Peter, Peter Pumpkin Eater

Storm Shelter
1

Let’s not forget HOW Trump found Peter Navarro and his tariff policy

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328969-report-kushner-found-trump-economic-advisor-navarro-by-browsing/

image
image1110×145 15.8 KB

image
image754×391 41 KB

Then, he found Peter Navarro who was obsessed with trade deficits and tariffs
Of course, to justify his point in his books, he had to refer to an expert on tariffs: Ron Vera

Oh yes, Ron Vera is an anagram of Navarro, a fake character Peter invented to justify his beliefs.

AAAAAAAnd that’s how we got here. Jared had to find an economic advisor and went looking at book titles on Amazon. They found a crackpot who had to invent a character to justify his insane points of view.

2

Why does this matter?

1 Like
3

Because the foundation of Trump’s economic plan is based upon a moron who’s also a liar, and was found by surfing book titles on Amazon.

4

His plan is working. When it’s over, all of our trade deals, to one degree or another, will be more beneficial to us.

5

What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

6

IMG_9555
IMG_95551179×2556 279 KB

7

The article you posted, which shows you didn’t read, is contrary to your intent.

Original statement:

To support this, you posted this article, which shows you didn’t read it.

You like ChatGPT, right? You keep posting it. So, let’s see what it says about your “proof.”

The article does not justify the statement that “His plan is working. When it’s over, all of our trade deals, to one degree or another, will be more beneficial to us.” In fact, it casts doubt on the effectiveness and long-term success of Trump’s trade approach with China.

Here’s why:

:red_circle: 1. Tariff Pause Seen as Tactical, Not a Victory

  • The article suggests the tariff rollback is a temporary truce, not a sign that Trump’s plan has worked.
  • Chinese officials and experts view the move as a tactical retreat by the U.S., not a strategic win.

“Beijing sees this as a tactical retreat by the U.S. rather than a more fundamental shift away from hostility…”

:red_circle: 2. No Lasting Improvement in Trade Terms

  • There is no evidence presented that the U.S. has secured significantly better trade terms with China.
  • The article implies that earlier deals faltered, with Washington accusing China of not honoring agreements.

“An agreement that faltered, with Washington accusing China of not honoring its side of the bargain.”

:red_circle: 3. Long-Term Distrust and Conflict Remain

  • The fundamental points of disagreement — tech access, Taiwan, military posturing — are unresolved.
  • The article predicts that even if trade calms temporarily, tensions are likely to flare up again.

“If both sides keep dialing back on their trade disputes, relations may improve for a year or two, but then are likely to worsen again.”

:red_circle: 4. No Evidence of Tangible Economic Gains

  • The article doesn’t point to any measurable improvements in U.S. trade balances or economic conditions as a result of Trump’s tariffs.
  • Instead, it emphasizes continued geopolitical rivalry, mutual distrust, and China’s increasing assertiveness.

:white_check_mark: What the article does suggest:

  • Trump’s tariffs gave China an opportunity to posture as a stable and cooperative economic partner — a geopolitical countereffect.
  • The trade war showed that China is willing to absorb economic pain and shift strategy, but not change its core positions.

:compass: Bottom Line:

The statement “His plan is working…” implies measurable, favorable outcomes for U.S. trade relations.
This article, however, reflects strategic gridlock, diplomatic mistrust, and a lack of meaningful progress — undercutting that claim.

8

ChatGPT BS aside, I’m puzzled, GSC, why you think that article reflects a trade win for the US?

9

Because he didn’t read it

10

Nah- it’s because both of you are putting words in my mouth…. As usual.

I never said the article demonstrates “a trade win.”

What I said was “his plan is working.”

So the obvious question if you just walked in the room and have no idea what we’re talking about, would be…. “What’s his plan?” Right?

His plan was to create pressure…. Pain…. Discomfort in order to bring willing participants to the negotiation table.

Could we use “diplomacy” 305? Sure. But what incentive does China have to change under a diplomatic approach? None
.
But they do have a huge working class that wants to continue to wealth creation and support their families right?

And who’s their biggest market? The USA right?

So heavily tariffing Chinese goods cuts off that market and will create pain. There are videos of Chinese workers protesting.

And who is China’s second largest market? The EU right? Well they all ran to Trump to negotiate, which puts even more pressure on China.

So now China comes to the table to talk…. But this time they have a penalty if they don’t play nice right? There’s a suspension that can be “reinstated” right?

This might all seem like theatre to you guys but it’s sales/business 101. Create urgency, create pain…. That’s how you get a good faith partner across from you.

11

Incorrect. You stated “his plan is working” and you were asked what evidence do you have the supports your hypothesis and you responded with the article. Once again, never taking ownership for anything.

No. We’re pretty clear on his plan. Now, you’re putting words in other people’s mouths.

When Trump changes his trade policies every 2 days and backs out of deals he, himself, signs - what incentive does anyone have to make a deal with him at all? China has negotiated utilizing diplomacy throughout recent history. You act like they have never come to the table before, which we’ve proven is a false statement.

But, they didn’t. UK is the only one who’s come to the table. You’re living in fantasyland again

They didn’t. Trump backed down. That’s all. There are no trade talks. China stood steadfast and Trump backed down. That’s all that’s happened.

Not really. Again, Trump backed down. China didn’t.

No, not all, really. It does show your narcissistic tendencies and you see cooperation as a means of manipulation, a disregard for ethical standards, etc. Typical from what we know about you…you’re a dirtbag Jersey salesman.

I definitely don’t look at negotiations the same way as you do. I think you have legit psychological issues.

The idea of “creating urgency” or “creating pain” to influence someone implies deliberately manufacturing discomfort or fear to force a reaction, rather than working transparently and respectfully. That does sound like a pretty manipulative and cynical way to approach relationships. It reflects a power-based, transactional view of relationships, rather than a values-based or human-centered one.
You appear to see relationships as power struggles. Rather than cooperation, you’re focused on leverage. You don’t appear to have the capacity for human empathy.

Ironically, this kind of aggressiveness often masks insecurity. If someone feels the need to manufacture urgency or pain to secure cooperation, it suggests they don’t believe they can earn trust through clarity, value, or presence. Control becomes a substitute for confidence.

Healthy, emotionally intelligent people and partners tend to seek alignment, not control.

12

At this point, I strongly advise any and all Trump supporters to stop trying to defend him. He has lied every time he opens his mouth. Embellishments overboard and not one single promise (except deporting people, illegally I might add) has he been able to keep, because he both had no intentions on keeping them, nor were they even possible under the current economic climate.

13

Here is a list of 18 campaign promises. Let’s look at them 4 months in:

  1. Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion|

I think we can all agree that he sealed the border.

  1. Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history

You admitted he accomplished this. You just don’t like his means.

  1. End inflation and make America affordable again

Headline CPI: The overall CPI, including all items, increased by 2.3% year-over-year. This was slightly below economists’ expectations of 2.4% and marked the lowest annual increase since February 2021.

  1. Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far

5 months in and oil prices have definitely come down. I can’t forecast if he’ll accomplish this goal but it’s a little too soon to judge in my opinion. TBD

  1. Stop outsourcing and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower

I think we’re mid process here. The only way to do this is to renegotiate trade deals. Will be able to conclude a year after completed.

  1. Large tax cuts for workers and no tax on tips

IMG_9588
IMG_95881179×2556 441 KB

Final bill pending but looks like it lines up with his promise.

  1. End the weaponization of government against the American people

I guess this will be subjective but him going after certain prosecutors that demonstrated this behavior sort of proves he’s keeping this promise.

  1. Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders

Pretty obvious he’s in the middle of this war.

  1. Rebuild our cities, including Washington, D.C., making them safe, clean, and beautiful again

Early- step one I think you can argue is the early success of Kash Patel’s FBI. Jury still out on this one.

  1. Strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world

I haven’t seen any increase in spending or majors moves yet, but does anyone doubt Trump won’t fund the hell out of the DOD?

  1. Keep the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency

Hasn’t changed yet so…

  1. Fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age

In process. Need to see final decisions on these entitlement programs but to my knowledge this promise isn’t broken.

  1. Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations

He’s done a bunch of executive orders on regulations including the vehicle mandate.

IMG_9589
IMG_95891179×2556 362 KB

  1. Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children

I think you’d agree he kept this promise. No?

  1. Keep men out of women’s sports

This one too.

  1. Deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again

You guys were in an uproar over this so …. Kept right?

  1. Secure our elections, including same-day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship

I just saw news that he’s either planning to, or did, sign an executive order on this. I personally believe an executive order isn’t strong enough because it can be undone next term- so I’ll say he fails here unless he gets Congress to act on this.

  1. Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success

He fails here. I don’t think he can achieve this to be honest. There’s too many emotional haters out there that will never be swayed.

So basically 2 failures and a couple TBD’s

Guy in large, keeps his damn promises.

14

Like anyone gives a true fuck what you advise you ignorant idiot.

15

How does Trump removing his reciprocal tariffs and China removing their retaliatory tariffs mean anything is working? If anything it means his plan WASN’T working.

But past that, there are no commitments with China. There aren’t even discussions scheduled. China is saying now the same exact thing they said before all of this mess.

So again, what “worked” here?

You posting an article over and over about Trump backing down isn’t having the effect you think it’s having.

16

17

They weren’t “removed”

They were temporarily rescinded for 90 days.

That means that if negotiations don’t go the way we like, they will be restarted. Big difference.

This is your interpretation.

We made a 20 point swing in terms of tariff balance. That’s an early win. But will hold judgement until tariffs negotiations end.

18

False. That’s verifiable, not an interpretation. If you dispute, bring facts.

This angle doesn’t make sense. Your initial defense was that it didn’t matter that Trump was lying to the public about who pays the tariffs, that he was driving behavior to re-shore manufacturing.

Your statements so far are that Trump’s tariffs on China were good because they were intended to bring back manufacturing by discouraging trade with China.
Trump’s trade deal with China was ALSO GOOD, even though it involved walking back (reducing or removing) some tariffs.

If the goal was to reduce reliance on China manufacturing by making Chinese goods more expensive (and thereby incentivizing US companies to produce domestically), then removing the tariffs undermines that goal.

If you’re fully committed to reshoring manufacturing, you’d want to

  • Keep the tariffs in place or increase them
  • Discourage imports from China
  • Even create broader restrictions

So, praising both the implementation of the tariffs and the deal that reduces tariffs is like saying:
“We should stop smoking, so let’s raise the cigarette tax. But also, its great that we made a deal to lower the tax.”

The two positions are diametrically opposed to each other. You’ll, of course, say the tariffs bring China to the table and once China agreed to certain trade terms like protecting intellectual property or reducing trade barriers, then it makes sense to ease the tariffs. BUT, if the goal was to rebuilt American manufacturing then any deal that walks back tariffs likely slows or weakens that effort.

It’s pretty clear your position is driven more by support for Trump than a consistent economic policy or principle. You’re aligning with whatever action your preferred leader takes, rather than applying a consistent standard. Once again, you’re full of shit to your core.

19

Jeez you’re so pedantic. Fine.

How does Trump PAUSING his reciprocal tariffs and China PAUSING their retaliatory tariffs mean anything is working?

You realize an “unpause” is just as easy as an “implementation,” right? There is ZERO difference.

No this was in the White House statement. Read it.

That was already in place before the reciprocal tariff nonsense. Those were two 10% fentanyl tariffs.

So again, that “early win” already existed, and China already didn’t retaliate.

Again, I don’t have a problem with tariffs or trade negotiations, especially with China. What I’m saying is Trump’s “reciprocal tariff” nonsense blew up in his face and accomplished nothing.

20

You guys are the ones that always hold me to every word. It’s annoying right?

Anyway. There is a difference.

Operationally it’s easier.
-Mechanism already in place
-There’s no rule making (it’s already been done).
-No interagency coordination (already done)
-No rollout (tariff schedule, CPB systems, Port protocols)

:point_up_2: all of this shit is already in place on a pause.

Also- the law also mandates “public consultations” economic impact studies and stakeholder inputs for new tariffs.

New tariffs could take months to implement. Think about why Trump had to wait until April to enact his tariffs.

With a pause, you just switch the button and we’re back on again.

I could be wrong but my understanding was that the spread prior was 5% in China’s favor.