- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/29/25 at 10:09 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Claiming all products from europe will cost you personallly 15% more is just for starters
You arent the brigjtest
I said 15% more if producers pass along the increased costs. Also, it is just not the EU - it’s almost all imported goods.
Also - you can’t even spell “brightest” correctly so interpret that how you will
This post was edited on 7/29/25 at 10:11 am
Posted on 7/29/25 at 10:11 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
said 15% more if producers pass along the increased costs
You dont buy anything from Europe and it wont be passed along
Everyone with a brain knows that. That should help you out
Posted on 7/29/25 at 10:15 am to SDVTiger
I buy a lot French wine and British spirits for starters
Posted on 7/29/25 at 10:25 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
I buy a lot French wine and British spirits for starters
i hope you pay 15% more then
Posted on 7/29/25 at 10:29 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 7/29/25 at 12:42 pm to deltaland
quote:
Because imposing the tariffs and then delaying to negotiate showed them he was serious, and th panic it caused them probably led to us getting a more favorable deal.
If he had only threatened tariffs they likely would have tested his threat anyways to see if he would actually do it
"Liberation Day" was on April 2. If announcing and then immediately pausing was an effective tactic, why did he need to do it multiple times? Wouldn't needing to do it more than once heavily indicate that it wasn't effective at getting people to take the threat seriously, and potentially might have been counterproductive?
Posted on 7/29/25 at 12:51 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
wasn't effective at getting people to take the threat seriously
I'd argue that people now saying "only 15%" proves it was very effective. Before April,15% would have had people sky screaming more than usual, but throw out 25-30% over the last few months and 15% feels like a win
Posted on 7/29/25 at 12:58 pm to DawgCountry
quote:
I'd argue that people now saying "only 15%" proves it was very effective. Before April,15% would have had people sky screaming more than usual, but throw out 25-30% over the last few months and 15% feels like a win
But the same thing could have been accomplished without all the absurd back and forth. To go back to my previous formulation:
"To remedy a history of unfair trade treatment, the United States will impose a tariff of 30% on all foreign goods entering this country beginning in 90 days. In the interim, I would encourage our international friends to contact my administration if they are interested in negotiating an agreement to be executed before the 90 days are up. Thank you for your attention to this matter."
How is that less effective than throwing out random numbers and pausing them within 48 hours multiple times?
Because as always, we're a sovereign nation state. These aren't business negotiations. We don't need anyone to agree to anything. We can impose whatever tariffs we want, on whoever we want, whenever we want. Schizophrenic brinkmanship makes practically zero sense within that context.
Posted on 7/29/25 at 1:28 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
But the same thing could have been accomplished without all the absurd back and forth. To go back to my previous formulation:
So you are just complaining to complain
Shocking really
Posted on 7/29/25 at 1:42 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
So you are just complaining to complain
Shocking really
You say the silliest shite
Trumpists claim that the schizophrenic brinkmanship was effective, and therefore all the damage it did to businesses was worth it. I'm saying the schizophrenic brinkmanship wasn't effective, and in fact was counterproductive, and therefore all the damage it did to business was not worth it.
Come on, even you can keep up with that
Posted on 7/29/25 at 2:07 pm to Joshjrn
"Why didnt he do it the way I wanted him to do it!!!"
It clearly worked. What damage? You TDS clowns and that female energy/drama is classic. You have an idiot in here crying about tariffs Wins cause his french wine will increase 10 dollars
quote:
Trumpists claim that the schizophrenic brinkmanship was effective, and therefore all the damage it did to businesses was worth it
It clearly worked. What damage? You TDS clowns and that female energy/drama is classic. You have an idiot in here crying about tariffs Wins cause his french wine will increase 10 dollars
Posted on 7/29/25 at 2:29 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
It clearly worked. What damage?
I sometimes forget that you're this level of clown
Posted on 7/29/25 at 2:31 pm to Joshjrn
Yeah i figured you wouldnt be able to answer that
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News