For my Canadian friends

[Rigby5]

So let's hear the facts instead of more ....

View attachment 7113

U.S. President Donald Trump is claiming that Washington and Ottawa are nearing a new trade agreement involving tariff-free fertilizer shipments and lower agricultural duties. He even told Fox & Friends that Canada would supply the U.S. with fertilizer, including critical Canadian potash, without tariffs.

But here's the little detail missing from that story: Canada wasn't charging tariffs on fertilizer in the first place.

Canada has never imposed tariffs on fertilizer, and our prime minister has been clear that we never intend to. So what exactly is being claimed here? A victory over a tariff that was never there?

Now, let's talk about dairy, because apparently some people need a refresher.

Yes, Canada has over-quota tariffs on certain dairy imports. But those tariffs only apply when imports exceed the duty-free limits established through negotiated Tariff-Rate Quotas (TRQs) under trade agreements like the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).

And there's a reason for that.

The American dairy industry operates on an enormous scale and produces a structural surplus. Without reasonable import protections, cheaper American milk could ......

CONTINUED

In general tariffs are not only a bad idea, but inherently illegal since they violate personal rights.
They can be legal, but only when necessary in order to protect rights from some sort of organized abuse.

 

[sear]

R5,
Your #741 seems to me part philosophical, part idealism, etc.
In terms of law, seems weak.

"In general tariffs are not only a bad idea, but inherently illegal since they violate personal rights.
They can be legal, but only when necessary in order to protect rights from some sort of organized abuse." R5 #741

Populist Jim Hightower might be proud of that.

My opinion, in terms of free trade, tariffs are at least a metaphorical thumb on the scale.
One example that may make tariffs seem less unacceptable:

If a U.S. employer manufactures gloves, paying a $living $wage to American workers,
is it fair to have them compete against Chinese slave laborers forced to live a subsistence existence,
and labor over 60 hours per week?
In that case, a U.S. tariff on Chinese slave labor gloves isn't entirely about gloves, or trade.
Instead it's about not rewarding enslavement, actually penalizing, $neutralizing the advantage of so cruel a wage disparity.

Slavery is forced labor, theft of service.
So it was in the antebellum plantation South.
So it is today in Chi-Comm prison factories.

The U.S. is not pure. We don't buy our license plates from Beijing.
But I hope we don't work our prisoners 60+ hours a week either.

"There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow lines, and dead armadillos." Jim Hightower

 

[Rigby5]

R5,
Your #741 seems to me part philosophical, part idealism, etc.
In terms of law, seems weak.

Populist Jim Hightower might be proud of that.

My opinion, in terms of free trade, tariffs are at least a metaphorical thumb on the scale.
One example that may make tariffs seem less unacceptable:

If a U.S. employer manufactures gloves, paying a $living $wage to American workers,
is it fair to have them compete against Chinese slave laborers forced to live a subsistence existence,
and labor over 60 hours per week?
In that case, a U.S. tariff on Chinese slave labor gloves isn't entirely about gloves, or trade.
Instead it's about not rewarding enslavement, actually penalizing, $neutralizing the advantage of so cruel a wage disparity.

Slavery is forced labor, theft of service.
So it was in the antebellum plantation South.
So it is today in Chi-Comm prison factories.

The U.S. is not pure. We don't buy our license plates from Beijing.
But I hope we don't work our prisoners 60+ hours a week either.

Yes tariffs in order to protect against slavery is necessary in order to defend rights.

But, for example the tariffs imposed on British goods before the Civil War, were totally illegal and made secession legal.

 

[Shiftless2]

In general tariffs are not only a bad idea, but inherently illegal since they violate personal rights.

The courts don't seem to agree with you.

 

[Rigby5]

The courts don't seem to agree with you.

The courts are not a very good measure of what is legal or not because like most countries, this country came from a monarchy that use courts a rubber stamps.
With a real court system, slavery, segregation, tariffs, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and what ICE is doing would never have been allowed.

 

[Shiftless2]

The courts are not a very good measure of what is legal or not because like most countries, this country came from a monarchy that use courts a rubber stamps.
With a real court system, slavery, segregation, tariffs, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and what ICE is doing would never have been allowed.

So you know more about the law than the courts do?

 

[Rigby5]

So you know more about the law than the courts do?

Oh please, the lawers, courts, judges, etc., are about the most corrupt.
They are the wealthy elite, leveraging power to their advantage.
Like the Salem witch trials.
They have little concern for actual law and justice.

 

[Shiftless2]

Oh please, the lawers, courts, judges, etc., are about the most corrupt.
They are the wealthy elite, leveraging power to their advantage.

If that was the case why was Trump convicted on 34 felonies?

And why was he convicted of sexual assault?

Like the Salem witch trials.
They have little concern for actual law and justice.

There are times I agree with you. This is not one of them.