on Canada is nothing but grandstanding by Trump.
As I previously stated:
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
We don't have sufficient Intel to really know that.
This may not be a "one way problem" but, I have no doubt any flow whatsoever is greater coming into the US than it is going out. This is not an attempt to point fingers at any country but, as RayB says, follow the money.
"WE" as in the general public. Hard to say what information hasn't been released.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
Based on what? You sound pretty definite, especially considering you yourself stated that "we" don't know all the facts.
Well, news reports could be one source but just reading some of your posts could also be considered as substantial information. You've stated things that may or may not be factual but how am I to know for sure. I don't trust our (US) alphabet agencies much anymore so........................
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
You've state things that may or may not be factual but how am I to know for sure.
You don't... however I have never posted a downright lie ever at PFF. My opinions may be contrary to popular beliefs in this sub-section, but honestly, I don't care enough about politics to go out of my way to try and deceive anyone.
You don't... however I have never posted a downright lie ever at PFF. My opinions may be contrary to popular beliefs in this sub-section, but honestly, I don't care enough about politics to go out of my way to try and deceive anyone.
Patrick, I'm not sure where your anger is coming from and why. I know I didn't call you a liar. Show me where I erred. I believe I have stated the obvious and in some ways agree with you but my goodness, settle down and take a break. Just because I stated that "We" don't know doesn't suggest anything about you.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
Patrick, I'm not sure where your anger is coming from and why.
???
Ron, there is absolutely no anger at my end. I'm not sure what's leading you to believe that. I'm just trying to make it clear in my posts that Trump is blowing way out of proportion the one-way flow of smuggled goods into the US from Canada. It's most definitely a two-way problem. My dislike of Trump is no doubt showing through, but I have no "anger" towards you or anyone else here.
Ron, there is absolutely no anger at my end. I'm not sure what's leading you to believe that. I'm just trying to make it clear in my posts that Trump is blowing way out of proportion the one-way flow of smuggled goods into the US from Canada. It's most definitely a two-way problem. My dislike of Trump is no doubt showing through, but I have no "anger" towards you or anyone else here.
Well, some time go back and read your own posts. They strike me as "angry". But, I'm happy to learn this is more about DJT than the rest of us poor uninformed people. I have a similar for feelings toward Trudeau and his policies. But, he's more your problem than mine. Happy Thanksgiving.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
Originally posted by Patrick: There was nothing about a phone call in your original link ("In a letter that she sent to Trump..."). And even in this new link that you've provided, I see nothing about the Mexican President being "frantic".
Why does everything I say need to be backed up by a link? When did that start happening? You were wrong about the phone call, I linked it for you... but I didn't need to do that. Your Google is as good as anyone's...
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
The threat of imposing massive tariffs no doubt pumps up his ego. Trump so desperately wants to be seen as "The Man", as even he knows he's regarded by other world leaders as a clown.
Personally, I don't care for what reason he does things, so long as it's the right thing. In this case, he doesn't have to be seen as "the man" because he literally is "the man" in the most powerful position in the world come January. I'm just saying though... is it impossible to believe that he's making that decision because he thinks it's the right one, and not because it makes him look cool?
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 11-28-2024).]
Why does everything I say need to be backed up by a link?
Maybe because you have a long history here of frantically making up stuff to suit your agenda?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
You were wrong about the phone call, I linked it for you...
Without anyone asking you for anything, you supplied a link along with your comment. Your comment was contrary to information in the very link you provided. To say I was "wrong" because I didn't fact check your link is pretty rich!
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
In this case, he doesn't have to be seen as "the man" because he literally is "the man" in the most powerful position in the world come January.
Did you (and/or your political cronies here) regard Biden or Obama as "The Man" when either one of them was in charge? I've read the posts here. I already know the answer to that question.
Sorry, but outside of the US (and in many parts within the US), Trump is not seen as "The Man"... no matter what his position on the world stage may be. I just hope he doesn't destroy your country, and damage a lot of others (including Canada) in the process.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-28-2024).]
Maybe because you have a long history here of just making up stuff to suit your agenda?
Give me an example. When have I "made something up." I don't take things that personally, but you're basically calling me a liar. It doesn't bother me because I know I'm not, but mots people would be pretty pissed...
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: Without anyone asking you for anything, you supplied a link along with your comment. Your comment was contrary to information in the very link you provided. To say I was "wrong" because I didn't fact check your link is pretty rich!
The fact that there was a phone call wasn't the point of my original post... it's that the president was going to work with Trump to stop the border crossings. You are the only one who seemed to not understand that there was a phone call that took place, so I had to find a link that talked about it. No idea why that was your focus? Not for nothing, but why is it so hard for you to admit when you're wrong? This is like a non-issue for me... when I'm wrong, it's no sweat off my back.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: Did you (and/or your political cronies here) regard Biden or Obama as "The Man" when either one of them was in charge? I've read the posts here. I already know the answer to that question.
Sorry, but outside of the US (and in many parts within the US), Trump is not seen as "The Man"... no matter what his political position may be. I just hope he doesn't destroy your country, and damage a lot of others (including Canada) in the process.
Obviously, I can understand why other people in the world might find it obnoxious, but under present time, the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, and the President thus becomes the most powerful person in the world.
I took less issue with Obama, I didn't like him, but Biden, I just thought he was a complete fool... even when he didn't have dementia the guy always made bad decisions. But that didn't negate the fact that when they were president, they were still the most powerful people in the world.
... is this going to be another one of those where you will go back and forth FOREVER until I just stop responding? Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious if there's a point or if this is just trolling.
Give me an example. When have I "made something up."
I've called you on it many times. It's all still here for your perusal. I'm not going to waste my time supplying a past example... because it had no effect on you when originally posted, and it won't have any effect on you now.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
... is this going to be another one of those where you will go back and forth FOREVER until I just stop responding? Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious if there's a point or if this is just trolling.
And as usual, when you're called out on something, the other party (in this case, me) is accused of "trolling". Quit embellishing your posts with made up nonsense ("the President of Mexico has frantically called Trump...") and I'd have little to b!tch about.
Donald Trump seemed to offer alternative facts on Wednesday about his call with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and was swiftly rebutted by the leader herself, prompting mockery on social media.
In a post on Truth Social, the president-elect declared that Sheinbaum had “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border.”
Shortly afterwards, Sheinbaum posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, about the conversation, saying, “we reiterate that Mexico’s position is not to close borders, but to build bridges between governments and communities.”
Both leaders characterised the call as positive. The two spoke after Trump on Monday threatened to impose a 25% tax on all products entering the country from Canada and Mexico as soon as he takes office. He also vowed a 10% tariff on goods from China.
Trump said the tariffs would remain in place until “such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”
The incident was somewhat reminiscent of Trump’s claim in 2016 that he would make Mexico pay for “100%” of a proposed wall at the US border. Peña Nieto, Mexico’s president at the time, declined. Mexico did not pay.
Social media users sarcastically celebrated Trump’s fictional victory.
“All it took was one call. Donny deals,” journalist Sam Stein posted on the platform.
Mike Nellis, a former aide to Vice President Kamala Harris, said “Trump thinks he convinced the President of Mexico to stop all migration across the border LOL.”
Olivia Troye, a former Trump White House official, offered a “translation” for the Republican’s words.
“Just had a conversation with the President of Mexico who didn’t allow me to bully her, which left me confused about my charm…she pointed out that this is very bad…very bad for me if I do these tariffs…” she posted on X.
Well, I guess we'll see what happens. Two different perspectives of a conversation. I'm not going to suggest either one's version is wrong but, it's sure as hell when they hung up there were two different understandings of what had just transpired.
Now, if I was a betting man (which I try to avoid doing), my bet would be that the 25% sanction is going to hit in January.
Now, if I was a betting man (which I try to avoid doing), my bet would be that the 25% sanction is going to hit in January.
Your original post is copied below. If you'd care to make a wager based on what is highlighted below, I'll take you up on it... with the loser paying into Cliff Pennock's Beer Fund. How much do you wish to give Cliff?
"On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform."
Originally posted by Patrick: Your original post is copied below. If you'd care to make a wager based on what is highlighted below, I'll take you up on it... with the loser paying into Cliff Pennock's Beer Fund. How much do you wish to give Cliff?
As I previously stated, I try to avoid betting. Edited: BTW, the original post was a quoted article, if you would look at what I said at the bottom of the quoted article, pretty sure I said this will be interesting.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
Edited: BTW, the original post was a quoted article, if you would look at what I said at the bottom of the quoted article, pretty sure I said this will be interesting.
Not denying any of that... but you did just recently post (in the last few minutes) the comment below. I was simply offering to take you up on it, if you wished to follow through. No harm done.
Not denying any of that... but you did just recently post (in the last few minutes) the comment below. I was simply offering to take you up on it, if you wished to follow through. No harm done.
...my bet would be that the 25% sanction is going to hit in January.
[/QUOTE]
I have other priorities for the use of my and or your money. You are welcome to send all you can afford. I and others are still paying for Biden's bad judgements.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-28-2024).]
(Overly simplistic, of course, but whatever.)
Yeah, we'll see. 
