Talk:Tariff

"resorting American jobs". Wud I tell ya? User:Conservative pays no attention to the spam he uploads. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 01:50, January 10, 2025 (EST)

Update: [1]

User:Conservative: Aren't you the guy who removed the Adam Smith picture from Conservapedia's tariff article? Conservative (talk) 21:14, January 26, 2025 (EST) User:RobS: Sure did, after you implied Adam Smith was a Marxist and censored the conservative New American article. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 21:22, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, free trade and globalism

Phyllis Schlafly with Ronald Reagan.

One of Ronald Reagan's first acts was to lift import quotas (a form of tariff) on shoes. In the 1970s, you couldn't buy a pair of shoes in America for under $30 (in today's money $200-$300) and usually of low quality. Suddenly you could buy Brazilian or Indonesian made shoes for $8. Today there is one US shoe manufacturer remaining, but even that information is 20 years old.

The NAFTA negotiations were begun by globalists under President Reagan. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 14:19, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade, August 31, 1985

“	My fellow Americans: Last Wednesday I notified Congress of my decision not to impose either quotas or tariffs on foreign shoe imports into this country. I'd like to talk with you about that decision because the case of shoe imports illustrates why so-called protectionism is almost always self-destructive, doing more harm than good even to those it's supposed to be helping....	”
—Ronald Reagan

Note to User:Conservative: DO NOT SPAM. DO NOT TROLL. Discuss reasonably and rationally. Thank you. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 14:35, January 27, 2025 (EST)

User:Conservative: Despite your assertion, Phyllis Schlafly WAS NOT part of a globalist conspiracy to screw over Americans in the Reagan era. [2] RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 15:00, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Canadian tariffs on American imports

Feb. 1, 2025: Trudeau imposes 25% tariff on $155,000,000,000 of American imports = $38,750,000,000. The $155 billion and $38.75 billion figures will contract somewhat, leading to a loss of American jobs.

So the question becomes, What is the net impact offset by who has a trade surplus with who? Test on Monday. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 03:15, February 2, 2025 (EST)

User:Conservative's trolling is gaining a following.

It is important to note that (A) tariffs have NOT been imposed on Mexico and Canada, (B) there has been no inflationary or economic blowback to American producers and consumers because tariffs HAVE NOT been imposed, and (C) it was the threat of tariffs, not tariffs themselves, that caused negotiations. RobS^{Zelensky must go.} 14:25, February 4, 2025 (EST)

IMO, it is a mistake to post the Trump photo in the Mainspace. It's really just a reflection about the posters naivety of macroeconomics. RobS^{I don’t really care, Margaret} 04:42, February 8, 2025 (EST)

I still think Trump's picture should come down. But User:Conservative, again, is hell-bent on tarnishing Trump's image with the American public as the negative impacts of tariffs take hold. No metacognition here.

NATO 'ally' Canada bypasses US by selling oil to China. [3] RobS^{I don’t really care, Margaret} 14:59, February 11, 2025 (EST)

well duh (again)

US Court of International Trade just declared Trump's global trade war UNCONSTITUTIONAL

🔻 NO 30% tariffs on China
🔻 NO 25% tariffs on Canada/Mexico
🔻 NO 10% universal "tax on the world"

OK smart guy, Are you going to help walk back all your spam or are you going to leave all the big smelly turds you dropped all over Conservapedia for others to clean up?

• Federal Trade Court Rules President Trump Cannot Initiate Tariffs Under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, All Tariffs Blocked.

User:Conservative: Did you bother studying this issue before you went off half-cocked again?

Are you going to follow up reporting by following the case to SCOTUS, if it ever gets there, or are you going to leave our conservative readers hanging with your propaganda BS again, proving how unreliable Conservapedia is as a source?

Or do you care that Trump's "Most Beautiful Word in the Dictionary" is illegal?

Is it any wonder why your writings help create the impression that Conservatives are unreasonable, illogical, stupid and fascist, not just the way you handle your material, but your arguments in support or (lack of) defense?

Even people who are no more than just "cheerleaders" of conservative causes should be attractive and sexy, not just mindless over-stuffed dimwitted nitwits. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 21:07, May 28, 2025 (EDT)

Separation of powers and limits on powers. Courts make decisions. Decisions are appealed and sometimes stayed. Just standard stuff of democracies and constitutional republics. Big yawn. Trump's tariffs are going to the Supreme Court. If it Trump administration loses at the SCOTUS level, then it will attempt to find provisions of a law to pushback against this ruling on a law. Then the process will continue until the dust finally settles. The United States has been engaged in this process for 200+ years. Nothing new here. Conservative (talk) 04:54, December 5, 2025 (EST)

That's a good defense of the separate but equal doctrine, devoid of any moral considerations. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 06:17, December 5, 2025 (EST)