• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

100% tariff on movies.
article said:
"I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," Trump said late Sunday in a post on his Truth Social platform. "WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!"
Click to expand...
The United States generally owns global movie industry. Apparently, that isn't enough now. Trump says the movie industry is dying in the US.
 
bilby said:
crazyfingers said:
ZiprHead said:
Robert Reich said:
Two former Wells Fargo executives were fined $8.5M by the Biden admin for covering up the bank's infamous fake account scandal. Trump just slashed those fines to a paltry $150,000 after Wells Fargo gave $1M to his inauguration. See how this works?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Any democratic president doing that would be impeached. It's got to be illegal.
Click to expand...
Presidential actions are only illegal if Congress says they are via the impeachment process. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "official acts" by the President are legal. And ANY act Congress chooses to impeach over is illegal, no matter how harmless or benign.

Do you are right, but unless Congress chooses to do something about it, it doesn't mattter that you are right.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I believe that the Supreme Court ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for official acts as president. They did not rule that any official act is legal. And it takes a court to determine if it was an official act.

Sure the best way to get rid of the asshole is impeachment. But just because he does something doesn't make it legal. The case the Supreme Court ruled on was about Presidential immunity from prosecution. Not Presidential immunity from legality.
 
crazyfingers said:
They did not rule that any official act is legal. And it takes a court to determine if it was an official act.
Click to expand...
True, but does he know that? And will anyone do anything about it if he doesn't? It seems to me that he believed himself above legal accountability even before that ruling was made, and further events did not inspire confidence in either the sanctity of the courts or the agency of the houses of Congress.
 
IANAL but I think Congress sets its own rules for procedure and evidence during impeachment/conviction proceedings, and makes its own judgement of what constitute "high Crime and Misdemeanors" independent of any statute or judicial ruling.

Of course and Rs who defy Der Führer will be in literal fear for their family's safety, so don't expect Congress to do anything helpful.
 
Trump was asked "Are you going to make that policy, U.S. policy, that the U.S. wouldn't defend NATO countries that don't pay?" Here's his response:

Donald J. Trump said:
Well, I think it's common sense, right? If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them. No, I'm not going to defend them. I got into a lot of heat when I said that. You said, 'Oh, he's violating NATO.'
You know, the biggest problem I have with NATO, I really, you know, I mean, I know the guys very well. They're friends of mine. But if the United States was in trouble and we called them, we said, we got a problem, France. We got a problem, a couple of others I won’t mention. Do you think they're going to come and protect us? They're supposed to. I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

Article Five of the Treaty of Washington has only been invoked ONE time in the 76 years since that Treaty was signed in 1949.
ONE time. Only once. Do you know when that was and which NATO member was defended by the rest of the Alliance?

1949 Treaty of Washington Article 5 said:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ... and that each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked ...
Click to expand...
 
crazyfingers said:
ZiprHead said:
Robert Reich said:
Two former Wells Fargo executives were fined $8.5M by the Biden admin for covering up the bank's infamous fake account scandal. Trump just slashed those fines to a paltry $150,000 after Wells Fargo gave $1M to his inauguration. See how this works?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Any democratic president doing that would be impeached. It's got to be illegal.
Click to expand...

Robbing banks is also illegal.

But suppose the police are called during a bank robbery, and the police say, "We can't respond because doing so would be too polarizing. And we would be hammered by the pro-bank-robbery bloc of taxpayers. Besides, we keep all our money in a competitor's bank, so this is actually good for our own financial interests. Anyway, it's the wrong time to be arresting bank robbers. Maybe closer to the end of the fiscal year, when our going after bank robbers will provide more bang for the buck."

Well, if the police said that, bank robbery would still be illegal. And there would be more bank robberies.

ETA: bilby beat me to it.
 
Swammerdami said:
Trump was asked "Are you going to make that policy, U.S. policy, that the U.S. wouldn't defend NATO countries that don't pay?" Here's his response:

Donald J. Trump said:
Well, I think it's common sense, right? If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them. No, I'm not going to defend them. I got into a lot of heat when I said that. You said, 'Oh, he's violating NATO.'
You know, the biggest problem I have with NATO, I really, you know, I mean, I know the guys very well. They're friends of mine. But if the United States was in trouble and we called them, we said, we got a problem, France. We got a problem, a couple of others I won’t mention. Do you think they're going to come and protect us? They're supposed to. I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

Article Five of the Treaty of Washington has only been invoked ONE time in the 76 years since that Treaty was signed in 1949.
ONE time. Only once. Do you know when that was and which NATO member was defended by the rest of the Alliance?

1949 Treaty of Washington Article 5 said:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ... and that each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Meanwhile Trump says that military force is not off the table regarding Canada and Greenland/Denmark, both NATO members.

He says he won't defend a NATO member while making it possible that NATO members will have to defend each other against the US. He's such a shit stain.
 
Politesse said:
crazyfingers said:
They did not rule that any official act is legal. And it takes a court to determine if it was an official act.
Click to expand...
True, but does he know that? And will anyone do anything about it if he doesn't? It seems to me that he believed himself above legal accountability even before that ruling was made, and further events did not inspire confidence in either the sanctity of the courts or the agency of the houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

Sure. Of course he thinks that he's immune to the law from a practical point of view. News is "he doesn't know" that he's required to adhere to the Constitution. I think that he knows that he's required to but he thinks he can get away with not.

That's Trump's entire life. He never asks himself whether it's right or wrong to do something. To him it's only about whether he can get away with doing something.

He really needs to get impeached and finally convicted.

And Susan Collins said the first time that he leaned his lesson....
 
crazyfingers said:
That's Trump's entire life. He never asks himself whether it's right or wrong to do something. To him it's only about whether he can get away with doing something.
Click to expand...
Because, of course, he always does. Even when he doesn't. It's not everyone in this country who can somehow be twice convicted of felony and a sexual assault, and never have to face a single meaningful consequence for any of it.
 
Does anybody here have enough experience with the movie industry to explain just how one can put a tariff on movies?

It's not like they arrive in America packed in a TEU on a cargo ship..
 
ZiprHead said:
www.deseret.com

BYU grad student from Japan has visa revoked

Attorney for computer science Ph.D. candidate believes a fishing license incident from years ago may have triggered visa revocation.
www.deseret.com www.deseret.com

This seems exactly like the kind of person we would want to stay.
Click to expand...
It's clear what's going on: he's decreed mass deportations. The problem is ICE can't actually deliver, they're going after people they can find no matter how flimsy the pretext.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
100% tariff on movies.
article said:
"I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," Trump said late Sunday in a post on his Truth Social platform. "WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!"
Click to expand...
The United States generally owns global movie industry. Apparently, that isn't enough now. Trump says the movie industry is dying in the US.
Click to expand...
So there will be no more shooting on location??
 
jonatha said:
Does anybody here have enough experience with the movie industry to explain just how one can put a tariff on movies?

It's not like they arrive in America packed in a TEU on a cargo ship..
Click to expand...
No one here buys the movie. They buy tickets to see the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom