저자: MeetKevin · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프 취임 100일 평가 영상. 트럼프 측근·가족의 암호화폐 및 투자 관련 이해충돌(인맥 투자클럽, WLFI, 밈코인, 트루스소셜 지분), 언론·대학·법원에 대한 압박, 적법절차 무시(추방 사례), 관세 정책의 경제·동맹 피해를 비판. 민주당의 바이든 고령 은폐 및 선거 전략 문제도 함께 지적. 시장 가격 방향에 대한 직접적 예측은 없음.
다듬은 글
I did not vote for this. Literally, I didn't vote for Donald Trump because I said before the election I'd be writing in meet Kevin on the ballot. Not only to preserve my independence, but also because I'm extremely frustrated that Democrats shoved Kla Harris down our throats without a primary. And I want to be very crystal clear here.
I have criticized the Biden administration a lot on this channel. Afghanistan troop withdrawal, complete disaster. I covered it. I have covered a lot of their policies with disdain on this channel, but I've also pointed out credit where credit is due, such as their funding of TSMC and bringing them to Phoenix, Arizona, a plant I've personally visited.
I think that's a good thing to uh safeguard our ability to manufacture advanced chips in America, especially as they're related to our defense industry. That said, Democrats are not scot-free. By pretending that Joe Biden wasn't suffering from dementia or somehow scenile was a disgusting lie to the American people.
It is the same kind of act though that Democrats conducted via the official Democratic party in the state of California in 2021 when they ran against Governor Nuome for governor. Why was it the official party policy that people should vote for Gavin Newsome on the recall? In other words, vote against the recall of Gavin Newsome, but then if the recall goes through and Newsome is gone, just leave the second option blank because why would you want a backup person written in?
It's Newsome or nothing. That's not Democratic. And it's that kind of behavior that won Democrats Donald Trump. Democrats are to blame. Men playing in women's sports, multiple genders, this insane ideology that most Americans don't believe in is why we are where we are today. So again, Biden and Democrats are not scot-free in this rebuke of actually Donald Trump because let's be clear, the first 100 days of Donald Trump have been an unmitigated disaster.
Now, this post is going to require a lot of nuance because it's going to upset people with very low capabilities of critical thinking. That's okay. They're going to leave comments like unfollow, dislike, Trump derangement syndrome, Democratic talking points, blah blah blah blah. It's fine. See, I believe I make videos for the 99% of you that think critically, look for valuable perspective and look for facts and reason, and I don't make videos for the random 1% uh trolls in the comments.
So, that said, we're going to be very real in this video and open in this video. I am very concerned with Donald Trump. And I also want to be clear on last disclaimer here. This video is not paid for by anybody. There's no sponsor, nothing. I get nothing out of the making this video other than honestly probably losing subscribers.
But I feel like as an American, it's my duty to explain that I'm concerned about Trump. And I'm not here to talk about Hunter Biden's laptop because we've talked about this in the past. This video is about now in the future. And the president right now and in over the next 1300 days is Donald Trump.
So again, this video is looking at the first 100 days to express my concern for the next 1300. Look, we were promised a businessfriendly progrowth administration with lower taxes and secure borders. We got secure borders and we got two genders. I can't even believe that I have I'm equating two genders with secure borders.
That shouldn't be done. Okay, that one's a joke and the other is serious. Secure borders, massive failure of the Biden administration, by the way. Great job to the Trump administration. But that's really where my enthusiasm for the Trump administration stops. Sure, the focus on merit uh over, you know, race is is to some extent a good thing, but there are also conversations to be had about the concentration of poverty and why uh minority races are often stuck in less desirable situations with lower educational outcomes.
Topic for a totally different video. In fact, if you want to watch, I've been talking about this for years. You could type in on YouTube meet Kevin black versus white and you will literally get my breakdown on the concentration of poverty. So I've gone deep into this. I'm not going to rehash it. I'm going to focus on Trump.
The first things that make me very concerned are what I think of as the greatest level of grift the world has ever seen. You can now pay $500,000 if you are invited. By the way, it's invite only to join the president's family in an investment club. Just what we need, more insider trading. As if there aren't daily examples of people in Congress or politics insider trading.
Here's just a way to collect money as a fee to insider trade some more. Who needs fundamental analysis when you can insider trade? Trump also raised $239 for his inauguration, then dropped federal enforcements and lawsuits against at least 17 corporate donors that made up part of this pool. And so, guess what that means?
With Trump, money, money, money literally buys you freedom. Donate to Trump, your judicial cases and fraud will get covered up by Donnie T. Trump has 114.75 million shares in Truth Social, which basically serves as a tool for getting updates on the Office of the White House. Meanwhile, the app has lost $400 million in 2024.
Donald Trump's net worth has exploded because of this publicly tradable security, which other companies will also buy shares of just to try to cozy up to the Trump administration. It is now a publicly tradable grift. The Trump family also took over the crypto firm that raised hundreds of millions of dollars via the token launch for accredited investors under World Liberty Financial, raising over $500 million.
Then there was $300 million in round one, $250 million in round two. It's not allowed to be transferred because it's TBD, the outcome of the project and what they want to do with it, which is probably a whole host of nothing because they probably pre-planned nothing. But Trump now has 75% control of that company and investors in the meantime are writing down their investments over 50% already because they don't actually expect much out of it.
Which why would they after right before the inauguration, Donald Trump and Melania launched their own tokens, Trump and Melania, which were basically a tactical meme launch just before the inauguration. And if you bought during the hype, you're probably down about 85% on that token. Meanwhile, Trump-owned companies are up about $350 million net in the ICOs, the initial coin offerings.
Lutnik's son, Brandon Lutnik, uh is apparently now partnering with SoftBank, Tether, and Bitfinex to recreate Micro Strategy. Yeah. So, if you are Howard Lutnik's son, you now get whatever connections you want to institutions to pull off your very own version of Michael Sailor and get started with a small loan, I mean fund of $3 billion.
We're going to call it 21 capital. Trump organization also gets their beautiful billions of dollars worth of golf courses in Vietnam expeditiously approved conveniently after he becomes a president and also now potentially as a tariff bargaining chip because it's not about the American people. It's about the Trump ad Trump organization not to be confused with administration.
the Trump organization uh well looking for favors. Bessent holds private meetings with bankers like JP Morgan suggesting before 24 hours before all of us get to hear about it that there are positive uh news items coming on trade and that turned into a 9day market rally which insider bankers well got the inside scoop on before all of us.
CBS News 60 Minutes producer stepped down because apparently the owning company of CBS, Paramount, is being sued by Trump and the controlling shareholder of Paramount is trying to sell Paramount to Sky Dance, which requires approval from the Trump administration. And the producer of CBS 60 Minutes was too critical of Trump.
And so now that person got forced out because the controlling shareholder of Paramount wants that approval stamp from Trump. And so now that free speech gets silenced over at CBS. Now I'm not here to shill traditional media. They all have their bias and tilt. But my point is you're not seeing that kind of criticism on Fox.
You only see it on organizations that are more likely to criticize Donald Trump. Instead, if you look at the Trump administration, you've actually got quite a few Fox News anchors getting jobs in the Trump White House, which enriches them. And so, it's no surprise you've got people like Charles Payne and frankly a lot of media anchors doing everything they can almost on a daily basis to suck up to the Trump administration because they too want to be incorporated in.
Hey, I want to be elevated. Let me get a job in the White House. Come on, man. Don't forget about me over here. I'm sucking up, too. This isn't exactly a world of free speech. See, if you say something critical, your odds of getting invited to the White House are basically zero. See, I obviously a social media influencer and amongst many other social media influencers.
We applied, including myself, to visit the White House uh press briefing room and be able to ask questions directly of our White House press secretary, who's very good at her job at defending Donald Trump. A+ Trump propaganda. You got to give her that. But of course, only right-wing influencers who are favorable to Trump actually get invites.
People with fewer views or fewer subscribers than me, who are consistently solely proTrump, get invited, but I do not because I cater much more towards the middle. Now, obviously, this video is going to seem like I'm anti- the conservative movement, but what I'm really anti is the kneebending of people like, well, let's just put it this way, Lindsey Graham.
This is the probably the greatest clown show example of kneebending I have ever seen in my life and it deserves a screenshot. Quote, I was excited to hear that President Trump is open to the idea of being the next pope. This would truly be a dark horse candidate, but I would ask the PayPal conclave and Catholic faithful to keep an open mind about this possibility.
The first pope US president combination has many upsides. watching for white white smoke. Well, folks, uh, Congress apparently is so weak that they can't say a anything negative about Trump and b can't even realize the power of the purse that is bestowed upon them enough to pass a resolution to limit Trump's global tariffs by a vote of 49 to 49.
Once again, a resolution to limit Trump's power has failed and this time on economically destructive tariffs, which we'll talk about more towards the end of the video. The disaster of tariffs and what it's doing to our trade alliances is horrible. But again, more on that later. Donald Trump would have vetoed that anyway.
And so we would have really required twothirds a supermajority of Congress to actually pass this legislation which uh is unlikely in a world where unfortunately if you are anti-Donald Trump you will not get reelected. And it seems the only thing politicians care about is getting reelected. Imagine if politicians were only allowed to serve one term and we got a new politician every single cycle.
This morning, we saw Donald Trump literally question whether he should uphold the Constitution, that he would have to consult his attorneys, he said. After all, the oath of office, which he swore to, requires the president to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
But apparently is unable to tell you if something is constitutional or not without the consultation of his attorney. Who knows? Maybe that's a strategy for protecting himself. To me, it sounds like Donald Trump is trying to collect as much power as he can by consulting his legal staff for all of the loopholes possible.
We already know he doesn't pay attention to the right to due process in America. But hey, look, my point is everything that I've mentioned so far. This is not about the people. People I I see it in the comments. They they say, "I voted for this because Donald Trump is fighting for the people. He's so transparent." All of this transparent grift is not for the people.
It is for Trump and his cronies. That is sad. And we have a Congress that is too weak to reign him in. Now, while Donald Trump is so powerful, let's think about some other issues. The Supreme Court upheld the sale of Tik Tok, but via Donald Trump unilaterally. The decision to sell Tik Tok is being upheld because Trump is using it as a tariff negotiation bargaining chip with China.
The irony is the longer he upholds the sale, the more profit bite dance gets to make off of Tik Tok. So, I don't actually see why delaying the sale of Tik Tok is helping his ability to negotiate, but he's also willfully violating what our courts have demanded, the highest level of our courts, mind you, the Supreme Court, after Donald Trump also promised not to weaponize the justice system, which he says was used against him, which I think a lot of people agree.
He was uh he was certainly microscoped. Okay, Donald Trump is now Oh, and mind you, he told us that he would be different, that he's not going to weaponize the justice system. He is now literally weaponizing the justice system. I'm going to give you an example. Donald Trump has ordered Pam Bondi to look into Act Blue.
This is a fundraising platform for Democrats. Pretty much, if you're a political candidate for any office and you're going to run as a Democrat, you use Act Blue as a payment rail. Think of it like Stripe, but for politicians. Now, Congressman Brian Steele, a Republican, already investigated Act Blue in Q3 and Q4 of last year and found no evidence of illegal foreign funds being funneled into our elections through Act Blue and actually cited that they had safeguards in place uh and increased their safeguards to prevent those things from happening.
Well, four months later, Donald Trump directs Pam Bondi to investigate Act Blue, which you know, sounds like judicial weaponization. very clearly against a Democratic platform, mind you, because if people aren't going to use Act Blue, what is the next runner-up fundraising platform for Democrats? Nobody actually knows.
Which is the perfect way, mind you, to try to stifle your competition is prevent your competition from being able to fundra. It's kind of brilliant in a really evil uh, you know, I don't know how to put it, dictator-ish way. I hate to say it. It's like, yeah, cut off their money supply. It's kind of brilliant, but again, it's also evil.
So, while Donald Trump is going after Act Blue because there are rumors that Democrats are fundraising from foreign corporations through straw buyers via Act Blue, and so far there's no evidence of this. Donald Trump basically pardoned Eric Adams of the same damn thing. Okay, Eric Adams, New York, was investigated by the FBI for illegal donations from the government of Turkey.
Mind you, Eric Adams had flown to Turkey a few times. Okay. From the government of Turkey, who donated to Eric Adams campaign through a Brooklyn construction company as a straw donor to Eric Adams. This is exactly what Donald Trump is accusing Act Blue of, but has no evidence for was literally happening with Eric Adams.
But because Eric Adams is a Trump friendly, what happens? Donald Trump says, "Hey, look, we know FBI. You have unsealed fraud charges against Eric Adams. Drop all the charges. And if any of the charges are to stick, I'll consider pardoning him." H to me, it seems like you're weaponizing justice for the same thing that is actually happening on a fraudulent basis within your very own party.
To me, that is an unmititigated disaster. That is disgusting. I can only laugh about it because there's obviously nothing I can do about it. I'm just making the observation. I also live streamed January 6th for over 10 hours. I mean, the video is still public and the violence we saw was disgusting. Now, I'm not saying that every person who, you know, walked through the halls or were guided through the halls in certain cases should be subject to four to 10 years in prison.
But I do think that people who whacked Capitol police officers and battered them with flag poles or other weapons deserve to be in prison. But those people were pardoned along with the more innocent visitors, we'll call them. This is disgusting. The attack on our universities and the process of chilling and stifling free speech in America is also in my opinion an unmitigated disaster.
Now look, universities are going to be more liberal institutions. So yes, it is true that universities are going to say things that do not always align with Democrat or with Republican causes. And so it makes logical sense for Donald Trump to say, "Hey, we don't want uh universities saying things that we don't like and we're going to threaten to take their funding away unless they do what we like." Now, I'm going to break down exactly what's happening here, but first to understand this, and this is a complicated one, let's just put this up on screen.
This might help a little bit. Okay? People who go to universities tend to lean more democratic. That's because you've got the super low end of incomes that lean democratic because they have to. They need social services and they can get in via financial aid programs to finally try to get a leg up and get out of the hell of poverty.
Then you have the higher incomes like the highest of incomes that also lean democratic. They send their children to elite institutions. And yes, institutions fueled by research and thought can tend to lean significantly to the left. Donald Trump does not like this, which makes sense. It is a threat to the future of the Republican party to have universities lean left.
Now, middle and upper middle inome individuals tend to lean more to the right. However, the middle and upper middle class also can tend to be more entrepreneurial and of the mindset that we don't actually need college. Now, this video isn't here to say we need college or we don't need college. That's not what this video is about.
It's simply to give you a baseline of income understanding and the realization that this right here is a core audience for Donald Trump. Very, very core voter base. There are many more middle and upper middle inome individuals than there are upper inome individuals. And it's really easy to latch on to this when the, you know, 59% of Republicans have a negative view of colleges and universities and only 18% of Democrats have a negative view of universities.
So going into this, if you're a political strategist for Donald Trump, it's obviously very easy to say, "Yeah, attack the universities." like you're not going to piss off that many Republicans and you're going to piss off Democrats, but who cares? So, what Donald Trump is doing is he's attacking what's called viewpoint diversity.
He's basically trying to say, "Hey, we want you to accept into the universities as many conservatives as liberals." Now, the reality is most 18-year-olds have no idea what identifying as a liberal or conservative actually means. very few were involved in the political process at 16, 17 or 18. And even people who are have very limited experience just by virtue of probably have being only been exposed to politics for maybe the last 2 or 3 years.
So that said, Donald Trump is trying to force universities to accept more conservatives and prove some form of viewpoint outcome to this. Some elite universities have bent the knee to Donald Trump and others have said, "Yeah, you know what? We're just not going to do that." As a result, Donald Trump has frozen funding to a lot of institutions such as $2.2 billion of funding to Harvard and much more money to other universities.
I'll go through some of the examples of what some of this funding is going for to of the federal funding that goes to Harvard. We actually send them $9 billion. 7 billion goes to Harvard affiliated hospitals, which that portion, as far as I'm aware, is not being touched. But the two billion that goes to Harvard, the vast majority of it goes to research.
In fact, Harvard spends more money on research than they get from federal funding. And so when we cut federal funding to a university like Harvard, what we're actually doing is we are reducing their capability of conducting research. Let's just use a year-by-year basis rather than sort of these block grants which represent multiple different years.
During the fiscal year of 2024, I'll show you the evidence of it. During the fiscal year of 2024, federal funding of $686 million was available for Harvard and that was the university's largest source of support for research. Okay, so they got $686 million at Harvard in 2024. Now, how much money did Harvard spend on research?
Well, it's right here. Total expenses on research, $1.3 billion. In other words, more than twice the money they received went towards research. And now, why did colleges start getting research? Well, part of it was because after World War II, the US government needed a way to get better medical research, financial aid for students, innovation, and a way to really not only motivate the advancement of the United States via, you know, outcomes from research, but also to have people who are capable of going to school, researching, learning, helping discover, and then hopefully go into the private sector or move on and continue to contribute to society.
So, it's kind of a win-win from the government to fund research at universities. Some of the research, such as uh Cornell's $1 billion goes into programs like their jet engine propulsion system, LLM robotics superconductor research teams, and their satellite and space communications departments. That money has now been cut because they didn't bend the need to jump.
of the $790 billion that are frozen at Northwestern, we could see that money no longer go towards things like nanotechnology, robotics, and Parkinson's research. Some of the money from uh Harvard might no longer go towards cancer research. So this idea that these institutions are spending money on uh you know woke purposes is really because what you'll find at universities is these sort of louder protest groups that might you know hold rallies like you know uh pro Palestine rallies and then the entire university is then cast as oh okay well that's clearly an anti-Trump university let's cut funding except they're not cutting cutting funding for those individual protest groups who are really just expressing their right to free speech.
What they're actually doing is they're cutting funding to research, which is really good and important for Americans and the future of not only our safety, but also our health. All right. Now, of course, there are also things that the Trump administration can point to that isn't great, such as, you know, in donations to Northwestern, some of the money to Northwestern was allocated to foreign military training where basically we're fighting a we were teaching Afghan fighter pilots how to fly fighter planes.
Now, obviously, that didn't do us much good because Biden had this horrible troop withdrawal. Now, some people argue that one of the reasons the troop withdrawal went went so poorly was because the Afghanistan's military, the Afghan military was so dang weak because Trump in 2018 already cut funding for foreign troop training.
But then again, the flip side argument is, but why are we funding them in the first place? So, I like I see this one as like blurry, but my point is people will take that and latch on to that and say, "Aha, some of the money went to a cause I don't like. Kill all of it." And so what you do is, oh, that money went to that and it was misappropriated.
Fine, then kill that, right, with like a surgical tool. But instead, what's happening is you're taking an axe to the entire budget and you're going, Parkinson's research, nanotechnology, and jet propulsion systems, we don't need any of that crap. which I mean it does sort of raise the argument like should institutions uh like you know NPR or PBS or Harvard just not have any government funding at all.
Sure, you could have a smaller government by doing that. I not opposed to that. Fine. Nobody gets government funding, right? That could work. Now Harvard, a lot of people look at Harvard's endowment and they're like, "Oh, they have $52 billion." That's true. Their endowment is $52 billion, but that doesn't mean they have that available to just blow every year.
Universities operate based on collecting a yield in Harvard's case, about 7% on their money, and then they spend about 5% and they grow their endowment by about 2% per year. So that endowment is kind of like a retirement account that they're sort of living off of to keep their research funded. Remember, they spend two times as much money on research than we actually fund for them.
So, this idea about like NPR and PBS, a lot of people absolutely hate these these organizations. I personally don't think they're that bad. I actually like NPR and the smaller member stations a lot. And when you look at a company, I actually think this is a pretty useful tool, media bias fact check.
you see that yeah, you know, NPR and PBS will lean slight left of center, slight to moderate liberal bias, but their reporting is very high in a factual basis, both of them, NPR and PBS. And I agree with this. I think the same of The Economist, though, I would say The Economist has high factual reporting, but they're honestly probably even more to the left than this.
But then you contrast this with, you know, right now liberal media organizations, mind you, and I'm not trying to defend them getting government money. I just think, you know, fine, don't give any of them government money. If you want to play it that way, that's fine. But left-leaning media is not making the money right-leaning media is right now because if you parrot Donald Trump right now, you can make a lot of money.
That's why Newsmax went public to such fanfare. And Newsmax has an extreme right tilt with a low uh and questionable rating for facts. Look at Right Side Broadcasting Network. Extreme right, low credibility. You know, then you look at the Wall Street Journal. At least they're mo mostly factual, but they also lean more to the right.
They're even right of center. Mind you, you know, people on the internet now are even complaining that the Wall Street Journal is just legacy media and that, you know, the people are the media now. Okay, I have to say something about that. Putting a video together like the one that I'm doing right now takes about six or seven hours of research.
So like one video that's maybe 30, 40 minutes long is like six or seven hours. That's a lot. And most people are not going to get their news by actually doing deep research. I mean, how many of you have pulled up the fi the financial statements for Harvard? Well, I have because that's part of my video, but most people don't.
It's much easier to just read snippets on Twitter and then get a really biased view of the world. At the same time, trust for media or journalists who actually do research goes down because of in heavily part Donald Trump bagging on journalism. you end up getting a populace that has kind of a really skewed view of reality.
And it's kind of sad because this idea about deleting research budgets at universities, in my opinion, is not only designed to try to chill universities into bending the knee towards Donald Trump, but what you're doing is you're acting like a dictator to try to control anyone by any means necessary with a narrative that is slightly different from yours.
And it's just my opinion that that's dangerous for our society. And I I don't know where this is going to end up leading us at all. But I guess we'll see. So once we get past this sort of attack on universities, we have to look at Donald Trump's actions when it comes to the Constitution and due process.
The due process clause applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. I think this should go without saying, but because most people do not actually read the Constitution, we should probably just pull up the 14th Amendment and look at the 14th Amendment. The United States nor any state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
This very clearly says any person. It also states that no state or the United States should deny any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the law. In other words, this is not limited to citizens. Yes, I understand there is a citizen item here which says if you are born or naturalized, you are a citizen of the United States or state where you reside.
But here in a separate segment we have that no pro person doesn't say legal, illegal, undocumented or otherwise. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law. In other words, yes, undocumented or illegal individuals are protected by the right to due process in America, but Donald Trump doesn't give a flying hoot about the Constitution.
And we saw him himself say this morning he doesn't know if he can uphold the constitution. So this is a problem. So let's think about this. We know that Abrego Garcia was deported without due process. Now as the judiciary has said it doesn't matter whether he was an MS-13 individual. He's entitled to due process.
So you know you could say oh he was MS-13. Fine. Maybe he was. But is he not still entitled to due process? Because what if he's not MS-13? And what if he was mistakenly deported, which Donald Trump did say? Imagine that was you. Imagine somebody said that your tattoos and your Chicago Bull sweater make you look like you are MS-13, and then you got deported, sent to El Salvador, and then courts in America, which are designed to protect you, say, "Hey, you're entitled to due process because our constitution says when you're within our jurisdiction, you are entitled to that." doesn't matter if you're a resident of El Salvador or whatever.
When you're within our jurisdiction, you're entitled to that constitutional protection. And then courts say, "Bring him back." And then you have a president who says, "Nah, that's up to the president of El Salvador. Hey, you you're not going to send him back, right?" El Salvador's president wants Donald Trump's favor.
Of course, he's going to do whatever Donald Trump wants. But it wasn't just that guy. is the other 237 immigrants removed without due pro process with courts which which courts tried to stop. I mean even Nazis in America in the 1940s got 30 days to plead their case. These people got rounded up and put on a plane on a weekend and sent out.
Courts tried to stop it. Donald Trump doesn't give a flying hoot. So, there's no doubt here that Donald Trump is willing to skirt due process, which is scary because it it does make you wonder when the limits of Donald Trump's power are ever going to be tested. I mean, now we have like frank judicial chilling happening.
Two judges were recently arrested in a public manner for actions that likely require discipline and punishment. But their public arrests which are ordinarily handled through discipline or uh you know private uh uh sort of enforcements if you will were done in a public manner to purposefully instill fear in the judicial system to say hey do anything that Donald Trump doesn't like we'll just avoid our typical policy of not publicizing the FBI arrests of judges.
is and we'll make it very very public that if you mess with us, we're going to arrest you. And again, I'm not here to defend these judges. Both of them did things that were certainly questionable. Well, one of them much more than the other. But the message is clear. If you donate to Trump, we'll drop cases against you.
And if you mess with Trump, we'll come after you. That is a pretty clear message towards silencing opposition. It's not just happening with universities or on social media or in the news uh landscape access to Donald Trump in the press briefing rooms or otherwise. But frankly, the same behavior is what's happening with tariffs.
Tariffs are an unmitigated disaster in our economy. Even Elon Musk agrees with this, especially with his retweets of Milton Friedman. Although even Elon Musk fuels the same problems by saying things like, you know, quoting the the same Trump disciple retort, well, if other country, you know, ? All right, look.
It like logic would have it that if we actually put up the trade weighted level of tariffs with our major trading partners, we'd actually see that tariffs are really really low, you know, on the United States from Hong Kong zero, Singapore zero, Australia 1, United Kingdom 1, Vietnam 1.1. Like, if we want to negotiate these lower, Germany 1.3, if we want to negotiate these lower, let's negotiate these lower.
But to say, "Hey, we're now going to slap 10 plus sectoral plus other punitive tariffs on everyone is insane. It brings the United States's tariffs from 1.5% up to 10 at minimum and in many cases much higher. It is economically disrupting and it's also a slap in the face to our alliances. We are telling Australians, Canadians, Mexicans, Britons, Germans, French, Italians, go f yourself.
we're better off alone. Just like Warren Buffett says, this is dumb. At the same time, we are emboldening Putin, who's nowhere closer to getting a Ukraine deal done with Donald Trump than Biden was. And Biden wasn't even talking to him. Sure, we're talking to Putin now, but here's Putin again talking about using potentially hopefully not having to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine to get what he wants.
He's been emboldened by this drama that Donald Trump has created. China is emboldened. They're making deals with all of our allies. Vietnam, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and what's happening in America. We're alone. China, who literally calls us their enemy, is making deals with our partners and being emboldened.
This trade disaster is a perfect way to tell all of our allies, "Go f yourself." And it's the dumbest thing ever. And it's based on a complete misunderstanding of, frankly, how tariffs even work. Like Donald Trump literally says in video, I mean, you know what? I'm just going to pull it up because it's so dumb.
Uh, and and this makes me really question his presidency, but let's pull it up because it's it's just embarrassing. Well, let's make sure our audio is working here. Stand by. Cost, how long should people expect that transition to last, Mr. President? I don't I can't tell you that. I can tell you that uh we're making a lot of money.
We're doing great. Again, we're losing more than5 billion dollar a day. $5 billion a day. You don't talk about that. And right now, we're going to be at a point very soon where we're making money every day. Look, how soon? We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now, we're essentially not doing business with China.
Therefore, we're saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple. You take me to my This is actually really embarrassing because what Donald Trump is talking about is the trade imbalance that basically we import more by more than $200 billion more from China than they import from us. That's not money we're losing.
They have more stuff that we want versus what they want from us. That is not money we've lost. And so then Trump is like, "So, you know, now we're not trading with them anymore, so we're not losing that $200 billion anymore. You're destroying the economy. This stuff does make me question how smart Donald Trump is.
Maybe he really thinks that what he's doing is the right thing. I don't know. I I I'm really saddened to see what has happened with Donald Trump because I I feel like I admired him back in the days of the original Apprentice. You know, I even called one of my first corporations the Paprath organization.
You know, kind of like the Trump Organization. But now it's sort of embarrassing to say that because it just it almost aligns with either a lie with stupidity uh or bad logic. .
Comments 0