What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[citizen k]

... not Obama.

In 2014?

Earlier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/u-s-commerce-department-to-put-256-tariff-on-chinese-steel

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-steel-dumping-20140711-story.html

[crazy canuck]

... not Obama.

In 2014?

Earlier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/u-s-commerce-department-to-put-256-tariff-on-chinese-steel

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-steel-dumping-20140711-story.html

The articles you posted reported the results of an anti dumping case.

[citizen k]

... not Obama.

In 2014?

Earlier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/u-s-commerce-department-to-put-256-tariff-on-chinese-steel

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-steel-dumping-20140711-story.html

The articles you posted reported the results of an anti dumping case.

The results being tariffs.

[crazy canuck]

... not Obama.

In 2014?

Earlier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/u-s-commerce-department-to-put-256-tariff-on-chinese-steel

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-steel-dumping-20140711-story.html

The articles you posted reported the results of an anti dumping case.

The results being tariffs.

Only on a very simplistic and superficial basis.  What Trump did has nothing to do with Anti dumping.  That requires a legal process.  Trump's decision is anything but legal, as the WTO will shortly rule.

[Jacob]

The results being tariffs.

On one hand we the imposition of tariffs coming from due process by a body all the involved parties have agreed to as resolution mechanism for trade disputes. On the other hand we have tariffs imposed with no reference to mutual agreement or due process.

That's a fairly relevant distinction.

[Admiral Yi]

On one hand we the imposition of tariffs coming from due process by a body all the involved parties have agreed to as resolution mechanism for trade disputes. On the other hand we have tariffs imposed with no reference to mutual agreement or due process.

That's a fairly relevant distinction.

Not sure what you're talking about.

In both cases the tariffs are based on a finding by the Commerce Department (due process).  Anti-dumping tariffs are not set by the WTO, which you seem to be suggesting.

[Jacob]

On one hand we the imposition of tariffs coming from due process by a body all the involved parties have agreed to as resolution mechanism for trade disputes. On the other hand we have tariffs imposed with no reference to mutual agreement or due process.

That's a fairly relevant distinction.

Not sure what you're talking about.

In both cases the tariffs are based on a finding by the Commerce Department (due process).  Anti-dumping tariffs are not set by the WTO, which you seem to be suggesting.

My mistake then - I was under the impression that the WTO had found that the 2014 tariffs were justified.

[crazy canuck]

On one hand we the imposition of tariffs coming from due process by a body all the involved parties have agreed to as resolution mechanism for trade disputes. On the other hand we have tariffs imposed with no reference to mutual agreement or due process.

That's a fairly relevant distinction.

Not sure what you're talking about.

In both cases the tariffs are based on a finding by the Commerce Department (due process).  Anti-dumping tariffs are not set by the WTO, which you seem to be suggesting.

The WTO has nothing to do with how the decision was made but the WTO will be where many countries go for a remedy.

You are overstating the case to suggest the Tariffs result from "a finding by the Commerce Department (due process)". 

In fact what occurred is Trump ordered an investigation into whether a surge in imports undermined the US's ability to source the steel and aluminium for the military in the nations economic security interest. The commerce department recommended three separate options for each metal.  Trump went with a nuclear option that does not even address the concerns that were addressed by the Commerce Department.  That is not due process and the tariffs have nothing to do with the security interests.  As Trump has said, it is all about protecting US jobs in that sector.

[The Brain]

grotesque sadomasochism

Link?

[Admiral Yi]

I haven't seen any news about Trump claiming president for life was just a joke.

[Eddie Teach]

It's a joke even if he doesn't realize it.

[Razgovory]

Overweight 71 year old man?  Yeah I could see him being President for the rest of his life.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/11/donald-trump-advocates-death-penalty-for-drug-dealers-in-rambling-speech

In a campaign stop three days before a crucial special election for Congress, Donald Trump advocated the death penalty for drug dealers in the course of an hour-long rambling campaign style speech where he bashed television anchors, unveiled his re-election slogan and discussed nuclear arms negotiations with North Korea. He also mentioned the Republican candidate whom he endorsed.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters in a packed airplane hangar outside of Pittsburgh, Trump gave one of his trademark speeches including a rare imitation where he feigned what it would be like to act "presidential".

The event was held to support Republican Rick Saccone who is neck and neck with Democrat Conor Lamb in a congressional district that Trump won by over 20 points in the 2016 election. Trump praised Saccone saying "he knows things other people don't know" and bashed the Democratic candidate as "Lamb the Sham". He also discussed the physical attractiveness of both candidates. Trump said of the 33-year-old Lamb "I hear he's nice looking, I think I'm better looking" and then followed up by saying Saccone "is handsome too".

But Trump spent most of his hour and 20 minutes on stage talking about almost every other topic under the sun. He confirmed reports that that he had been floating the idea of imposing a death penalty on drug dealers by a long discourse where he praised the criminal justice system in China. Trump noted China once had a problem with "the opium" that was "devastating" and went on to explain his bafflement that murderers were treated more harshly than drug dealers. "If someone goes and shoots somebody, kills somebody they get the death penalty," said Trump. In contrast, he noted "a drug dealer will kill 2,000 to 5,000 people during the course of his life".

Trump acknowledged how controversial the concept was. "I don't know if this country is ready but I think it's a discussion we have to start thinking about."

It marked Trump's most explicit public statements on the topic although he previously praised Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte who is leading a campaign of alleged extrajudicial killings against drug dealers and users.

...

[Eddie Teach]

2-5000 

[FunkMonk]

@ComfortablySmug
·
9h
"Dearest Martha,

The Yanks have had us on the run all winter and morale is low. Last night we had to boil boots for supper, but I remain as determined as ever to enforce immigration laws in the California territory.

Yours faithfully,

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

ComfortablySmug is a twitter pro and one of the few reasons why I still have Twitter on my phone