Congratulations to the President. Trump's tariffs are winning...

[Billiejeens]

New Poll: Trump’s Approval Higher Than 2024 Victory Margin — Media Silent

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

New Poll: Trump’s Approval Higher Than 2024 Victory Margin — Media Silent

"Soothing lies for apoplectic MAGAts"

 

[schmidlap]

Chimper shows up to announce he has nothing.



Shocker!


.

Shameless Trump worship aside, the antediluvian sexual abuser has just screwed the GOP bigly.

Some tariffs will only last 150 days before Congress has to weigh in. Others could be permanent, but require months of investigation. The high court's ruling meant that Republicans wouldn't have to defend Trump's extremely unpopular tariffs... But now, Congress will have to show its loyalty to the president by voting to impose new tariffs, which they aren't interested in doing. A vote would force lawmakers to take more ownership of a policy that voters believe has driven up their costs.​

Fox News poll: Trump’s tariffs faced broad disapproval even before Supreme Court ruling​

Trump's tariff fetish is repugnant to the electorate.
With elections in November, Congressional Republicans are again doused in Trumpstink.

 

[WelfareQueen]

... for our former friends, allies and trading partners.

=====

Canada Leads New 40-Nation Trade Bloc
Carney Surprises Trump With 40-Nation Alliance Against MAGA
Can smaller economies really create a new world trade order? Yes, they can.

...further formalizing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trade diversification strategy — an alliance among Canada, the 27-member European Union and the 12-nation Indo-Pacific bloc — is now under negotiation, with Canada spearheading the talks.

And, in the face of an apparent divide-and-conquer strategy from Washington against CUSMA’s other two signatories, the Carney government has this week deployed a 370-person business delegation to Mexico led by Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic Leblanc.

=====

Europe, Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, South Korea, the European Union, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Uruguay, Saudi America, Mexico. That's a good start.

Now that America is viewed as essentially a Mafia organization -- you'd better deal with us only if you absolutely HAVE to -- we have done the world a favor by demonstrating that we're not needed as much as the world thought. That will help us hide from everyone as much as possible. American exporters will suffer for this, but they're just commie whiners!

Trump's "**** you, you need us more than we need you, so we're going to insult, mock, troll, namecall, threaten and punish you all we want, so tough shit" foreign policy is Winning!

US GDP growth in 2025 was almost double that of Canada. But Trump is losing.


Mac & Cheese. Board retard.

 

[Nostra]

Shameless Trump worship aside, the antediluvian sexual abuser has just screwed the GOP bigly.

Some tariffs will only last 150 days before Congress has to weigh in. Others could be permanent, but require months of investigation. The high court's ruling meant that Republicans wouldn't have to defend Trump's extremely unpopular tariffs... But now, Congress will have to show its loyalty to the president by voting to impose new tariffs, which they aren't interested in doing. A vote would force lawmakers to take more ownership of a policy that voters believe has driven up their costs.​

Fox News poll: Trump’s tariffs faced broad disapproval even before Supreme Court ruling​

Trump's tariff fetish is repugnant to the electorate.
With elections in November, Congressional Republicans are again doused in Trumpstink.

Still nothing but pathetic diversions.

How sad for you.

 

[Correll]

Indeed, Trump is winning.

'Buckle up!': CNBC anchor left visibly shocked as US trade deficit plunges from $136B to $29B — lowest since 2009. Was Trump right about tariffs?​

The U.S. has lived with a massive trade deficit for decades. But under President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, that gap is suddenly narrowing — and much faster than many expected.

That became clear on CNBC when anchor Rick Santelli reacted in real time to the latest numbers.

“On the trade balance, which we know is going to be a deficit, we’re expecting a number around $58 billion,” Santelli said on Thursday morning (1). As he read through the Commerce Department’s update, his tone shifted. “Buckle up, this is unreal! The movement in this number: -$29.4 billion — we cut it basically in half! We cut it in half!”

October’s $29.4 billion trade deficit didn’t just come in well below economists’ forecasts — it marked a 39% drop from September’s $48.1 billion gap (2).

Santelli also underscored how dramatic the swing has been compared to earlier this year, before Trump’s tariffs took effect.

“Just consider this: In March it was $136 billion. Right now, it’s a whisker under $30 billion. We haven't been that small in a long time — I don't have enough records here to go back that far!” he said.

As it turns out, it’s the smallest trade deficit since June 2009.

Tariffs are designed to discourage imports and reshape trade flows, so the trend isn’t entirely unexpected. As Santelli noted, “Here’s the news on why it moved lower: Imports were down and exports were up.”

Winning the trade war”​

To be sure, Trump’s sweeping tariffs have drawn criticism, including fears of retaliation from major trading partners. But with the latest figures, some economists are sounding more upbeat.

“The U.S. appears to be winning the trade war with tariffs curbing the imports of foreign goods, but America’s trading partners are not holding any grudge as they continue to buy more American goods and services,” said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at Fwdbonds (3).

“So far, the forecasts for a U.S. recession are coming up dry as productivity continues to backstop growth.”

Recent data backs up that assessment. U.S. GDP grew at an annual rate of 4.3% in the third quarter of 2025 — the strongest pace since late 2023 and well above economists’ expectations for a 3.2% increase (4).

Some analysts see additional tailwinds ahead. Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, pointed to easing uncertainty, fiscal support and more accommodating monetary policy (5).

"We expect fading policy uncertainty, the boost from tax cuts and the recent loosening of monetary policy to mean the economy strengthens in 2026," Pearce said.

MSN

WHOA!

 

[DennisPTate]

Canada can trade who we want to trade with, this has not been due to Trump, we are being fleeced in trade with the E.U and China. The issue we have had for decades has been protectionism. Canadian consumers are the most indebted on earth by far, only nation on earth where personal debt of citizens is over 100% of GDP, and food is excessively expensive. That has to do with the lack of competition here as Canadian legacy companies have been protected by multiple governments at different levels. Ontario is leading our massive cost of living increase and Ontarios collapse is almost certain. Did you know that a year after saying that trade would be free between provinces, we STILL do not have free trade amongst provinces. Think about that...we do NOT have free trade between provinces in our own country...

Personally I am more than a little bit worried that President Trump's warning to Canadians about the economy of China gobbling up our economy, is a very real possibility for the future.

Watch synchronized humanoid robot Kung Fu demo at Beijing temple

Unitree’s G1 robots performed synchronized martial arts, including punches, kicks, and flips at a Beijing landmark.

interestingengineering.com

 

[Clipper]

We know how he "ran" the business. Stiffing vendors, threatening people, lying on loan & tax documents, bankrupting companies.

This, after being given $400 million, a name, and a big, fat Rolodex by Daddy.

This is John Gotti -- fitting, given the fact that infamous mob lawyer Roy Cohn was literally Trump's mentor. Gotti wrecked the Gambino family with his stupidity, empty flash, chaos, big mouth and incompetence.

You forgot him laundering money for Russian mobsters.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Personally I am more than a little bit worried that President Trump's warning to Canadians about the economy of China gobbling up our economy, is a very real possibility for the future.

Watch synchronized humanoid robot Kung Fu demo at Beijing temple

Unitree’s G1 robots performed synchronized martial arts, including punches, kicks, and flips at a Beijing landmark.

interestingengineering.com

Canada decided to destroy citizens lives without any accountability and now too many of our allies know.

I tried, now I turn my back.

 

[forkup]

I'm happy to set it aside, BUT, you asked me to steel man THEIR argument and that is always part of their argument AND, it often WINS arguments, debates and elections. Leading to the world we live in now. So I included it.




Correct.



Employers COULD do shit like advertise in those areas, or move production. But that takes work ON THEIR end, and they have gotten used to be lazy and stupid.





True.



Also true.


Let's keep in mind that labor is only one part of the cost. The price or inflation increase is not one to one.




Doesn't have to be. Even if the specific job in question is a lower end job, raising the wage there, would have positive effects both on the individual and the overall system.

The man washing cars, or mowing lawns, might be able to live on that, instead of be motivated to compete for a better job. An odd factor that still reduces demand for the middle class jobs.

I've seen people forced out of manual labor jobs, and thus be motivated to get training and then move into a higher paying job, competing in that labor pool increasing demand.





My understanding is that meatCUTTER used to be a middle class job, until the flood of illegals depressed wages to the point it is a low income job. I know that landscaping CAN be a very upperwardly mobile job, if a man can save enough to buy his own truck. I've seen people build serious lives on GRAVE DIGGING, once they saved enough to buy their own backhoe. ect.







You cite transport as an example.

Average truck driver wage is 27 to 35$ an hour. Middle class is 27-40$ an hour.

I just saw a video on youtube of a cop pulling over a truckdriver, chinese, mostly naked, unable to speak english. With a valid drivers license.

I expect that before the mid terms we will see a rise in middle class and lower incomes.


Also, this discussion had rised an interesting point. Most Americans are middle class. And that is what I want to track to judge this by.

BUT, raising lower end wages, would also be of benefit to millions of Americans.

I've seen the difference for the same job, (nurse's aide) in two cities say... 40 minutes apart, with a difference of a few dollars an hour, and it made the difference in the lives of people, from poverty, to working poor...

which, let me tell you, is a HUGE and VERY NICE difference.


Can we redefine teh goal to benefiting middle AND lower class American wages?

I'm happy to set it aside, BUT, you asked me to steel man THEIR argument

What you did wasn't a steelman. It was an argument you heard cited back bereft of any context or meaning. In other words a strawman. Besides it being irrelevant to the particular discussion. So I let it go.

Employers COULD do shit like advertise in those areas, or move production. But that takes work ON THEIR end, and they have gotten used to be lazy and stupid.

The question is not what employers can do. It's about what the policies themselves do. If you cite a policy that requires actions by non-government parties to combat inflation. I'd argue you acknowledge the policies themselves are inflationary.

Let's keep in mind that labor is only one part of the cost. The price or inflation increase is not one to one.

Never claimed it is one on one. I simply claimed the policy is inflationary and pose the question what evidence you have that those wage increases actually are a net gain when considering the resulting inflation.

My understanding is that meatCUTTER used to be a middle class job

Can you give some figures for that?

Also, this discussion had rised an interesting point. Most Americans are middle class. And that is what I want to track to judge this by.

That's fine as long as you also consider the other side of the ledger. Namely the inflation the selected policy causes.

Can we redefine teh goal to benefiting middle AND lower class American wages?

Again fine, but also again. Reading through your reply, I notice you keep on sidestepping the isues of the inflationary nature of the policy you selected under the criterieon you asked for. Wage increases are meaningless if you purchasing power declines because of inflation.

The reason I made sure the question was narrowly defined and clarified was to avoid confusion and limit the ability to sidestep.

 

[DennisPTate]

Canada decided to destroy citizens lives without any accountability and now too many of our allies know.

I tried, now I turn my back.

Actually this is just beginning.......
Moses at eighty years of age was just beginning.....

 

[shockedcanadian]

Actually this is just beginning.......
Moses at eighty years of age was just beginning.....

Unfortunately not. Even if tariffs disappeared tomorrow, if I left this earth, it cannot change the trajectory, the outcome is guaranteed. All of this is the result of evil in man placing their own selfish ambitions above country.

 

[Correll]

What you did wasn't a steelman. It was an argument you heard cited back bereft of any context or meaning. In other words a strawman. Besides it being irrelevant to the particular discussion. So I let it go.

I respectfully disagree, and I am letting it go.

The question is not what employers can do. It's about what the policies themselves do.

The policy is to effect the labor market to force employers to take steps to attract AMERICAN workers. Such as raising wages, or advertizing in poor rural AMERICAN areas. Or training. Or something I haven't even thought of.

If you cite a policy that requires actions by non-government parties to combat inflation. I'd argue you acknowledge the policies themselves are inflationary.

Sure. Raising wages and living standards for AMERICANS, will have cause some inflationary pressure.

Never claimed it is one on one. I simply claimed the policy is inflationary and pose the question what evidence you have that those wage increases actually are a net gain when considering the resulting inflation.

There have been times, even during the first Trump period, when lower end wages, rose faster than inflation. So, real improvement in standard of living. Then covid brought the hammer down.

Can you give some figures for that?

I've read stuff on this before. All google is giving me is whining about the deportations being a problem for the industry NOW.

AI gave me this summary.

Google Search

That's fine as long as you also consider the other side of the ledger. Namely the inflation the selected policy causes.

I've been clear that I will do so. Do you want to consider terminology that will fold in inflation? So that you feel that I have not forgotten it, or am trying to mislead any readers?

Again fine, but also again. Reading through your reply, I notice you keep on sidestepping the isues of the inflationary nature of the policy you selected under the criterieon you asked for. Wage increases are meaningless if you purchasing power declines because of inflation.

You seem to be assuming my goal is PARTISAN, ie to make a case that Trump has succeeded, and that I am willing to be deceptive to make my argument.

This is incorrect. My goal is the interests of AMERICANS, and I am supporting Trump because I think his policies are the best offered at this time. Playing the game you are suggesting, would be meaningless to me.

What is your goal? DO you want to WIN, the debate, proving that the other side is wrong, or do you want to see the interests of AMERICANS served by good results?

The reason I made sure the question was narrowly defined and clarified was to avoid confusion and limit the ability to sidestep.

I have no interest or reason to sidestep. I am not supporting immigration enforcement because I support Trump. I support Trump becasue I want higher wages, EVEN ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, thus meaning better lives for AMERICAN WORKERS, LOWER INCOME AND MIDDLE CLASS.


You are being vigilant against something that means less than nothing to me.

 

[forkup]

I respectfully disagree, and I am letting it go.



The policy is to effect the labor market to force employers to take steps to attract AMERICAN workers. Such as raising wages, or advertizing in poor rural AMERICAN areas. Or training. Or something I haven't even thought of.




Sure. Raising wages and living standards for AMERICANS, will have cause some inflationary pressure.






There have been times, even during the first Trump period, when lower end wages, rose faster than inflation. So, real improvement in standard of living. Then covid brought the hammer down.



I've read stuff on this before. All google is giving me is whining about the deportations being a problem for the industry NOW.

AI gave me this summary.

Google Search

I've been clear that I will do so. Do you want to consider terminology that will fold in inflation? So that you feel that I have not forgotten it, or am trying to mislead any readers?



You seem to be assuming my goal is PARTISAN, ie to make a case that Trump has succeeded, and that I am willing to be deceptive to make my argument.

This is incorrect. My goal is the interests of AMERICANS, and I am supporting Trump because I think his policies are the best offered at this time. Playing the game you are suggesting, would be meaningless to me.

What is your goal? DO you want to WIN, the debate, proving that the other side is wrong, or do you want to see the interests of AMERICANS served by good results?




I have no interest or reason to sidestep. I am not supporting immigration enforcement because I support Trump. I support Trump becasue I want higher wages, EVEN ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, thus meaning better lives for AMERICAN WORKERS, LOWER INCOME AND MIDDLE CLASS.


You are being vigilant against something that means less than nothing to me.

My goal is to have a good faith argument in a place were no one I've encountered ever does so. This has made me vigilant to the point of cynisism.

I will say now that so far in the course of this conversation you are.comimg closer to that good faith conversation then anyone on the right at any time in the ten plus years I've been active here. The minor lapses being some occasional slippage in perceived tone. Something that can just as easily be perception by me rather than intentional by you.

So let me refocus the conversation onto the only relevant question that we have to solve for this particular argument.

Does the deportation.of illegals cause more inflation than it makes wages go up for the lower and middle classes. (As per your request, for.expanding your.premise.)

I'm skeptical because I have 2 examples of huge shocks to the supply system and labor market. One were both occured. And one were a huge influx of low skilled labor in a regional area only resulted in limited wage changes.

https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel.pdf This is a study for the mariel boatlift.
125000 Cubans flooded the labor market in the Miami market it found it's.influemce on the labor market was marginal at best.

The second example is Covid. Huge labor market contraction resulting in decreased production followed by a huge labor increase AND wage increases as the market expanded and supply chains tried to catch upto demand. Do you want to argue that the wage increases kept up with inflation there?

In order for your assertion that the Trump policy of deporting illegals is a benefit to American lower and middle class you need to give at least some reasoning to support that the resulting wage increases will outweigh it's inflationary effects.

Do you have such an ressoning?

 

[Correll]

....

https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel.pdf This is a study for the mariel boatlift.
125000 Cubans flooded the labor market in the Miami market it found it's.influemce on the labor market was marginal at best.

The study suggests some answers to the appearent lack of impact.

1. They reference that the area had already had several waves of immigration. THey put it forth as the area somehow learned or adjusted to such impacts. Another take would be that the local labor market was already oversupplied .


2. They come right out and suggest that natives moving away might be part of the reason. That's not a good answer from my perspective. Especially when considering far larger numbers that impact vast areas of the nation.

The second example is Covid. Huge labor market contraction resulting in decreased production followed by a huge labor increase AND wage increases as the market expanded and supply chains tried to catch upto demand. Do you want to argue that the wage increases kept up with inflation there?

WAY too chaotic a period with way too many moving parts to be a good analogy. Especially with the massive printing of money.

In order for your assertion that the Trump policy of deporting illegals is a benefit to American lower and middle class you need to give at least some reasoning to support that the resulting wage increases will outweigh it's inflationary effects.

Do you have such an ressoning?

My opinion on this is based primarily on the Law of Supply and Demand AND the hstorical trends of rising wages/living standards that WAS the norm for America, pior to 1970.


THIS graph, I have seen often cited. I have never heard anyone claim it is not real.

 

[JimH52]

International rebellion as Canada's PM leads 40 nations in plan to buck Trump

Carney is now the global trade leader. He appreciates it!

China is going to bring the felon's world trade to it's knees. And the Felon will lie and tell us all that the US economy is booming...like he did at the SOTU address. He is the typical lying, conning Mafia Boss.

 

[forkup]

The study suggests some answers to the appearent lack of impact.

1. They reference that the area had already had several waves of immigration. THey put it forth as the area somehow learned or adjusted to such impacts. Another take would be that the local labor market was already oversupplied .


2. They come right out and suggest that natives moving away might be part of the reason. That's not a good answer from my perspective. Especially when considering far larger numbers that impact vast areas of the nation.



WAY too chaotic a period with way too many moving parts to be a good analogy. Especially with the massive printing of money.






My opinion on this is based primarily on the Law of Supply and Demand AND the hstorical trends of rising wages/living standards that WAS the norm for America, pior to 1970.


THIS graph, I have seen often cited. I have never heard anyone claim it is not real.


View attachment 1224232

The study suggests some answers to the appearent lack of impact.

Yes it does. On the other hand, finding possible reasons for the outcome doesn't change the fact, that it has had that outcome. An outcome that puts your hypothesis that deporting illegals will have a meaningfull impact on real wages in doubt.

WAY too chaotic a period with way too many moving parts to be a good analogy. Especially with the massive printing of money.

Sure, here's the thing though. None of the comsequences I've described are disputed. Not the labor contraction, labor expantion, or impact it had on inflation. The fact, that other factors also played along doesn't invalidate the analogy. Ot just makes it imperfect. In fact,

THIS graph, I have seen often cited. I have never heard anyone claim it is not real.

The graph you showed to support your premise that illegals taking over American jobs caused wages to remain stagnant in my view is a much more call it... dubious interpretation of facts then my Covid example.

The only thing it showed is that wages went stagnant after 75, amd doesn't even attempt to corrolate it to immigration. You just infer it.

If immigration is the primary cause of post-1970 wage stagnation, we should see wage stagnation correlating strongly with immigration flows across time or across regions. Do you have that evidence?

For myself, I have a much more mundane and ultimately stronger corrolation. Income inequality. See where your graph showed stagnating wages I suggest you put up the same graph for the upper class. See how their income did.

 

[Correll]

Yes it does. On the other hand, finding possible reasons for the outcome doesn't change the fact, that it has had that outcome. An outcome that puts your hypothesis that deporting illegals will have a meaningfull impact on real wages in doubt.

Sure, here's the thing though. None of the comsequences I've described are disputed. Not the labor contraction, labor expantion, or impact it had on inflation. The fact, that other factors also played along doesn't invalidate the analogy. Ot just makes it imperfect. In fact,

It raises the possiblity that there are OTHER factors, that might not be present in the nationwide issue, that could be causing the results you wanted.

The graph you showed to support your premise that illegals taking over American jobs caused wages to remain stagnant in my view is a much more call it... dubious interpretation of facts then my Covid example.

The only thing it showed is that wages went stagnant after 75, amd doesn't even attempt to corrolate it to immigration. You just infer it.

Correct. Which is fine. You say that like it's NOT fine, but it is.

If immigration is the primary cause of post-1970 wage stagnation, we should see wage stagnation correlating strongly with immigration flows across time or across regions. Do you have that evidence?

I said nothing of PRIMARY. There are many factors involved and I am not concerned with ranking them. I want to address all of them.

IMMIGRANT imo, is clearly one of them, for the reasons already given.


We know that third world immigration exploded after the 67 immigration reform. And not long after that, wages started to stagnate.

Sounds like a good place to start.

For myself, I have a much more mundane and ultimately stronger corrolation. Income inequality. See where your graph showed stagnating wages I suggest you put up the same graph for the upper class. See how their income did.

If third world immigrants are depressing lower end and middle class incomes, and not so much the income of the rich,

then one would expect income inequality to increase.


You are confusing cause and effect, I think.

 

[forkup]

Correct. Which is fine. You say that like it's NOT fine, but it is.

I'm confused. When I used Covid as an example it wasn't fine for you. To you it invalidated the entire analogy. This despite the mechanisms being described. Yet now you're saying that you don't need to make a clear correlation yourself.

I said nothing of PRIMARY. There are many factors involved and I am not concerned with ranking them. I want to address all of them.

IMMIGRANT imo, is clearly one of them, for the reasons already given.


We know that third world immigration exploded after the 67 immigration reform. And not long after that, wages started to stagnate.

Sounds like a good place to start.

Don't you think the "ranking" of the factors is important. The basis of your entire thesis is that Trump policies are improving the real wages of middle class and lower class American's. And as an example of that, you picked immigration policy. The problem you are having though is that you can't draw a clear line from immigration to those real wages. In fact, the graph you provided, shows an 8 year gap between immigration and those wages stagnating. You can label it as "not long after that" but 8 years is a significant time period before it being reflected.

On the other hand, if immigration influences, just as a hypothetical, the wages by 1 percent, and the upper bracket of the income scale hoarding the wealth by, an equally hypothetical 80 percent, and Trump's policies influence both. Wouldn't the ranking matter for the accuracy of your argument?

If Trump policies reduce wage pressure on lower an middle class Americans by deporting Illegals by one percent but increases those same pressures by... I don't know... levying tarifs and decreasing the tax burden for the higher incomes disproportianally compared to the lower and middle class by 20 percent invalidate your premise?

If third world immigrants are depressing lower end and middle class incomes, and not so much the income of the rich,

then one would expect income inequality to increase.


You are confusing cause and effect, I think.

Sure. The thing is your graph shows production going up by 150 percent while average real wages stay stagnant. Meaning that unless you want to claim they paid illegals a multitude than they are paying American workers, the money that was earned by those stagnating wages and increased production went elsewhere.

 

[Vrenn]

US GDP growth in 2025 was almost double that of Canada. But Trump is losing.


Mac & Cheese. Board retard.

Sounds good until you count the populations.

USA 338.02
CANADA 39.19

The US has almost 9 times the population. Figuring that in and you come up with Canada is doing almost 9.2 times better than the US.