I do not know the truth. But Cantor Fitzgerald is denying reports it purchased rights to tariff refunds:
You as an individual or business have imported goods which at the time of landed were subject to tariffs and you paid say $100.
Having discharged your liability, you now own an asset. Tariffs can be challenged and their applicability and/or rate varied.
For example in more normal times when you imported the goods you thought they were in a item classification making them subject to a 10% tariff. But when the import docs were lodged US Customs determined the shipment were subject to a different tariff rate say 25%. This 25% needs to be paid to get access to your shipment.
There are several avenues to challenge the ruling. You can seek a tariff classification order (TCO) or a tariff classification advice (TCA). Or that the assessment was in error. So you might get your money, or some of your money back.
But there is time and significant bureaucracy involved and risk. So a third party might come along and say “We will buy that asset from you, potentially worth $100, maybe zero. We will make representation, do the appeals, seek the TCO/TCA etc, lodge the paperwork etc. We will aggregate your claim with others. We will assume the risk. For that right we will offer you $20.”
At the end of the appeals process they might get a full $100 refund, or some smaller portion or zero. It could take years to resolve.
You could do the same, making your own representation, for the same risk. Alternatively you could take their offered $20 tariff for this shipment paid now and also, if they win, bring any future shipments you will pay the agreed lower rate.
A bit like a class action, but with the appellant law firm buying your claim out now rather than paying a portion out if/when they win the case.
It is past time to invoke the 25th amendment:
“They’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS (Republicans in name only) and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!”
Two of the justices who voted against the president - Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett - were appointed by him.
In a press conference, he spoke of his claimed powers as president.
“I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country,” Trump said.
“I’m allowed to impose a foreign destroying embargo, I can embargo, I can do anything I want, but I can’t charge $1.”
He took an oath (which I believe is legally binding) to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Doesn’t seem like he is doing that to me.
Meanwhile, “John Barron” called into CSPAN to complain about the Supreme Court ruling.
They eventually hung up on him.
But then we’d get Vance who would be worse.
Excellent impressionist, he’s got the voice and mannerisms spot on.
The giveaway is that he spoke too fast. Actual Trump would’ve been slurring and denture-rattling his way through the whole thing. Plus Trump’s never used the phrase “can’t cook a cheeseburger” before. Ain’t no way that dementia-warped brain is adding new material to the setlist at this point.
I agree but I do not think Vance can maintain the cult of personality that Trump has and MAGA would implode. I think that is worth three years of Vance.
I’m pretty sure that was really Trump.
Yes, it’s really that deranged.
He’s used that pseudonym before. Of course, it’s him.
He’s used that pseudonym enough that everyone knows it’s his. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s really Trump, it just means an impersonator with a great sense of humor knows what name to give when calling in.
I’m still not convinced it’s actually him.
Eta: I’ll be happy…er, maybe “happy” isn’t the right word, let’s go with “horrified,” to be proven wrong.
In general, I think that Trump’s whole plan for tariffs was to use them as an alternative source of revenue for the Federal government, in an effort to get rid of income and capital gains taxes. Driving down the trade balance is just socialist rhetoric that he picked up off Perot and uses to sway the blue collar types; just the same that Mussolini used his whole “union as government” ruse to convince Italians that they should work like slaves, while Mussolini was slipping oil money to himself on the side. You sell socialism. You give crony-Capitalism.
I assume that he’s figuring that if he can get the new taxation system into place and show that it’s working, and continue to turn Congress into true MAGAs, then he will be able to get the vote to drop current law and institute the new tax regime.
All of which is very rational.
I’m generally skeptical that his online tirades are shows of true passion. I mean, I’m sure that he’s passionate about getting rid of the taxes that his business has to deal with, but that feels more like a sly fox sort of passion - not the fist raising, pinko passion that he demonstrates on Truth Social.
For a sly fox, maybe he thinks that he still has a chance to win the battle with alternate tariffs. But, also plausibly, he senses that Congress isn’t going to go with him on the “great plan”, that he largely just risks creating popularity-ending inflation by continuing to play around with centrally managed economics, and that he’s going to need to save a true “try three” until a third term with a sufficiently MAGA Congress that they’re willing to pass law that gives the President control over the economy and government budget.
Maybe he’s planning to continue fighting for tariffs, but I suspect that - for this iteration of the effort - he’s just going to let them peter out, after raising a sufficiently dramatic fuss about it to maintain the image.
Regrettably, it might turn his focus more back towards the prospects of a third term and who is working with his in Congress during that time.
Indeed - while Vance may have a “few” more marbles in his head to enact the latest toxic GOP policy more proficiently than Trump, MAGA is the biggest if not the only reason the Republicans have been able to hold on to power. Sure, I’ll take those (still awful) three years of Vance, too.
Also agree - envisioning the odd advisor whispering with don’t-shoot-the-messenger nervousness into Trump’s ear what the real-life ramifications will be with his tariffs, prompting the bilious fartbag to a.) acknowledge by seething b.) scramble to come up with some other Epstein-files-avoiding bugbear.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
trumps cabinet of toadies and sycophants are too cowed and incompetent.
Vance is sane.
It is trumps “stick” to punish nations for perceived slights.
Some tariffs are necessary, Biden enacted a few.
They’re also used to running their departments in a totally open loop fashion with no adult supervision. A Vance administration would probably be more focused. If they cooperated to depose Trump, it would greatly reduce their power over their departments.
This is a powerful disincentive.
It is entirely plausible that Vance could be worse from a domestic standpoint.
Internationally he’d likely be saner. I doubt he’d be as obsessed with whackadoodle aggrandizement like taking Greenland or Canada. Probably corporate pressure and election worries would cause him to walk back or at least stop trying to prioritize tariffs.
I guess I’d take that tradeoff, but it sure wouldn’t be fun.
Yes, IMHO better, but by no means a good choice.
What a wonderfully mercantilist approach.
(say) Commercial vehicle tyres imported from XXXX do not meet US standards and are implicated in road fatalities.
So leave them in the market but put the price up 25% via a sales tax. That’ll learn 'em.
Internationally he’d to perform circus level cartwheels and contortions to sanewash the content, threats and implications of his speech at the Munich Security Conference (14th Feb 2025). “I did it only because Donald wanted it” butters no parsnips.
It does not. But I give not a single shit about either Vance’s reputation (already shot) or the red meat he throws to the base (inevitable). Only about his actual actions. Right now he has to play Trump’s willing henchman.
Freed from that constraint he still has to appeal to MAGA-land, but I’d consider him very slightly less willing to do something insane like start a war with a NATO ally. Not saying he won’t do it. But to the extent MAGAverse is stirred up about shit like Greenland, it’s because Trump keeps stirring them up. I would take a flyer on Vance being a little less likely to pull the trigger in favor of just more huffing and puffing because he has more to lose. Might work in reverse of course - power can intoxicate. But I’d make the bet with fingers tightly crossed.
Everf time I see a thread title like this, I assume that what is meant is “Court Says He Can’t Do It, So He Throws A Temper Tantrum and Says He Is Going To Do It Anyway”.