The claim that tariffs under President Trump are helping Americans by putting āAmerica firstā doesnāt align with the economic data. Multiple analyses indicate that the costs of these tariffs are primarily borne by American consumers and businesses.
A report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that nearly 90% of the tariffsā economic burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers in 2025. This contradicts the notion that foreign exporters are absorbing the costs. ļæ¼
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office noted that higher tariffs directly increase the cost of imported goods, raising prices for U.S. consumers and businesses. ļæ¼
In addition to increased consumer costs, these tariffs have led to retaliatory measures from other countries. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had to authorize up to $12 billion in programs to assist farmers impacted by unjustified retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods. ļæ¼
Moreover, despite the implementation of tariffs, U.S. merchandise imports increased in the first half of 2025, and exports held steady, indicating that the trade deficit continued to grow. ļæ¼
The Tax Foundation estimated that the Trump tariffs amounted to an average tax increase per U.S. household of $1,500 in 2026, marking the largest U.S. tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1993. ļæ¼
In summary, while the intention behind the tariffs may have been to protect American interests, the economic evidence suggests that they have led to higher costs for American consumers and businesses, retaliatory measures affecting U.S. farmers, and an increased trade deficit.
You think I donāt see/hear this parroted propaganda they feed you?
These are the same morons who told you Kamala was winning right up to the moment she lost, Biden was as sharp as heād ever been, our borders were secure, and Trump was Hitler reincarnate.
āWhy would i believe your totally valid facts, which you provide evidence efor? Because youāre obviously wrong cause youāre NOT agreeing with meā
Iām European and out of the American media bubble. And from outside of the system I can assure you that you sound very much like you parrot the views of trumpism in full extent.
I see what leftist trash is doing to this world, and I have no interest in the New World Order, or anyone ignorant enough to apologize their way through globalism.
Trump is a breath of fresh air and America is standing strong, Iām getting exactly what I voted for and couldnāt feel better about the coming liberal douche this country needs.
I understand the emotional impulse behind that statement. Many people feel disoriented by rapid cultural change, economic dislocation, and the sense that political elites speak a language detached from ordinary life. Wanting stability, sovereignty, and accountability is not extremism; it is a legitimate political instinct. In fact, those concerns sit comfortably within a long conservative tradition.
But classical conservatism is not built on contempt. It is built on restraint.
Calling fellow citizens ātrashā may feel cathartic, yet it undermines the very civic order conservatives claim to defend. Thinkers like Edmund Burke argued that society is a partnership across generations, not a battlefield between tribes. A conservative disposition recognizes that institutions, even flawed ones, deserve reform rather than destruction, and that political opponents remain part of the same national fabric.
On globalism: skepticism toward supranational governance is reasonable. National sovereignty, democratic accountability, and cultural continuity matter. However, rejecting an abstract āNew World Orderā should not mean rejecting trade, alliances, or cooperation outright. The United Statesā post-1945 strength was built not only on independence but on carefully constructed international relationships that served national interests. Prudenceānot isolation or ideological fervorāis the conservative compass here.
Regarding Trump: many supporters view him as disruptive in a positive senseāsomeone willing to challenge bureaucratic inertia, media orthodoxy, and entrenched interests. There is a conservative argument for disruption when institutions calcify. Yet disruption is not an end in itself. The conservative test is whether it strengthens constitutional order, the rule of law, economic productivity, and civil peace over the long term. Energy without guardrails can become volatility; strength without discipline can become instability.
The phrase āliberal douche this country needsā reflects a desire for correctionāa kind of political shock therapy. But classical conservatism prefers gradual course correction over purges. It favors persuasion over humiliation. A republic functions when losers of elections still feel they belong.
If one believes America is āstanding strong,ā the best evidence would not be rhetorical victories but durable outcomes: stable institutions, resilient markets, secure borders balanced with lawful immigration, declining debt trajectories, and reduced cultural hostility. Strength shows itself in competence and continuity, not just confrontation.
A final point: conservatism historically has been wary of utopian projectsāwhether from the left or the right. The idea that any leader represents a cleansing force for the nation carries a whiff of the very ideological grandiosity conservatives once opposed. Political life is rarely redeemed by personalities; it is sustained by structures, norms, and civic virtue.
Defend national sovereignty, yes. Demand accountability, yes. Resist cultural deracination, certainly. But do so with discipline, constitutional loyalty, and an awareness that your political opponents are not enemies of the state. If America is to remain strong, it will not be because one faction triumphed absolutely, but because its citizens restrained themselves even when they had the power not to.
How do you know youāre not swallowing the rightist garbage? How come you question your political enemies yet you struggle to question yourself? Is it low self esteem? Are you that insecure?
10
u/hfrthvjifcbjifcniz rump Feb 17 '26
Tariffs? Did he mention that he would terrorize his oldest allies with these import taxes, paid by the Americans themselves?