Irving Cowboy
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 4,148
The decline, just as it was with the last guy, is real, folks.
President Trump Thread (Part 2)
- Thread starter boozeman
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 129,479
Nodding off and not being able to find your way off a stage are two very different things. But, you already knew this.
Irving Cowboy
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 4,148
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 62,427
Everyone after the age of 70 is probably on some sort of decline. Trump is no exception.
Now does that mean he can't remember what happened 5 minutes ago? I haven't seen his decline reach Joe Biden levels. I've never seen a President that far gone before though.
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,196
And we’d go weeks without seeing Biden in front of the press or at all. Trump is front and center every goddamn day.
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,196
He only sleeps 4-5 hours a night. I’d say he’s outperforming people half his age easily.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 62,427
So they are real...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 129,479
Logic would lead you to believe so. So, by Trump saying that is he indirectly revealing confidential information?
Chocolate Lab
Full DFDC
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 31,771
I heard it pretty much was Roberts, then Gorsuch joined in for cover.
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,196
Here’s what drives me crazy about the tariffs, from Grok:
Yes, there was a pronounced asymmetry in the volume, intensity, and framing of criticism—widely noted at the time as a double standard driven by partisanship, shifting Washington consensus on China, and media narratives.
Trump’s 2018–2019 Section 301 tariffs on ~$370 billion of Chinese goods triggered sustained, high-profile backlash:
• Democrats and Biden personally: Called them “erratic,” “shortsighted,” and a self-inflicted wound. Biden in 2019 tweeted: “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.” In 2020, he vowed to remove them if elected, citing harm to farmers (bailouts needed), manufacturers, and consumers.
• Media and economists: Labeled a chaotic “trade war” that raised prices, hurt exports (soybeans, etc.), and cost jobs net. NPR, CNN, NYT, etc., ran frequent stories on consumer costs and retaliation. Many economists signed open letters or testified against them; studies (NY Fed, etc.) highlighted ~80–100% pass-through to U.S. importers/consumers.
• Volume: Thousands of critical articles/op-eds in the first year alone; portrayed as Trump’s signature recklessness.
Biden kept all of those Trump-era tariffs in place for his entire term, conducted the required 2024 four-year review, and explicitly decided to maintain them while hiking rates on ~$18 billion more in strategic sectors (EVs: 25% → 100%; semiconductors: 25% → 50%; steel/aluminum: up to 25%; solar, batteries, cranes, etc., phased 2024–2026).
Reaction to Biden? Far milder and often positive or neutral:
• Democrats/Congress: Shifted to applause or calls for even more. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): “A thoughtful way to support the development of domestic industry” with “coherence” Trump lacked. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pushed for broader bans. Many who slammed Trump in 2018–2019 were silent or supportive.
• Media framing: Often “strategic,” “targeted protection for workers,” or “smart response to Chinese overcapacity.” Politico (May 15, 2024): “DC slammed Trump’s China tariffs. They’re cheering Biden’s decision to keep them.” ABC News noted Biden’s past slams but highlighted the policy continuity without heavy condemnation. NPR acknowledged the retention but emphasized political constraints (“little room to get rid of them”).
• Economists/administration: USTR Katherine Tai said the review found “no justification for relief” because China’s practices (subsidies, IP issues) had worsened. Some free-trade voices (Tax Foundation, PIIE, Cato) criticized the hikes as continuing a flawed policy that raises U.S. costs—but the political firestorm was muted compared to 2018.
Why the disparity?
• Partisan lens: Criticism of Trump was amplified (classic “Trump derangement” effect in coverage); Biden’s actions inherited + reframed as continuation of “responsible” policy.
• China consensus shift: By 2021–2024, even many Democrats viewed Beijing as a systemic rival (tech theft, military buildup, COVID origins, etc.). Tariffs became a bipartisan tool rather than “Trump’s folly.”
• Framing and packaging: Trump’s were broad and announced via tweets; Biden’s were narrower, tied to subsidies (IRA/CHIPS Act), and sold as “de-risking” + “protecting workers.” Same economic mechanism (U.S. importers pay), but different narrative.
• Political incentives: Rolling back would’ve looked weak on China in an election year. Biden’s team explicitly cited swing-state manufacturing politics.
Free-trade analysts (e.g., Tax Foundation, USITC reports) have been consistent: The tariffs (Trump-initiated, Biden-retained) raised U.S. prices, had limited reshoring success, and didn’t force major Chinese structural change—costs fell mostly on Americans regardless of who was president. But the political/media heat was overwhelmingly one-sided.
This pattern—same policy, different treatment—has been called out by outlets across the spectrum (Politico, Foreign Policy, conservative commentators) as illustrative of how elite Washington often judges actions by the actor, not the substance. When Trump expanded tariffs further in 2025, the criticism cycle restarted from the left, while some on the right defended the continuity. It’s a textbook example of tribal policy evaluation rather than principle-based debate.
Yes, there was a pronounced asymmetry in the volume, intensity, and framing of criticism—widely noted at the time as a double standard driven by partisanship, shifting Washington consensus on China, and media narratives.
Trump’s 2018–2019 Section 301 tariffs on ~$370 billion of Chinese goods triggered sustained, high-profile backlash:
• Democrats and Biden personally: Called them “erratic,” “shortsighted,” and a self-inflicted wound. Biden in 2019 tweeted: “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.” In 2020, he vowed to remove them if elected, citing harm to farmers (bailouts needed), manufacturers, and consumers.
• Media and economists: Labeled a chaotic “trade war” that raised prices, hurt exports (soybeans, etc.), and cost jobs net. NPR, CNN, NYT, etc., ran frequent stories on consumer costs and retaliation. Many economists signed open letters or testified against them; studies (NY Fed, etc.) highlighted ~80–100% pass-through to U.S. importers/consumers.
• Volume: Thousands of critical articles/op-eds in the first year alone; portrayed as Trump’s signature recklessness.
Biden kept all of those Trump-era tariffs in place for his entire term, conducted the required 2024 four-year review, and explicitly decided to maintain them while hiking rates on ~$18 billion more in strategic sectors (EVs: 25% → 100%; semiconductors: 25% → 50%; steel/aluminum: up to 25%; solar, batteries, cranes, etc., phased 2024–2026).
Reaction to Biden? Far milder and often positive or neutral:
• Democrats/Congress: Shifted to applause or calls for even more. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): “A thoughtful way to support the development of domestic industry” with “coherence” Trump lacked. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pushed for broader bans. Many who slammed Trump in 2018–2019 were silent or supportive.
• Media framing: Often “strategic,” “targeted protection for workers,” or “smart response to Chinese overcapacity.” Politico (May 15, 2024): “DC slammed Trump’s China tariffs. They’re cheering Biden’s decision to keep them.” ABC News noted Biden’s past slams but highlighted the policy continuity without heavy condemnation. NPR acknowledged the retention but emphasized political constraints (“little room to get rid of them”).
• Economists/administration: USTR Katherine Tai said the review found “no justification for relief” because China’s practices (subsidies, IP issues) had worsened. Some free-trade voices (Tax Foundation, PIIE, Cato) criticized the hikes as continuing a flawed policy that raises U.S. costs—but the political firestorm was muted compared to 2018.
Why the disparity?
• Partisan lens: Criticism of Trump was amplified (classic “Trump derangement” effect in coverage); Biden’s actions inherited + reframed as continuation of “responsible” policy.
• China consensus shift: By 2021–2024, even many Democrats viewed Beijing as a systemic rival (tech theft, military buildup, COVID origins, etc.). Tariffs became a bipartisan tool rather than “Trump’s folly.”
• Framing and packaging: Trump’s were broad and announced via tweets; Biden’s were narrower, tied to subsidies (IRA/CHIPS Act), and sold as “de-risking” + “protecting workers.” Same economic mechanism (U.S. importers pay), but different narrative.
• Political incentives: Rolling back would’ve looked weak on China in an election year. Biden’s team explicitly cited swing-state manufacturing politics.
Free-trade analysts (e.g., Tax Foundation, USITC reports) have been consistent: The tariffs (Trump-initiated, Biden-retained) raised U.S. prices, had limited reshoring success, and didn’t force major Chinese structural change—costs fell mostly on Americans regardless of who was president. But the political/media heat was overwhelmingly one-sided.
This pattern—same policy, different treatment—has been called out by outlets across the spectrum (Politico, Foreign Policy, conservative commentators) as illustrative of how elite Washington often judges actions by the actor, not the substance. When Trump expanded tariffs further in 2025, the criticism cycle restarted from the left, while some on the right defended the continuity. It’s a textbook example of tribal policy evaluation rather than principle-based debate.
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,196
Law enforcement shot and killed armed man trying to enter Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service says
President Donald Trump was not at his Florida estate during the incident.
Another crazy lefty trying to make a name for himself.