23 Mar 2025 12:58 pm
No, that position is yours to defend. You're the only one who said that - and I demand that you defend it.Zeets2 » 23 Mar 2025, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ So you don't believe that Trump's tariff brought in over $150 BILLION in tariff revenue in 2019 alone?
I can SHOW YOU WITH GOVERNMENT NUMBERS that you are wrong. Trump's tariffs brought in over $150 BILLION in tariff revenue in 2019 alone - no matter how much you lie about it. READ YOU OWN CHART, you **** stooge.
Yes, I am unable to see that on the chart. What I see is American consumers paying that on Mexican goods. Maybe you need to learn math, or logic, or masculinity.Zeets2 » 23 Mar 2025, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ Or are you unable to see that Mexico paid us OVER 6 TIMES WHAT THE $6 BILLION DOLLAR WALL COST IN ONE YEAR ALONE?
I think that Mexico has seasons, like everyone else. When Mexico has a bumper crop of melons or grapes or mangos or bananas, buying from Chile is more expensive. Making it just as expensive to source from Mexico as from Chile hurts consumers - not Mexico.Zeets2 » 23 Mar 2025, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ So, you think that there's a huge list of products that Mexico is the ONLY source in the world for?
That is real. That is factual. Lowered sales is the pain to Mexico - the only pain. The rest of the pain is to consumers, and the rest of your tripe is girlspeak.Zeets2 » 23 Mar 2025, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ If we DON'T make a product domestically, OR there is no American business that is starting up a company to take advantage of those customers right here, OR there is no OTHER country who is NOT being punished for their unfair trading practices that can fill that need, OR the Mexican producer chooses to absorb the cost of the tariff himself in order to keep his volume of sales to the US the same, then yes, that product WILL cost slightly more, and of course that too will lower the sales of that Mexican product as American consumers choose an alternative product that they can substitute for that item.
Read the last chunk I responded to, silly girl. You're the one trying to "if" your way to an argument.Zeets2 » 23 Mar 2025, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ Seems to be a lot of "ifs" that your counting on to back up such a myopic opinion, don't you think?
All conditioned on your made up, girlspeak "ifs."Zeets2 » 23 Mar 2025, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ That's at least 5 factors that will determine whether or not Americans pay a penny more to cover Trump's tariffs.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?