I supported Trump, still do, but I don't like every thing he's doing or sometimes the way he's doing them. It was the same for me with Ronald Reagan who I voted for twice. You are correct, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
“There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.”
Exactly. He is well-intentioned but things don't always work out as well as hoped for. Everything he wants is neither good nor bad.
When a friend voices concern over whether Trump is part of the deep state, etc., I remind her firmly that he isn't our savior. That said, I am happy so far. The unorthodox moves that previously made me cringe now make me chuckle. I was a Kennedy supporter, and when he asked voters to vote for Trump, it was an easy ask. I was going to do so anyway. What was the choice? A party that has inverted to a pro-war party that beats its chest about my body my choice but wants to deny such a choice to young Ukrainian War caught up in a proxy war? The receipts of our footprint are in NPR archives from 2014 - a time when I still listened to it.
I understand why people chose to vote for Trump and would have likely done so myself. My issue is not with Trump voters but with those who unquestionably agree with everything he does.
In the political world the opposite of a bad policy might not be a good one. It might just be a different kind of bad.
This is quite fair (a rarity these days in anything referencing Trump), but I would still add two points.
Interpreting Donald Trump's negotiating style requires understanding Anchoring: In a negotiation, the "anchor" is often the initial offer or price put forward. By setting a high anchor, a negotiator can influence the other party to perceive subsequent, potentially lower, offers as more reasonable, even if they are still above the negotiator's initial target.
Assessing his progress on promises also requires having reasonable expectations regarding timelines. Every political campaign makes "Day 1" promises (which can sometimes be kept in regards to issuing executive orders, which he did) and "First 100 days" promises (which is still too fast to actually modify most legislation or regulation, but the process can at least be visibly put into motion). Getting major legislation through, rewriting regulations and receiving public comment on them, working either through court injunctions and appeals... That all takes months. Foreign diplomacy often takes months. Economic shifts in response to policy changes can take years to show their long term results. So have some patience. Tune out for a while and then recheck the things that he was working on a few months ago and see how they're doing. There's little to no value in following every twist and turn of the processes that haven't completed yet.
I agree, he makes an art form of hyperbole for effect. He's a master of patter, bunkum, and conversational bullshitting. His rhetorical "weaving" is as much an aesthetic medium as colored thread and stitch patterns in handmade quilting. That's just not quite the same thing as lying. When the intended audience knows what you mean and you know that that they know because you intended them to know, that's a stylistic choice, not an illicit attempt to deceive. This article covers it well. https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-art-of-bullshit
One of the more interesting other things to consider is that despite his rather deliberately masculine image, Trump's communication style is often distinctly feminine in its patterns. He often prioritizes establishing and reinforcing relationships as the framing of his comments rather than communicating information or advancing action. He tends to use a lot more "rapport" speak than "report" speak. It's one reason he's so uniquely effective at holding audiences for hours while extemporizing off the cuff: he's connecting with people moreso than merely communicating to people. In a very significant way, Donald Trump routinely treats even official communications as a sort of small talk, more about implicitly communicating relationship status (who's in, who's out, who outranks who in the in group, etc) than about the actual content of what's said (much of which he sometimes makes up on the spot and seemingly doesn't even remember later). It's kinda funny to think of him as the First Female President, but he kinda is in the same way that Bill Clinton used to be occasionally referred to as the First Black President because of the way he talked.
This topic is simple. Why make it complicated. One nation charges a tariff on the USA, meaning Canada. Other presidents let them do it and don't charge Canada the same tariff in return. President Trump is a business man. How is that a fair business practice in any world? Politicians will do it for money or favors politically not caring about the economic harm it does to their country. Other countries do it as well. The EU does it to everyone. I bet you wouldn't handle your personal finances that way. So, be angry because he is putting America first as the American president. Maybe you are really angry because your president doesn't put his people first.
Read the article but missed the point I see. Or did you just skim it?
Have you heard of the USMCA?
The current trade agreement, the USMCA, was negotiated by Trump during his last presidency. Trump called it “the greatest trade deal in the history of our country.” So, did he negotiate a terrible deal or is he being less than transparent about his goals?
Did that trade deal mean that we send goods to Canada for free while Canada charges USA tariffs? All he is asking for is free trade not to be ripped off. He has his methods he uses to getting that. You are being totally unrealistic if you are pretending the previous administration didn't try to tear down everything he accomplished in his first administration. My King is in Heaven. Don't pretend you know me. Live in reality.
So, I will show you President Trumps definition of trade deficit. These are the people that track it with the whole world. You can actually find the history of it. This page has December 2024 and January 2025. Us supposed to be good trading neighbors and in these agreements and we import many more goods from Canada than Canada imports from USA. That creates a trading deficit. It was the highest during the Biden administration since the George W. Bush administration. You might not think that is being a victim, but is it fair for trading partners? Here is an excerpt from that page. January alone $11.3 billion surplus with Canada. That is us importing and Canada not. Do you understand now why he says what he does?
Goods by Selected Countries and Areas: Monthly – Census Basis (exhibit 19)
The January figures show surpluses, in billions of dollars, with Netherlands ($4.3), South and Central America ($4.3), Belgium ($0.6), and Brazil ($0.6). Deficits were recorded, in billions of dollars, with China ($29.7), European Union ($25.5), Switzerland ($22.8), Mexico ($15.5), Ireland ($12.4), Vietnam ($11.9), Canada ($11.3), Germany ($7.6), Taiwan ($7.5), Japan ($7.4), South Korea ($5.4), India ($4.2), Italy ($3.5), Malaysia ($2.5), Australia ($2.0), Hong Kong ($1.4), France ($1.0), Singapore ($1.0), Israel ($0.6), United Kingdom ($0.5), and Saudi Arabia ($0.1).
We were talking about tariffs not trade deficits but ok.
In free market economies like the US and Canada, governments don't control imports/exports, private companies do. That means US companies are choosing to buy goods from companies in other countries. Why? For various reasons. Sometimes it's less expensive. Sometimes the US doesn't produce enough. Sometimes because there's no alternative.
Tariffs are a way for the government to control what a company can do. I don't like it when the left does it and I don't like it when the right does it.
I understand that. I should have started with both items together because I
know he views them together. I wasn't sure then we could have a normal discussion though. Now I know we can. He is using tariffs to try to even the trade deficit between the USA and other countries. He talks about the deficits and tariffs together all the time. He uses tariffs as a tool. Like Mexico is sending over the cheap electric cars from China. Germany is fighting China with tariffs over the same thing. He is bringing companies into the USA with tariffs. You produce goods in this country no tariffs. That is part of why he is doing it as well. Other presidents like letting companies go elsewhere and get cheaper labor. Takes jobs from Americans and money from America. Deals on products already being made with other countries including Canda due to the tariffs. He wants everyone to be successful. He just has his own style. He is really angry with what the current government in South Africa is doing though. I read a good article about it. They have declared war on the white citizens in their country.
I supported Trump, still do, but I don't like every thing he's doing or sometimes the way he's doing them. It was the same for me with Ronald Reagan who I voted for twice. You are correct, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Thanks for the reply Daniel!
“There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.”
Exactly. He is well-intentioned but things don't always work out as well as hoped for. Everything he wants is neither good nor bad.
Let's see what happens!
Criticize the bad, praise the good.
When a friend voices concern over whether Trump is part of the deep state, etc., I remind her firmly that he isn't our savior. That said, I am happy so far. The unorthodox moves that previously made me cringe now make me chuckle. I was a Kennedy supporter, and when he asked voters to vote for Trump, it was an easy ask. I was going to do so anyway. What was the choice? A party that has inverted to a pro-war party that beats its chest about my body my choice but wants to deny such a choice to young Ukrainian War caught up in a proxy war? The receipts of our footprint are in NPR archives from 2014 - a time when I still listened to it.
I understand why people chose to vote for Trump and would have likely done so myself. My issue is not with Trump voters but with those who unquestionably agree with everything he does.
In the political world the opposite of a bad policy might not be a good one. It might just be a different kind of bad.
This is quite fair (a rarity these days in anything referencing Trump), but I would still add two points.
Interpreting Donald Trump's negotiating style requires understanding Anchoring: In a negotiation, the "anchor" is often the initial offer or price put forward. By setting a high anchor, a negotiator can influence the other party to perceive subsequent, potentially lower, offers as more reasonable, even if they are still above the negotiator's initial target.
Assessing his progress on promises also requires having reasonable expectations regarding timelines. Every political campaign makes "Day 1" promises (which can sometimes be kept in regards to issuing executive orders, which he did) and "First 100 days" promises (which is still too fast to actually modify most legislation or regulation, but the process can at least be visibly put into motion). Getting major legislation through, rewriting regulations and receiving public comment on them, working either through court injunctions and appeals... That all takes months. Foreign diplomacy often takes months. Economic shifts in response to policy changes can take years to show their long term results. So have some patience. Tune out for a while and then recheck the things that he was working on a few months ago and see how they're doing. There's little to no value in following every twist and turn of the processes that haven't completed yet.
Some of this is fair but I maintain nobody exaggerates like Trump.
I agree, he makes an art form of hyperbole for effect. He's a master of patter, bunkum, and conversational bullshitting. His rhetorical "weaving" is as much an aesthetic medium as colored thread and stitch patterns in handmade quilting. That's just not quite the same thing as lying. When the intended audience knows what you mean and you know that that they know because you intended them to know, that's a stylistic choice, not an illicit attempt to deceive. This article covers it well. https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-art-of-bullshit
One of the more interesting other things to consider is that despite his rather deliberately masculine image, Trump's communication style is often distinctly feminine in its patterns. He often prioritizes establishing and reinforcing relationships as the framing of his comments rather than communicating information or advancing action. He tends to use a lot more "rapport" speak than "report" speak. It's one reason he's so uniquely effective at holding audiences for hours while extemporizing off the cuff: he's connecting with people moreso than merely communicating to people. In a very significant way, Donald Trump routinely treats even official communications as a sort of small talk, more about implicitly communicating relationship status (who's in, who's out, who outranks who in the in group, etc) than about the actual content of what's said (much of which he sometimes makes up on the spot and seemingly doesn't even remember later). It's kinda funny to think of him as the First Female President, but he kinda is in the same way that Bill Clinton used to be occasionally referred to as the First Black President because of the way he talked.
This topic is simple. Why make it complicated. One nation charges a tariff on the USA, meaning Canada. Other presidents let them do it and don't charge Canada the same tariff in return. President Trump is a business man. How is that a fair business practice in any world? Politicians will do it for money or favors politically not caring about the economic harm it does to their country. Other countries do it as well. The EU does it to everyone. I bet you wouldn't handle your personal finances that way. So, be angry because he is putting America first as the American president. Maybe you are really angry because your president doesn't put his people first.
Read the article but missed the point I see. Or did you just skim it?
Have you heard of the USMCA?
The current trade agreement, the USMCA, was negotiated by Trump during his last presidency. Trump called it “the greatest trade deal in the history of our country.” So, did he negotiate a terrible deal or is he being less than transparent about his goals?
Your King appreciates your unquestioning loyalty.
Did that trade deal mean that we send goods to Canada for free while Canada charges USA tariffs? All he is asking for is free trade not to be ripped off. He has his methods he uses to getting that. You are being totally unrealistic if you are pretending the previous administration didn't try to tear down everything he accomplished in his first administration. My King is in Heaven. Don't pretend you know me. Live in reality.
Here's a pre-2025 Summary (Up to December 31, 2024)
Canada on U.S. Goods:
Zero tariffs on most goods under NAFTA/USMCA, except:
High tariffs on dairy, poultry, and eggs outside TRQs.
Temporary 10–25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, and consumer goods (July 2018–May 2019).
MFN tariffs (~4.1% average) on non-originating goods.
U.S. on Canadian Goods:
Zero tariffs on most goods under NAFTA/USMCA, except:
Softwood lumber duties (~9–20% range, ongoing).
Steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) tariffs (June 2018–May 2019).
MFN tariffs (~3.4% average) on non-originating goods.
So, yes there are tariffs but no, the US is not a victim.
So, I will show you President Trumps definition of trade deficit. These are the people that track it with the whole world. You can actually find the history of it. This page has December 2024 and January 2025. Us supposed to be good trading neighbors and in these agreements and we import many more goods from Canada than Canada imports from USA. That creates a trading deficit. It was the highest during the Biden administration since the George W. Bush administration. You might not think that is being a victim, but is it fair for trading partners? Here is an excerpt from that page. January alone $11.3 billion surplus with Canada. That is us importing and Canada not. Do you understand now why he says what he does?
Goods by Selected Countries and Areas: Monthly – Census Basis (exhibit 19)
The January figures show surpluses, in billions of dollars, with Netherlands ($4.3), South and Central America ($4.3), Belgium ($0.6), and Brazil ($0.6). Deficits were recorded, in billions of dollars, with China ($29.7), European Union ($25.5), Switzerland ($22.8), Mexico ($15.5), Ireland ($12.4), Vietnam ($11.9), Canada ($11.3), Germany ($7.6), Taiwan ($7.5), Japan ($7.4), South Korea ($5.4), India ($4.2), Italy ($3.5), Malaysia ($2.5), Australia ($2.0), Hong Kong ($1.4), France ($1.0), Singapore ($1.0), Israel ($0.6), United Kingdom ($0.5), and Saudi Arabia ($0.1).
https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/us-international-trade-goods-and-services-january-2025
We were talking about tariffs not trade deficits but ok.
In free market economies like the US and Canada, governments don't control imports/exports, private companies do. That means US companies are choosing to buy goods from companies in other countries. Why? For various reasons. Sometimes it's less expensive. Sometimes the US doesn't produce enough. Sometimes because there's no alternative.
Tariffs are a way for the government to control what a company can do. I don't like it when the left does it and I don't like it when the right does it.
I understand that. I should have started with both items together because I
know he views them together. I wasn't sure then we could have a normal discussion though. Now I know we can. He is using tariffs to try to even the trade deficit between the USA and other countries. He talks about the deficits and tariffs together all the time. He uses tariffs as a tool. Like Mexico is sending over the cheap electric cars from China. Germany is fighting China with tariffs over the same thing. He is bringing companies into the USA with tariffs. You produce goods in this country no tariffs. That is part of why he is doing it as well. Other presidents like letting companies go elsewhere and get cheaper labor. Takes jobs from Americans and money from America. Deals on products already being made with other countries including Canda due to the tariffs. He wants everyone to be successful. He just has his own style. He is really angry with what the current government in South Africa is doing though. I read a good article about it. They have declared war on the white citizens in their country.