[denismi]

This pre-election BBC summary - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy343z53l1o - pretty clearly spells out what has eventuated, describing it as a "central campaign pledge":

> Trump has made tariffs a central campaign pledge in order to protect US industry. He has proposed new 10-20% tariffs on most imported foreign goods, and much higher ones on those from China.

[esseph]

That is not the 40-60-200% tariffs he has placed on things, depending on the day of the week.

That uncertainty makes it very hard to manufacture goods or buy raw materials.

[donalhunt]

It also disrupts JIT supply chains. Companies make decisions with certain variables not being volatile.

You now have a situation where one week the cost of a commodity is X and the following week it could be 2X. The butterfly effect across industries also cannot be predicted.

Many industries also seem to be still recovering from the pandemic period with supply of spare parts still being de-prioritised over making parts available for new units. :/

[trebligdivad]

I don't think there's that much surprise at the tariffs on China; it's the tariffs on the rest of the world, especially friendly countries like Canada that are the big surprises. Also, who believes politicians campaign pledges?

[verzali]

Why on Earth not? Didn't people pay attention during his first term? This was 100% predictable.

[macintux]

The key difference seems to be that this time:

* Groups like Project 2025 spent years preparing an assault on our legal system

* This time Trump populated his administration with sycophants from day 1, instead of starting out with establishment figures

* The GOP has spent the last 8 years reconfiguring themselves into supplication

This time, Trump is fully unhinged and unfettered, and he knows the legal peril he faces if the White House isn’t GOP-held for the rest of his life.

[southernplaces7]

>and he knows the legal peril he faces if the White House isn’t GOP-held for the rest of his life.

This combined with the utter self-emasculation of the Republican Party to Trump's incoherent, or at best self-serving, garbage is the most worrisome thing of all.

[burnerthrow008]

> Also, who believes politicians campaign pledges?

Only all the people who voted for them and all the people who voted against them?

[rusk]

US elections have a shockingly low turnout compared to other countries so not the affirmative you were hoping for

[dgfitz]

Maybe if Harris had made a few she would have won…

[const_cast]

She did, everyone just sort of... pretended she didn't. So they could have plausible deniability for voting for Trump.

See also: Harris is an elite! (Trump is more elite), Trump knows business (he's a pretty bad business man), Harris did nothing in office! (She was VP), Trump is the underdog! (He's literally already been president)

[dgfitz]

She did? What was her platform? I never did figure it out.

[nobody9999]

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/08/politics/kamala-harr...

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/09/09/harris-policy-pl...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-harris-campaign-promises-...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/...

All of the above were posted prior to the 2024 election.

[tharmas]

Harris was a terrible candidate. And not chosen by the delegates. The Democrats have to take some of the blame for Trump 2.0, surely?

Trump was a terrible candidate and could've been beaten if a good candidate running against him.

[macintux]

Speaking as someone who despises Ted Cruz to the bottom of my soul, I decided in 2016 that if Trump had decided to run as a Democrat, I would have voted for Cruz. At least he has some sincerely held beliefs that do not involve his own wallet and cruelty towards the entire world outside his inner circle.

My point being: at some point the American electorate has to take responsibility for picking the worst available person. The Democrats did not compel them to vote for Trump.

[tharmas]

≥The Democrats did not compel them to vote for Trump.

Perhaps i didn't make my point clear. Indeed ur statement is true. I was referring to those who hated Trump but also hated Harris and so DIDNT VOTE. My point being that if the Democrats had fielded a compelling candidate many of those who didn't vote may have voted for them. Enough to win. The Democrats learned nothing when they fielded Hilary Clinton and lost. Joe Biden barely won. And only because they were sick of Trump and also how he handled Covid. Also don't forget the Democrats tried to run with Joe for a second term when he was clearly unfit. Huge turn off.

So yes, my argument is the Democrat Party is partly at fault for Trump 2.0. They did not field a worthy candidate.

"Vote Blue no matter who" is a failed strategy. And rightly so.

[dml2135]

> Also, who believes politicians campaign pledges?

People who actually understand politics and who realize that the extent to which politicians keep their campaign pledges is usually related to how their parties end up performing in the legislature, rather than just being dishonest.