United States Trump 2nd Term - Planning and Beyond

[SoliFortissimi]

Trump has thrown down Chesterton's fence. He's trying to destroy offshoring without really understanding why it's popular.

The result will be economic pain for the American people and corporations.

 

[mrttao]

Supreme court strikes down lower court injunction that forbade trump from cancelling DEI education grants to schools.

 

[Largo]

He's trying to onshore manufacturing and using foreign trade barriers as a nice excuse to enact policies that have to be enacted no matter how much wall street suffers in the short term.

Then why does he keep talking about making a deal? Just last night he ranted about a "big, beautiful deal" that was going to be coming soon.

If Trump was interested in enacting tariffs to launch a deal, it could make sense to talk big about how the tariffs are here to stay. Show that you're not interested in negotiating to make other powers more willing to concede.

But if Trump is trying to onshore manufacturing with these tariffs, talking about making a deal makes no sense. Plenty of people are convinced these tariffs won't stay for more than a few months at most. This is in part because they think Trump wants to make a deal given how we've already seen him backtrack on tariffs, and so they won't onshore. Letting these rumors fly doesn't help Trump's ostensible goals at all. He needs to crush those rumors, not help stoke them.

I'd also point out that even if you think Trump should make a deal with country X but shouldn't make a deal with country Y, there's a problem. Even if you think in that way, Trump making a deal with country X will generally signal to people that he's willing to make deals. Plenty of people will convince themselves, whether that's true or not, that after making a deal with country X, Trump will eventually make a deal with country Y. Which means that they won't bother offshoring from country Y.

In short, making deals with any country is going to make the argument for reshoring weaker.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Then why does he keep talking about making a deal? Just last night he ranted about a "big, beautiful deal" that was going to be coming soon.

If Trump was interested in enacting tariffs to launch a deal, it could make sense to talk big about how the tariffs are here to stay. Show that you're not interested in negotiating to make other powers more willing to concede.

But if Trump is trying to onshore manufacturing with these tariffs, talking about making a deal makes no sense. Plenty of people are convinced these tariffs won't stay for more than a few months at most. This is in part because they think Trump wants to make a deal given how we've already seen him backtrack on tariffs, and so they won't onshore. Letting these rumors fly doesn't help Trump's ostensible goals at all. He needs to crush those rumors, not help stoke them.

I'd also point out that even if you think Trump should make a deal with country X but shouldn't make a deal with country Y, there's a problem. Even if you think in that way, Trump making a deal with country X will generally signal to people that he's willing to make deals. Plenty of people will convince themselves, whether that's true or not, that after making a deal with country X, Trump will eventually make a deal with country Y. Which means that they won't bother offshoring from country Y.

In short, making deals with any country is going to make the argument for reshoring weaker.

I saw a very interesting video that makes the theory that trump is trying to restructure Americas debt and devalue the dollar.

Trump wants to devalue the dollar, but doing so would result in a bond selloff and erode the dollar as a reserve currency. So he wants to force major economies to strengthen their own currency and buy american bonds.

So he will use tariffs as a negotiating point to force bond holding countries to accept the conversion of their bonds to 100 year bonds or perpetual bonds which never mature, and force NATO countries who are not at the proper percentage of defense budget to accept the purchase of special 50 year defense bonds.

A paper put out by an economist named Dr . Stephen Miran who is the chief economic advisor for Trump proposed this very same thing

As for Canada and Mexico, its all about looting their automobile industry and economically crushing Canada so it can be annexed.

 

[Blasterbot]

Trump has thrown down Chesterton's fence. He's trying to destroy offshoring without really understanding why it's popular.

The result will be economic pain for the American people and corporations.

I'm going to reference something here

Gen Z struggles with the second layer, honestly sometimes the first. Millennials are better off sometimes. about 34% of Americans have a 401k and it skews older. we got a whole lot of desperate people who are absolutely willing to roll the dice for a chance of coming out better after the painful times rather than slowly be crushed as they continue to live a life of quiet hopeless desperation where their career potential peaks at manager of a starbucks while doing 2 side hustles to barely afford an apartment with one roommate instead of the 4 they currently have.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Gen

And Trump is going to make it worse.

 

[Dauerschriff]

I saw a very interesting video that makes the theory that trump is trying to restructure Americas debt and devalue the dollar.

Trump wants to devalue the dollar, but doing so would result in a bond selloff and erode the dollar as a reserve currency. So he wants to force major economies to strengthen their own currency and buy american bonds.

So he will use tariffs as a negotiating point to force bond holding countries to accept the conversion of their bonds to 100 year bonds or perpetual bonds which never mature, and force NATO countries who are not at the proper percentage of defense budget to accept the purchase of special 50 year defense bonds.

A paper put out by an economist named Dr . Stephen Miran who is the chief economic advisor for Trump proposed this very same thing

As for Canada and Mexico, its all about looting their automobile industry and economically crushing Canada so it can be annexed.

Loaning debt to States was always a political purpose and never ended well for the private lenders in the end, in history.

I'm going to reference something here


Gen Z struggles with the second layer, honestly sometimes the first. Millennials are better off sometimes. about 34% of Americans have a 401k and it skews older. we got a whole lot of desperate people who are absolutely willing to roll the dice for a chance of coming out better after the painful times rather than slowly be crushed as they continue to live a life of quiet hopeless desperation where their career potential peaks at manager of a starbucks while doing 2 side hustles to barely afford an apartment with one roommate instead of the 4 they currently have.

Overpriced Housing, healthcare, goods, regulations, and pointless education is the main cause of that despair.
America is so big, how can they not find space to build new infrastructure and towns: because they don't want it.
And it can not be solved by Tariff on Japan or banning abortion.

 

[Blasterbot]

And Trump is going to make it worse.

no no. you don't understand my dear soli. for them it can't. they believe they will never own a home. never be able to start a family. never be able to retire. They are already living paycheck to pay check. they already are more likely to be in debt than have a savings. most of them don't have a 401k. many of them can't find a job outside the minimum wage service industry.

for others things may get worse. for them? they have nothing left to lose. at least that is how they think.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Keep in mind that Vietnam was strongly pro-American/pro-Western in the 1940s, but the United States made the poor decision to throw that away by forcing Vietnam back under French colonial control, doubled down on it by further supporting France in the "French Indochina War", and then going for round three with the Vietnam War. All of that was completely senseless.

That was a lot of countries or soon to be countries immediately after World War Two.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Stellantis is 'temporarily' laying off nine hundred workers in the United States and closing a plant in both Mexico and Canada as their stock price dropped almost ten percent. The local UAW Representative states he supports the intent of the tariffs in bringing jobs back to America but is representing 450 employees who have an uncertain future.



Trumps Tariff Policy along with not being based on reciprocal tariffs but trade deficits but also reportedly applies the formula incorrectly according to the American Enterprise Institute thought it might've been done purposefully to increase the tariff rates on countries that have few if any tariffs on the United States.

https://www.aei.org/economics/president-trumps-tariff-formula-makes-no-economic-sense-its-also-based-on-an-error/

This is why a country like Switzerland who isn't part of the European Union and has pursued an independent trade policy, aggressive investment in the United States while divesting from China and has zero tariffs on United States indsutrial products and 99% duty free imports from America is somehow being struck with a 31 or 32% tariff rate (different parts of the Trump White House have stated one or the other percentage) which is substantially higher then the 20% applied to the European Union.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/business/trump-tariffs-switzerland.html?rsrc=ss&unlocked_article_code=1.9U4.GTFw.AslFgBjRdYXb&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Archived Link

 

[Poe]

“There will be blood”: JPMorgan warns of 60% global recession odds under Trump tariffs

Donald Trumps sweeping new tariffs are raising alarms about a potential U.S. and global recession. Economists from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Moodys Analytics warn that the trade war could push inflation higher, weaken consumer confidence, and slow economic growth. Markets have already reacted...

m.economictimes.com

Trump is the worst President since Hoover, and with his own Smoot Hawley Tariffs. I hope they're struck down before we get a repeat of the Great Depression.

this is hilarious you're literally just a bot who parrots the current line put out by leftist think tanks in D.C. You definitely never even thought about tariffs and the great depression a week ago.

Then why does he keep talking about making a deal? Just last night he ranted about a "big, beautiful deal" that was going to be coming soon.

If Trump was interested in enacting tariffs to launch a deal, it could make sense to talk big about how the tariffs are here to stay. Show that you're not interested in negotiating to make other powers more willing to concede.

But if Trump is trying to onshore manufacturing with these tariffs, talking about making a deal makes no sense. Plenty of people are convinced these tariffs won't stay for more than a few months at most. This is in part because they think Trump wants to make a deal given how we've already seen him backtrack on tariffs, and so they won't onshore. Letting these rumors fly doesn't help Trump's ostensible goals at all. He needs to crush those rumors, not help stoke them.

I'd also point out that even if you think Trump should make a deal with country X but shouldn't make a deal with country Y, there's a problem. Even if you think in that way, Trump making a deal with country X will generally signal to people that he's willing to make deals. Plenty of people will convince themselves, whether that's true or not, that after making a deal with country X, Trump will eventually make a deal with country Y. Which means that they won't bother offshoring from country Y.

In short, making deals with any country is going to make the argument for reshoring weaker.

there are deals to be made outside of manufacturing. Weren't you bitching about bananas like a day ago? Do you have no internal logic?

 

[Largo]

there are deals to be made outside of manufacturing. Weren't you bitching about bananas like a day ago? Do you have no internal logic?

I'm sorry. When you said the tariffs were meant to onshore manufacturing, I thought you were talking about manufacturing.

But if the big beautiful deals aren't going to be about manufacturing, they're going to be about....what, again? Agricultural exports? Trump's obsession with trade deficits makes it pretty clear that it can't be about imports as he doesn't want other countries selling anything to us (Madagascar is a perfect example).

And again. A Trump who runs around making deals is a Trump who people will believe will make deals about other things.

 

[Arch Dornan]

no no. you don't understand my dear soli. for them it can't. they believe they will never own a home. never be able to start a family. never be able to retire. They are already living paycheck to pay check. they already are more likely to be in debt than have a savings. most of them don't have a 401k. many of them can't find a job outside the minimum wage service industry.

for others things may get worse. for them? they have nothing left to lose. at least that is how they think.

Fucking the boomers for fucking their future. I get it.

 

[lordmcdeath]

this is hilarious you're literally just a bot who parrots the current line put out by leftist think tanks in D.C. You definitely never even thought about tariffs and the great depression a week ago.


there are deals to be made outside of manufacturing. Weren't you bitching about bananas like a day ago? Do you have no internal logic?

Even if he wants to onshore manufacturing and not other things like agriculture and resource inputs, some of which we just don't have. The administration has to been absolutely clear, the messaging has to be consistent. Reagan was the last person to make changes on this scale and his administration was absolutely clear on the economic front. And even then it absolutely sucked for until 83, and they took an absolute beating in the midterms.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

You definitely never even thought about tariffs and the great depression a week ago.

You've clearly never seen me post before.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I only got through 15 minutes before I started skimming, but I have some serious concerns: first, not addressing the possibility that people trying to fly second children under the radar of the One Child Policy might go undetected in official counts; second, that to arrive at the final number she is alleging that the pandemic was vastly more deadly there than anywhere else, in the neighborhood of half the population (similar to Europe's Black Death).

Like, half the population is dead and the best smoking gun is that Japanese salt exports to China dropped off a cliff? I am not convinced. Especially because that particular trade apparently rebounded in 2024 with a vengeance.

Also hiding 500 million deaths would be next to impossible even in a regime like North Korea. I have serious doubts the CPC would still be in power with that sort of death toll.

 

[mrttao]

I only got through 15 minutes before I started skimming, but I have some serious concerns: first, not addressing the possibility that people trying to fly second children under the radar of the One Child Policy might go undetected in official counts; second, that to arrive at the final number she is alleging that the pandemic was vastly more deadly there than anywhere else, in the neighborhood of half the population (similar to Europe's Black Death).

Like, half the population is dead and the best smoking gun is that Japanese salt exports to China dropped off a cliff? I am not convinced. Especially because that particular trade apparently rebounded in 2024 with a vengeance.

wait. she is blaming the coof for killing half the pop in china?

that is so retarded.
how come it killed 0.03% everywhere else but 50% in china?

even if the han chinese were uniquely vulnerable to it the same way the native americans were vulnerable to common harmless diseases, then we would have noticed half the chinese in western countries dying to the coof. Yet they did not.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Okay, the issue has been raised that far too many people are getting into the habit in this thread of spamming news articles that ultimately boil down to.

"DUR TRUMP A GENIUS!"

"DUR TRUMP AN IDIOT!"

@Bacle @DarthOne @Sailor.X and anyone else who thinks they feel they might have this problem 'please stop' if you want to post something interesting you see that is breaking news and want to discuss it's fine, but we hold that you must add your general thoughts or something into the post to get the ball rolling on the conversation, not spam with no input before disengaging entirely from the conversation.

To reiterate this is a mod directive, none of you are in trouble and some of you are worse offenders than others, your experiences and beliefs are your own to keep, but I expect you all to realize that we are a forum for discussion and debate not a newsfeed, please try to get the ball rolling and be engaging on issues.

Anyone found at length spam posting news articles in excess and not contributing to the thread may be given a light thread ban in the future if their behavior doesn't shift into actual discussion and engagement.

Thanks-

 

[Bacle]

Okay, the issue has been raised that far too many people are getting into the habit in this thread of spamming news articles that ultimately boil down to.

"DUR TRUMP A GENIUS!"

"DUR TRUMP AN IDIOT!"

@Bacle @DarthOne @Sailor.X and anyone else who thinks they feel they might have this problem 'please stop' if you want to post something interesting you see that is breaking news and want to discuss it's fine, but we hold that you must add your general thoughts or something into the post to get the ball rolling on the conversation, not spam with no input before disengaging entirely from the conversation.

To reiterate this is a mod directive, none of you are in trouble and some of you are worse offenders than others, your experiences and beliefs are your own to keep, but I expect you all to realize that we are a forum for discussion and debate not a newsfeed, please try to get the ball rolling and be engaging on issues.

Anyone found at length spam posting news articles in excess and not contributing to the thread may be given a light thread ban in the future if their behavior doesn't shift into actual discussion and engagement.

Thanks-

What exactly counts as 'add something to the post'?

And what are the qualification for being acceptable to post, is it only breaking news and not any commentary posts by others from elsewhere?

You have issued a very broad and vague directive here, one that could be interpreted in multiple ways, and I will not eat a ban for accidentally stepping over a line that is vague and loosely defined.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I have heard from people more familiar with that period of history, but have no sources on it myself, that Communist sympathizers in the State Department destroyed rather than passed on offers by the Vietnamese in the 40's to ally with the US if they'd help them keep independence from the French in the late stages of WWII. Such offers even included driving their own nascent communists out.

That's certainly possible, but even with such interference Vietnam's position was absolutely clearcut -- the Viet Minh resistance rescued hundreds of American pilots and actively assisted American intelligence gathering efforts. Note that this was at odds with British intelligence gathering efforts -- the British were focused on trying to subvert and recruit French colonial officials as those became increasingly turfed out of power by their Japanese 'allies'.

While many of the Viet Minh leadership leaned communist, the Viet Minh was specifically designed to be a larger and more inclusive umbrella organization that put national liberation ahead of anyone's individual politics, and there was a broad consensus that as a matter of practical realpolitik, far-away America was a "safer" nation to ally with than the Soviets and *especially* the Chinese. That's why when the Viet Minh formed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam government at the end of World War II, the proclamation of the Republic drew directly on the U.S. Declaration of Independence and sought to immediately establish diplomatic ties with the United States.

President Roosevelt appeared willing, as he distrusted the French, but his replacement by President Truman led to the United States refusing to grant diplomatic recognition to Vietnam, and then agreeing to a joint British-Chinese (Nationalist) invasion of Vietnam to reconquer it for colonial France. The British even went so far as to re-arm Japanese POWs and use them as troops against the Vietnamese people.