Senate Republicans Tell Trump: No Tariffs on Mexico

Interesting development: clearest break yet between the Republican Senate Caucus and the President.

Vulnerable Republicans, like McSally in AZ had been fretting about the impact of tariffs on local economies – the concern about holding Senate seats appears to have created the first wedge between Trump and the Senate.

So who is right on this one? The President has a broad mandate of reasons where he holds the power to impose tariffs, but enforcing immigration policy has never been one of them. Should the President stay the course, yield to the Republican Senators or try to make a deal with them?

Also interesting that this story is being covered on the Times web site but getting no space on Foxnews web site. It is as if we live in different information universes! Or is Fox right to treat this story as not worthy of coverage? Fox’s priority stories are a mistress in Connecticut, an Iowa father who was killed by a dog while protecting his child and an accusation of plagiarism against the Biden Camp on climate change. The Times isn’t covering the mistress and dog stories and their slant on Biden is how aggressive his climate change policy is compared to Obama’s

It will be interesting to see who blinks first.

None of that matters.

Mexico is already negotiating with Trump. That was the whole point of making the threat. RINO senators can go pound sand.

How are you defining RINO? Take McSally for instance (R-AZ).

She lost in 2018 while binding herself tightly to Trump. Then she got appointed to McCain’s seat by the Governor over the objections of the McCain family. She has now disagreed with Trump once. Does that make here a RINO?

it has become a very lazy attack.


Any Republican whose views vary in any degree from Guvnah’s is, to Guvnah, a RINO. Guvnah is the gold standard of what a Republican should be.


Or at least what a Conservative should be.


On the issue at hand she is.

You really should change it to CINO then :wink:

If you say so.

( shrug )

grins No matter to me, you’re the one who made the distinction :wink:

I’m sincerely curious…haven’t conservatives traditionally been anti-tariff?

So its just on this issue. But what is the RINO charge other than name calling? How about the issue itself? Do you believe that the proposed Mexico tariff’s benefits outweigh the projected economic harm they will do? Or is the adoption of name calling a statement that you agree the tariffs will do more good than harm?

If that’s the case, why not point our your disagreement, point out your cost/benefit analysis. Wouldn’t that be better than name calling?

1 Like

Very much so. But then Trump happened and the Republican support for free trade dropped like a stone. Remember, NAFTA only passed because it had solid Republican support; the Democrats in Congress were split but most opposed NAFTA.

It is interesting how Trump was able to reverse decades of conservative Republican policy on tariffs almost overnight… until today.

1 Like

Rush is now pro-tariffs. He came out against these Senate Republicans wanting to stop these proposed harmful tariffs with Mexico.
Congress over the last many years has been guilty of giving the President too much power. Congress needs to completely take back the power of the purse.


This is truly funny given the tarrifs you are defending are typically a left wing supported idea.

Conservatives traditionally supported free trade.


These folks don’t stand for anything other than the party they worship.

No morals values or standards.


Where’s the actual tariff? What did I say earlier?

Here, let me repeat it for you:

Glad I could straighten you out on that.

It was a convenient term.

It was also convenient for all the libs here to deflect from the actual issue.

Glad you asked. Here, let me repeat what I said earlier:

See my response to JimmyC.