After Slapping Allies With Tariffs, U.S. Drags Allies to WTO to Complain About Tariffs

The United States has accused the victims of its tariffs of engaging in unfair and punitive measures with their retaliatory tariffs.


Xinhua/Sipa USA/Newscom

In another skirmish in the steadily escalating trade war, the United States has filed complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against countries that retaliated against American steel and aluminum tariffs with protectionist measures of their own.

On Monday, the U.S. filed separate cases against China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and Turkey, accusing them of responding to U.S. national security concerns with "retaliatory tariffs designed to punish American workers, farmers and companies," said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

While one can understand why those nations felt the need to respond to Trump's tariffs, especially since the national security rationale offered by Lighthizer and the president is almost certainly bogus (a conclusion shared by the military itself), retaliatory tariffs aren't the best strategy. They lead to higher prices for citizens on both sides of the dispute.

The economic case for tariffs might be weak, but the legal rationale is clear. Pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president of the United States is authorized to tax imports so long as some national security justification can be produced, rendering these actions perfectly legal by domestic standards.

"Unfortunately, America's claims are legitimate," says Dan Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), a precursor to the WTO conceived in 1947, included a national security exception for tariffs. That exception remained after the GATT evolved into the WTO.

"This exception allows nations broad discretion in their definition of a 'national security concern,'" says Ikenson. That puts the defendants in this case on the backfoot.

Don't expect a final decision from the WTO anytime soon. It could take up to a year and a half to convene the WTO panel and have them pass judgment, and then another year and a half from there if the respondents choose to appeal. That's three years, a long time in which a lot can change in the unpredictable sphere of modern politics.

Independent of the outcome of these trade disputes, America's trade policy risks setting a dangerous precedent for other countries. For instance, other member nations could just as easily begin to claim national security considerations and impose their own protective tariffs, effectively undoing a century of progress in trade policy.

Prior to President Donald Trump's renouncement of international trade, tariffs were at historic lows. The relatively free trade embraced by recent administrations has played an undeniable role in recent U.S. economic growth and development. If the U.S. and other nations wish to ignore this lesson, they are rejecting progress in favor of short-term political gains and intellectually antiquated mercantilism.

NEXT: Marriott Ditching Plastic Straws, Still Not Sure What It Will Use Instead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Japan and the EU just signed a historic FTA yesterday. The TPP lives on without the USA.

    The Dotard is just a fucking Hoover style protectionist.

    1. Socialists like Butt love managed trade that they can have TOP MEN control.

      Trump wants free trade, which is what he offered, and our trading partners refused.

      1. Shut up, you Hannity moron.

        1. Who is Hannity?

          Is that one of your FOX and friends?

    2. Japan and the EU just signed a historic FTA yesterday.

      OK, how are they *not* the Axis in this trade war then?

  2. Trump offered trading partners the deal that the USA would end trade restrictions if trading partners ended trade restrictions. They refused.

    Hes trying to get the WTO to broker a trade restriction lowering deal since Communist China and Socialist Europe wont do it spontaneously.

    Trump is literally trying to use the TOP MEN organization WTO against the Socialists who created it.

    You’re in ‘check’ again Socialists. Must suck to always be put in ‘check’ by Trump.

    1. Is ‘check’ really that bad in 11-dimensional chess? Or do you need to be in some kind of quantum check before you really start to worry about being pwnd.

      1. Shhh shhh… it speaks for itself

      2. You dont know what ‘check’ is?

        It means that your probably losing.

        Funny how nobody denies that Trump is kicking Lefty ass at chess.

        1. I think he’s commenting on what the size of an 11th dimensional space is. Assuming that the King can still make a move one step in any direction in this space, King can make 177146 moves. So maybe check doesn’t matter much in that space.

          1. BUCS, ‘n’ th D chess is not played with every dimension getting that many moves for a single piece.

    2. I assume that WTO disputes take some time to resolve cuz lawyers. This isn’t a sign that tariffs are gonna end soon

      1. I’m not fully aware of all the inner workings of the WTO. I do know that there is a court that has, since before Trump been chronically understaffed and, under Trump, will likely be entirely unable to reach quorum because the US, won’t appoint/vote on judges. Of course, the court rules predominantly, though not exclusively, in the US’s favor, for reasons not-entirely unknown both Trump and the previous administration have seen fit to hamstring it. There are some very fucked up “unforeseen consequences” aspects to it.

    3. You are aware that tariffs lead to more war

      1. Or they lead to one side giving in.

        There is a reason that every country wants to trade with the USA. Its the best market in the World.

        These nations wont last 6 months. I give Trump 12 months to try this plan.

        1. Evidence?
          A cite to where that actually specifically happened?

          1. Why? You never provide citations for your nonsense.

            A textbook case of one country “winning” a trade war occurred during the late 19th century, when a newly unified Italy imposed steep tariffs on imports from France to spur domestic industrialisation.

            France, which was much richer and stronger, retaliated with tariffs against Italy, and Italian exports to France collapsed. Even after Italy abandoned its tariffs, France continued to punish Italy for years with high tariffs.
            StraitsTimes trade war winners and losers

  3. What could the legal justification possibly be for this? If you can’t handle the retaliatory tariffs that you knew were going to come, you probably shouldn’t have enacted them in the first place.

    1. Accountability and integrity never occur to whining right-wingers.

    2. Are you talking about Europe’s trade restrictions that were applied decades ago?

      1. You do realize that the US has trade restrictions too, right? And that they’re at a similar level to the EU, Canada, Japan, etc.? I’m not defending Europe’s restrictions, but Trump and his defenders paint a picture where the US has no tariffs or barriers while our trading partners hamper us at every turn and it’s just not true. And instead of trying to negotiate a mutual lowering of remaining tariffs and barriers, he instead thought it was a great idea to start a trade war.

        1. I’m sure it’s as politically unpopular for the EU to change its trade restrictions as it is for the US. However, the EU trade restrictions are comparatively more stringent and more expansive than their American counterpart. Which is not to defend the US tariffs

          1. Do you have a source for that, and how big is the difference?


            According to the World Bank, the average tariff rate for the US is 1.7% and 2.0% for the EU. For comparison with some other developed countries, Canada is at 1.6%, Australia 1.2%, Switzerland 1.3% New Zealand 1.3% and Japan 2.6%


            This article also has a graphic that the US has a larger number of non-tariff barriers than other countries, though to be fair there’s no indication of what the overall impact of these barriers are, as the # of barriers isn’t necessarily going to correlate perfectly with that.

            1. Google is forced to cut free speech protections in Europe and China. That’s a trade restriction and its costs to business is incalculable.

              1. Has Trump ever mentioned that? Or has he incessantly ranted about trade deficits while continuously proving he has no understanding of them or anything else related to international trade? Take off your blinders and the man’s ignorance and incompetence on this issue are obvious.

                1. Its all part of trade restrictions.

        2. The USA had trade restrictions pre-Trump and all our trading partners had trade restrictions pre-Trump.

          Trump offered to move the USA and trading partners to free trade. They refused not Trump.

          The trade war has been going on for decades.

          1. Trump made an insincere offer after he implemented the tariffs, if you honestly thought that was a genuine gesture you got duped.

            “Trade war” is generally when tariffs and barriers are rising (through rounds of retaliation). The general trend in the past few decades has been the opposite. Yes, there hasn’t been a total elimination of these barriers, but that is obviously not at a reason to escalate them.

            1. So that’s it now. Trump was “insincere” about the offer which is why they refused free trade?

              BULL SHIT!

              Lefties believe everything Trump says if it makes Trump look bad and call him a liar if it makes Lefties look bad.

              Trade restrictions have been going up. Google has been forced to scale back freedom, taxes have been going up, etc.

              1. If it was sincere, why did Trump only bring it up after implementing tariffs? If it was sincere, why has Trump pushed protectionist nonsense for 30 years (just about the only issue he’s been consistent on during his time talking about politics)? Also, Trump doesn’t even have the power to unilaterally eliminate all trade barriers, nor do most/all of the people he was negotiating with.

                But even if we assume Trump was sincere and ignore issues of practicality, other countries not being willing to commit to 100% free trade is a terrible justification for Trump’s tariffs. If you’re at 95% and want to move towards 100%, you work on joint steps towards that goal. That’s been the general trend for decades. You don’t move backwards with poorly thought out tariffs.

                And once again, not everyone who disagrees with your inane Trump apologia is a leftist. It’s pretty insane how opposing tariffs now gets you labeled a leftist.

                1. Trump has tried multiple levels of negotiation with the Commies and Socialists.

                  Trump campaigned on it and won. (Clue #1)
                  Trump threatened tariffs to get China and North Korea to peace table (Clue #2)
                  Trump threatened tariffs with many trading partners (Clue #3)
                  Trump offered ending trade restrictions if trading partners ended trade restrictions (Clue #4)
                  Trump implemented tariffs with China (Clue #5)
                  Trump offered tariffs exemptions for trading partners that lowered trade restrictions (Clue #6)
                  Trump implemented tariffs with other trading partners (Clue #7)

                  You are not opposing trade restrictions. Tariffs are only a small portion of costs from trade restrictions.

                  You’re a Lefty if your opposition is for Lefty reasons. I oppose trade restrictions too because Libertarians think that free trade is the best.

                  That does not mean that using trade restrictions for a shirt period to pressure trading partners to drop their trade restrictions is anti-Libertarian.

                  1. “I oppose trade restrictions except when my god-emperor implements them on flimsy pretexts.”

                    There, I made your post much more concise.

                    1. I want free trade. The USA did not have free trade before Trump and will never have free trade without pressuiring the coomies in china and the socialists in Europe to change their ways.

                  2. This loveconstitution goober apparently does not recognize the vivid distinction between a libertarian and a disaffected right-winger who advocates a bigoted “papers, please” approach to immigration and loves a heaping helping of tariffs and protectionism.

                    Faux libertarians are among my favorite spectrum-inhabiting, downscale conservatives.

                    1. MAGA kirkland

      2. It’s national security exceptions all the way down.

        1. Its refusing to take Trump’s offer to end trade restrictions is what it is.

          1. He refused to take theirs, they refused to take his … what’s the difference? The only way to win a trade war is drop tariffs, not increase. Make the other idiot tax his own people.

            1. They never offered free trade. That is the difference.

              They are not taxing their own people. Trade restrictions keep US companies from selling in other countries.

              1. And raises the price of goods for the citizens of those countries. Instituting tariffs is an indirect tax on your own people.

              2. Are you really so dense that you can’t understand how tariffs are taxes on domestic buyers?

                Fucking protectionists are all economically illiterate, so it shouldn’t surprise me.

                1. Scarecrow does not know what a tax is. What a fuckin* moron.

    3. What could the legal justification possibly be for this?

      Not to give Trump too much 11-dimensional gravitas, but you’re assuming the goal is a legal victory. The WTO has been handicapped because he’s refused judicial appointments and the excuse he uses just happens to be the only one legally defensible at the WTO. I’m not entirely clear that his notion is to necessarily win as much as gridlock and/or burn it down. Which, from a libertarian standpoint, is a bit apt. If you and I have a trade dispute, arbitrarily including dozens of other people invokes/necessitates all manner of top down authority and social contracting.

      If the current globalization movement leaves The People’s Emperor Jinping at the top of the New World Order* in 2025 (or whenever) why *not* burn it down?

      *I’m not saying I buy all the rhetoric or that tariffs are the solution, I’m just saying that there is some/a rationalization to the madness.

      1. I just don’t see the United States, or even Trump, gaining anything from this. It brings to mind a child tattling on his older brother for throwing a shoe at him, when the child himself had been the first one to throw the shoe (not speaking from experience here or anything).

        IMO it just makes him look childish and weak.

        1. Its bargaining from a position of strength.

          We are so used to Obama, Booosh, and Clinton giving away US interests for nothing that Trump fighting for America is new for some people.

          1. I disagree that what he is currently doing is helping the American people. He’s picking and choosing niche industries that he wants to help at the (literal) expense of all other Americans.

            1. Trump is hurting and helping America. Trade restrictions dont help in the long term.

              If you get other nations to lower their trade restrictions then it helps.

            2. I disagree that what he is currently doing is helping the American people.

              When you say ‘American people’, do you mean just the people within our borders or no?

              I remain unconvinced that the principles of individual liberty automatically uptranslate to global socio-economics. Russia is not the socio-economic powerhouse it was during the Cold War, China is. Further, since we aren’t exactly talking holocaust and/or holodomor, it’s not nearly as easy to say that the EU is an ally in any given liberty/trade war. China holds something like 40 journalists in prison. Turkey has something like 75. Head scarves aren’t banned in Beijing like they are in Paris. If Trump effected some manner of ‘trade equality’ where all the *nations* of the world wound up poorer but more equal, what’s the problem? Especially if he won’t be around to enforce whatever outcome after 2 terms, unlike JinPing, Putin, and even Merkel.

              I don’t disagree that the President shouldn’t be helping some Americans at the expense of others but then, that option was never on the table and his choices of whom to help/hurt seem, if not more sensible, then at least different from his predecessors and contemporaries.

              1. When you say ‘American people’, do you mean just the people within our borders or no?

                I was predominately referring to the effects on people within the United States borders.

                If Trump effected some manner of ‘trade equality’ where all the *nations* of the world wound up poorer but more equal, what’s the problem?

                Could you elaborate on this point a bit for me?

                1. Could you elaborate on this point a bit for me?

                  As free traders espouse, trade deficits aren’t actual money. The US and it’s people don’t owe anyone on a trade deficit. As such, Trump’s notion that trade should be more equal isn’t inherently social unlike this as the counter-argument is just as social and based on/around ‘trade money’. If Trump manages to damage both the US economy and the Chinese economy (as well as a few others), but public spending and tax rates drop in both countries, it’s arguably a libertarian win despite the fact that prices rise/rose as a result. Again, I’m not saying that’s the goal or any sort of plan on Trump’s part. Just that the whole Managed Trade vs. Free Trade argument is relatively equally collectivist on both sides with the ‘Free’ side conveniently ignoring lower-level anti-freedom actions, requirements, and regulations. Even so far as the collectivist economic tools are *designed* to do so.

                  The free trade side of the free trade vs. managed trade argument comes off very much like an Union (Era) Abolitionist (still a white racist by any standard) arguing that they’ll end slavery with free trade.

        2. Except that the WTO can send anyone to their rooms especially if that’s what at least one of the siblings wants.

          1. *can’t*

          2. Sure, but that’s at least the pretense with what the Trump administration is doing correct?

            1. Sure, but that’s at least the pretense with what the Trump administration is doing correct?

              As both a sibling and a parent of boys I feel compelled to say, so then you’re tattling on Trump?

              But, yeah, antagonizing foreign powers over trade is what the WTO was designed for. Everybody just kinda whimsically agreed and gave it the gravitas of being the only adult in the room. Libertarians shouldn’t generally agree and/or go along with such usurpations. Especially when the consequences of ‘me first’ are pretty obvious.

  4. This is strange. It’s really out of character for Trump to whine about being treated unfairly by people dong the exact same thing to him that he did to them.

    1. After they did it to the USA.

      He’s trying to use TOP MEN in the WTO against TOP MEN.

      1. After they raised their tariffs out of their own national security concerns, is what you meant to say.

        1. Trump offered to end trade restrictions. Socialist Europe and Communist China refused.

          1. And if Trump knew the first thing about economics, trade, comparative advantage, and a zillion other basics, he would have lowered US tariffs and dared the EU to stop taxing themselves.

            1. Trade restrictions prevent US companies from selling in other countries. That is not a tax.

              The media refuses to cover how much Trump actually knows about trade theory. Its really does not matter how much he personally knows but has he listened to professionals on both sides of this issue and made a decision that might help America.

              1. As you acknowledged above that the US also does this, why did Trump not try to get other countries to lower their barriers in exchange for the US lowering ours? Why ramp up more tariffs and barriers?

            2. ^THIS^

              (Scarecrow if this doesn’t indent properly)

              1. I personally think taking on trade restrictions was too much for Trump’s plate but he seems willing to push it.

                The economy is strong and getting stronger for the near future. Trump started this with China and North Korea peace talks and decided to parlay that into busting Europe’s Socialist ways too.

                I am giving trump 12 months to make this plan work and then I think the USA should back to trade restriction levels pre-Trump. This should not be our policy from now on but just to pressure trading partners into lowering their trade restrictions.

                1. How generous of you. In the meantime, business are deferring all expansion plans because they don’t want to invest in new plants and new workers only to have tariffs jack them around and end up in bankruptcy. What a fucking way to win.

                  You also duck the issue of the higher domestic prices meaning other industries lose consumers who don’t have as much money left over as they used to. So there’s more workers losing jobs.

                  You really need to read AND understand Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt.

                  1. How does bastiat explain trade within the context of aggressive totalitarian regimes trying to destroy your co7ntry and only trading with you to steal your technology and gain wealth to buy more nukes to bomb you?

                    Oh yeah free trade in a vacuum. That is why you cite someone like that.

    2. Very out of character for him. Tariffs are good, though, because it’s the 1980’s

  5. As so convenes another meeting of Libertarians For Tariffs And Protectionism (in particular, the subcommittee on Obsequious Support For Disingenuous Government Statements).

    Have fun, clingers.

    1. I see no libertarians defending tariffs or protectionism.

      1. Are you saying that faux libertarians are not libertarians?

        1. On that note, when are you leaving?

  6. The USA has been in a trade war for decades.

    Trump just offered our trading partners zero trade restrictions and they refused. Trump then upped the ante. Our trading partners have put trade restrictions on international trade at various time for decades.

    At this point, its probably hard to tell who ‘started it’. Trade restrictions could have ended after Trump made that offer. Our trading partners refused and are now screaming that the USA is better at their trade war than they are.

    1. Quit lying, you fucking moron.

      1. We all know that Butt is a liar and hates Trump. Especially after Trump offered to end all US trade restrictions.

        Oooohhhh, that’s gotta hurt.

    2. It would help if the media would put out what tariffs were pre dispute and what Trump asked them to be before putting new tariffs in place. What does victory look like?

      1. Tariffs are only part of the trade restriction game.

      2. Victory looks like the utter death of free trade! Invalidate the “Interstate Commerce” clause of the USA Constitution, and let all 50 states put up trade barriers against each other!!!

        That will make us ALL filthy rich!!!!

        1. Even with the Constitution trying to protect interstate free trade, stupid Lefty states imposed trade restrictions.

          This national tax enforcement decision by SCOTUS was another stupid example of trade restrictions by lefties who need taxes to pay for welfare.

  7. “After Slapping Allies With Tariffs, U.S. Drags Allies to WTO to Complain About Tariffs” and “U.S. filed separate cases against China”

    This does not compute. There is a lot of incoherence here about how sanctions against Russia are most definitely different from tariffs and thus are OK and how tariffs against China are “tariffs against allies”.

    1. If you have the entirety of ZTE’s board replaced and make them pay a billion dollars in order to get their ban lifted and allow them back into the market is that a tariff or the repeal of one? It is/was national security so the WTO can sit and spin on the whole thing, right?

      1. This is why the national security exception is moronic. How can anyone in good faith argue that tariffs imposed on China are not out of concern for “national security”. You could make that argument for virtually any nation in the world (god knows John McCain could make such an argument for 90% of the world).

        1. Not for much longer, he can’t!

  8. “The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), a precursor to the WTO conceived in 1947, included a national security exception for tariffs. That exception remained after the GATT evolved into the WTO.”

    We all know who opposed GATT, right?

  9. Piece of cake. Those other countries can raise the same twinkie national security defense.

    1. Those other countries can’t treat trade obligations that way! Only we can treat trade obligations that way!

      American exceptionalism is making America great again.

      1. MAGA!

      2. You really are retarded, aren’t you?

      3. Yes, Reverend, I agree heartily with you in your obvious sarcasm about…

        “American exceptionalism is making America great again.” Amen Bro!

        Sad to say, far leftists believe in “American exceptionalism” as well. Where communism and too-much-socialism has failed in every other nation that has tried it… AMERICA is SPECIAL, and WE can make it WORK!!! … It’s a Grand Illusion…

        (Well, when we perfect brain-scan tech, and tell which elected politician, which bureaucrat, and which social worker (cop etc.) is REALLy motivated by the public good, and who is actually motivated by greed and power-lust, maybe THEN we can make socialism work, but till then, I am not holding my breath!)

  10. What I’ve not seen mentioned is this: When nations are heavily dependent on each other (for trade or “whatever”), they have a LOT more to lose, if they start a shooting war! Hence this fascination by militaristic nations, with “independence”? To witness, North Korea and “juche” (economic independence). So BRING ON the free trade; it militates against militarism! Trade wars ARE related to shooting wars, and I worry the the DrumfenFuhrer is taking us to August 2018 = August 1914? Stubborn pride and foolishness, leading to an utterly senseless shooting war!

    1. The absolute best argument in favor of trade (even managed trade)

      1. Except trade wars aren’t related to military wars as strongly as The Holodomor, The Holocaust, and The Great Chinese Famine are related to managed trade/economies.

  11. ‘ “tit for tat” “game theory” forgiveness ‘? makes a good Google search string; results include this: http://www.psychologytoday.com…..es-tit-tat … It turns out that Jesus H. Christ was correct, and modern science now validates it, that “forgiveness” is a way-vitally important element of good strategy and good results! So I do not give one flying hoot about who started the trade war; it needs to STOP!!! At the VERY least, we need to stop trying to put the fire out with gasoline!
    Politicians aren’t usually known to have much decency, common sense, morality, or ethics. So now that the trade wars have started, NONE of them (here or abroad) are very likely to say “let’s forgive”, or, “we’ll take down our trade barriers first, and trust you to do the same, later”. They are almost all evil bastards, who cannot or will not recognize the wisdom of Jesus H. Christ, as has now been validated by science. They are more into pride, boasting, “winning”, and posturing, than they are about looking out for the common good.
    And that goes doubly-tripled for Der DumpfenFuhrer!

    1. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a fabrication and a paradoxical one at that. It represents reality as well as Newton’s equations do alone or outside a vacuum. To ‘win’ the dilemma, you need either omniscience or unyielding faith between criminal partners/enterprises. Successive or chained dilemmas require almost fanatical devotion that everyone is always choosing the best options for everyone whether they know or realize it or not. Moreover, unlike a more real or thought out religion, it contains narrow prescriptions for these larger chains of decisions or behavior patterns.

      If any given outcome around the dilemma could be generated or relied upon with any fidelity, Gary Johnson would’ve been the worst option this past election relative to his more mainstream libertarian opponents. Instead he was a loser option relative to the two ‘selfless prisoners’ who came out on top.

  12. And finally, this is especially for LC1789? Please note that the founding fathers had the wisdom to add the “Interstate Commerce” clause, early on, to prevent trade wars between the states? For the common good. And they didn’t act like grade-school kids, arguing about “he started it”! They just forgave, and moved on. Were they stupid? Shall we re-start the trade wars between states; will THAT make us all rich? Is the US Constitution WRONG here?

    The spoiled-brat states had to be hauled up and whacked by bigger-government, meaning the feds. THAT is how the trade war was stopped! So by extension, we should be supporting international agencies to haul us stupid nationalistic, jingoistic duh-heads up, and whacking us a few times, for the greater good!

    Oh, but Americans Good; furriners BAD, will be the response of those who are full of false, destructive pride. I have never heard God or karma or the Universe or Momma Nature or evolution or ANYONE with REAL moral authority, tell me that Americas are created superior!

    1. You might not have heard it, but……….

  13. As I would summarize things, Trump is a Fair Trade advocate at war with faux-Free Trade advocates. The latter seem to be winning at Fox Business News and such places, probably due to unseen hands waking up and smelling the coffee. Trump is shaking things up. Old trade arrangements written by lobbyists for international corporations and enacted by crony politicians are showing their age.

    On another thread I did a moral equivalence comparison between Germany who invited in a whole bunch of immigrants hoping they would stimulate the German economy somehow, maybe even eventually assimilate into German culture, and Japan, which has small communities of Koreans and Filipinos that have been there for generations but are under no illusions they will ever be assimilated. Japan was blessed with no Asian intellectual community like the EU to virtue-shame them into taking unreturnable refugees.

    Diversity for the sake of diversity is maybe not always such a wise moral principle after all, Japanese might say.

    President McKinley was shot by a 2nd generation Polish immigrant, unhappy about big corporations, the gold standard, and American imperialism in the Philippines and Cuba. As McKinley lay dying, the man he had just defeated twice for the presidency (1896 and 1900) turned 41 years old. William Jennings Bryan devoted the rest of his life to keeping the USA out of a European war as long as possible and to the prohibition of the curse of the working class.

  14. I’m just rooting for as many layoffs of Trump voters and business failures among Trump supporters as possible.

    Let the bigoted, authoritarian goobers eat their Trump hats.

    I’m compassionate, though, so I would support modest rations of government cheese for yahoos with proof of Trump hat consumption.

    1. OK, so then “let them eat Government Almighty cheese with their MAGA hats!”

      (Like “let them eat cake” in the days preceding the French Revolution).

      Cheese-Trump-hat-burgers anyone? Must-Tards on the side!

    2. MAGA

  15. Maga!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.