Good Story About Delphi, Mexico, Ohio and Trump

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

I did when ice referenced it and pretty sure Afghanistan wasn't mentioned, but I'll revisit it and check.

See Rajoo's response above. He gets it.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

See Rajoo's response above.

I did and most of his post was a quote of the article which I just reread and it mentions Mexico, China, Syria, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Sierra Leone and Somalia, but not Afghanistan. It also points out that US special forces in Syria and Libya would the conflicts that would give him tariff raising authority.

If you read all of post 4 and note that in post 3 ice said "I am sure there would be court battles" followed by the article, which is the post I was responding to, you may see that I was pointing out Mexico is very different the other countries past Presidents have used these laws as a basis to raise tariffs. I think this is why Trump will have a very difficult time implementing his punitive tariffs against Mexico and why I thought ice made the point quoted above.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by icenine

You were implying that the article was not applicable since there was no formal declaration of war. There doesn't have to be. Now you will say you were not implying anything.

I don't think the War on Terror is over.

Please see post 22.

I think the War on Terror may still be going on after you and I are dead unless leaders on all sides of the conflict can change paradigms that have been with us for quite sometime. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations? addresses these paradigms.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by nailer

I did and most of his post was a quote of the article which I just reread and it mentions Mexico, China, Syria, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Sierra Leone and Somalia, but not Afghanistan. It also points out that US special forces in Syria and Libya would the conflicts that would give him tariff raising authority.

If you read all of post 4 and note that in post 3 ice said "I am sure there would be court battles" followed by the article, which is the post I was responding to, you may see that I was pointing out Mexico is very different the other countries past Presidents have used these laws as a basis to raise tariffs. I think this is why Trump will have a very difficult time implementing his punitive tariffs against Mexico and why I thought ice made the point quoted above.

The point is it does not matter what country we are at war with Trump can still use the Afghanistan war as excuse to raise tariffs on Mexico, as he can Syria or the war against ISIS.

[Rajoo]

If one ignores Post #9, then rest of the posts dovetail into one another.
So Trump can pick any country we are at war with to justify tariffs, Congress does not need to declare a war and then he can pick any nation to impose any amount of tariffs for five months. Am I correct?

But he won't because Mexico can shut down certain sectors of the US economy, so this will remain just a threat.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

If one ignores Post #9, then rest of the posts dovetail into one another.
So Trump can pick any country we are at war with to justify tariffs, Congress does not need to declare a war and then he can pick any nation to impose any amount of tariffs for five months. Am I correct?

But he won't because Mexico can shut down certain sectors of the US economy, so this will remain just a threat.

Post 9 is very important Rajoo.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

If one ignores Post #9, then rest of the posts dovetail into one another.
So Trump can pick any country we are at war with to justify tariffs, Congress does not need to declare a war and then he can pick any nation to impose any amount of tariffs for five months. Am I correct?

But he won't because Mexico can shut down certain sectors of the US economy, so this will remain just a threat.

I fully concur. Although I would say in conflict with. In addition, it seems Nixon using the long over Korean conflict was stretching it. Maybe the Trade Act of 1974 addressed this.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by nailer

The article you referenced doesn't support your Afghanistan point.

It does make the point that we are at war.

The article didn't mention Afghanistan.
I did.

And it applies to America being at war right now.
Which Trump can use as justification to increase tariffs.


You quoted my point that technically we are at war with what is clearly a counterpoint.

Quote:"Pretty sure Mexico isn't a terrorist nation and technically Congress hasn't declared war."

My response was "It is called Afghanistan." Which is a snarky way of saying "look we are at war right now."

Just because I don't use a conflict mentioned in the article does not make my point less valid.

You don't have to agree with my statements but you seem to either be extremely obtuse or have a comprehension problem.

I mean whether you believe we are a war or not is up to you. But it is clear that Trump can raise tariffs without Congress if he chooses to do so.

I think for my sanity I need to put you and TJ on the old ignore list. You just rub me the wrong way like sandpaper.

Forgive me everyone else.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by icenine

It does make the point that we are at war.

The article didn't mention Afghanistan.
I did.

And it applies to America being at war right now.
Which Trump can use as justification to increase tariffs.

Do you act like this in real life?

This is real life.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by nailer

This is real life.

Hey that is probably the smartest post you have ever made. It is a good warning for me.

I meant to edit that line out that will be why you will see a longer response with redundancy.