I don’t think any of this is certain. But basically I think it harms any company that relies on foreign customers. Like for example Canadian and European liquor stores that are no longer selling US products. Maybe once Trump is gone these stores continue to sell US products, or maybe sales of US liquor never recover to their pre-Trump levels. This is one clear example, but I think it applies to many other industries. The travel industry is another major one. Flights to the U.S. have completely cratered - which is negatively affecting US airlines, hotels, and related companies. If Europeans and Canadians no longer want to buy US made products, don’t want to visit the U.S. on vacation, etc. then this is a pretty big hit to our economy. And even if these tariffs are reversed, and Trump is gone, I think the damage to the U.S.’s image is done and things may not return to their normal levels.
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson
While those sound bad, as Johnny Bravo phrased it, they don’t seem irreparable. And as for the United States image, it doesn’t matter what we do in some people’s eyes lol. We will always be the big bad oppressors simply because we have the bigger dick.
yup that’s the first I’ve heard of that. I may have read it somewhere many years ago but I can’t recall.
First, I appreciate you actually responding and laying out your thoughts.
This isn’t part of my original comment, but I also think tariffs work in both directions. If the idea is that by setting these high barriers we build up our own industries, then wouldn’t it also work the other way: that because we make trade with the U.S. more difficult, that the affected countries also build their own industries in response? This is maybe what I am most concerned about long term. Maybe Europeans and Canadians will realize that they’re better off relying on their own companies and then we lose our competitive edge. I was just reading about Europeans working to limit US arms manufacturers access to European markets. Long term, I don’t think this is helpful to us if European arms manufacturers become more competitive and push out U.S. companies in the world market.
Don't agree entirely, the Constitution and BOR list certain entitlements that the Founders hold to be self-evident and inviolable, thus implicitly "human rights".
Don't agree entirely, the Constitution and BOR list certain entitlements that the Founders hold to be self-evident and inviolable, thus implicitly "human rights".
Their export industries rely largely on US demand. It doesn't work well in reverse since they already have their own tariffs, a lack of supply drives investment, a lack of demand drives abandonment.
They would just let their spouses do the trading. It won't fix the issue.
Cast your votes now, do leftists reluctantly celebrate this or try to spin it as ackstchually a bad thing?
Dang, this dude lives it.
Here it is.
. The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at .”
His middle name is "Big Mike".
That quote isn't from the order, but rather from a statement made by Sotomayor that Kagan and Jackson joined.“Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (200
“I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with “due process of law,” including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings.”
The order came from a lower court that the Supreme Court is upholding in this statement.
