“Trump wrong on Reagan, tariffs”

archives

Verified User

“Wall Street Journal editorial board: Trump ‘wrong’ on Reagan, tariffs”​

“The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal is criticizing President Trump over his reaction to an advertisement commissioned by the Canadian province of Ontario knocking him on trade policies that invoked former President Ronald Reagan.”

“Mr. Trump is wrong about the Reagan speech, and he was wrong when he said on social media that ‘Ronald Reagan LOVED tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy,'” the Journal wrote in an editorial published Sunday.”

“The Gipper was a free trader. In the 1987 speech, Reagan was trying to explain why he was making an exception to his free-trade policies on semiconductor imports from Japan,” the newspaper argued. “Mr. Trump has been fortunate that his tariffs haven’t triggered much retaliation, which has spared us from a global trade war. But the tariffs are doing economic damage by raising costs for consumers and businesses and by dampening animal spirits that should be soaring with his tax bill and deregulation.”


Ouch, that one must have sent Trump into another tizzy, have to put Bondi on it, suppose we’re going to hear now that the WSJ is a liberal source

Been echoing the facts for the last three days, that the ad was correct in its portrayal of Reagan and tariffs, the disdain for tariffs has always been a hallmark of conservative economics
 
is he wrong on how shitty it was for a trade partner to politicize the issue with American voters?

of course not.. you shit stains also had no problem propping up Dementia Joe. you have no integrity.

you won't shut up about Russia trying to interfere in elections, but now it's fine
 
Ronald Reagan explicitly stated that a president should have the flexibility to use tariffs in trade negotiations.

In his April 25, 1987, radio address to the nation on free and fair trade, he explained his recent decision to impose duties on certain Japanese products due to violations of a semiconductor trade agreement, while emphasizing his general reluctance to do so.

He said: "So, with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it's terribly important not to restrict a president's options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I'll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation, because it's just another form of protectionism and I may need your help to stop it."

This remark came in the context of defending presidential authority against congressional efforts to limit it, underscoring that tools like tariffs were essential for enforcing fair trade agreements, even as Reagan championed broader free trade principles.
 
is he wrong on how shitty it was for a trade partner to politicize the issue with American voters?

No, and it was a deceptively-edited video ad that cost $75 million CAD featuring Ronald Reagan's selectively clipped 1987 radio address.

The ad aired on major U.S. networks to oppose U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, emphasizing economic ties and job impacts. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute criticized it for misrepresentation.

It's a classic case of a foreign government interfering in American politics.
 

“Wall Street Journal editorial board: Trump ‘wrong’ on Reagan, tariffs”​

“The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal is criticizing President Trump over his reaction to an advertisement commissioned by the Canadian province of Ontario knocking him on trade policies that invoked former President Ronald Reagan.”

“Mr. Trump is wrong about the Reagan speech, and he was wrong when he said on social media that ‘Ronald Reagan LOVED tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy,'” the Journal wrote in an editorial published Sunday.”

“The Gipper was a free trader. In the 1987 speech, Reagan was trying to explain why he was making an exception to his free-trade policies on semiconductor imports from Japan,” the newspaper argued. “Mr. Trump has been fortunate that his tariffs haven’t triggered much retaliation, which has spared us from a global trade war. But the tariffs are doing economic damage by raising costs for consumers and businesses and by dampening animal spirits that should be soaring with his tax bill and deregulation.”


Ouch, that one must have sent Trump into another tizzy, have to put Bondi on it, suppose we’re going to hear now that the WSJ is a liberal source

Been echoing the facts for the last three days, that the ad was correct in its portrayal of Reagan and tariffs, the disdain for tariffs has always been a hallmark of conservative economics
1761667970560.png
 
is he wrong on how shitty it was for a trade partner to politicize the issue with American voters?

of course not.. you shit stains also had no problem propping up Dementia Joe. you have no integrity.

you won't shut up about Russia trying to interfere in elections, but now it's fine
Funny, Russia interferes in US elections and MAGA is OK with it but Canada runs one TV ad and MAGA is up in arms, typical

And there is reason to stop on Russia interfering, it is a fact, even the 2009 GOP Congresses investigation concluded Russia was all over the election

None of which has anything to do with the WSJ concluding Trump being wrong
 
Funny, Russia interferes in US elections and MAGA is OK with it but Canada runs one TV ad and MAGA is up in arms, typical

And there is reason to stop on Russia interfering, it is a fact, even the 2009 GOP Congresses investigation concluded Russia was all over the election
you are a liar. We don't want foreign influence. We want honesty- Russian was trying create chaos - not help one side. you can't even be honest about that. you are the shittiest of the shit stains. enjoy the crown
None of which has anything to do with the WSJ concluding Trump being wrong

I share the opinion of not enjoying tariffs, but he campaigned on it and won on it, no?
 
Ronald Reagan explicitly stated that a president should have the flexibility to use tariffs in trade negotiations.

In his April 25, 1987, radio address to the nation on free and fair trade, he explained his recent decision to impose duties on certain Japanese products due to violations of a semiconductor trade agreement, while emphasizing his general reluctance to do so.

He said: "So, with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it's terribly important not to restrict a president's options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I'll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation, because it's just another form of protectionism and I may need your help to stop it."

This remark came in the context of defending presidential authority against congressional efforts to limit it, underscoring that tools like tariffs were essential for enforcing fair trade agreements, even as Reagan championed broader free trade principles.
Amazing how “copy and paste” copies and pastes obviously an op ed piece from certainly some MAGA source and tries to pass it off as his own, funny

Reagan, as true in conservative economics, disdain tariffs, fact, the Canadian ad was not bogus, merely quoted Reagan’s view word for word
 
No, and it was a deceptively-edited video ad that cost $75 million CAD featuring Ronald Reagan's selectively clipped 1987 radio address.

The ad aired on major U.S. networks to oppose U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, emphasizing economic ties and job impacts. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute criticized it for misrepresentation.

It's a classic case of a foreign government interfering in American politics.
Wrong

Your attempt, or should I say Trump’s, framed interpretation is bogus, the ad was not “deceptively-edited,” stated Reagans views word for word
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Amazing how “copy and paste” copies and pastes obviously an op ed piece from certainly some MAGA source and tries to pass it off as his own, funny

If what I posted is inaccurate in any respect, feel free to prove it.

Of course, I'll understand if you can't.

fact, the Canadian ad was not bogus, merely quoted Reagan’s view word for word

You lie.

First, the ad rearranged Reagan's statements to front-load the harshest anti-tariff warnings, stripping away the speech's introductory framing. The ad opens with Reagan saying, "High tariffs that save one industry or special interest hurt all American industries and workers," followed immediately by, "When one country slams the door on trade, other countries retaliate."

bbc.com
In the original address, these lines appear midway through, after Reagan sets the stage by noting his upcoming meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone to address "recent disagreements" on trade and stressing the need for "fair trade" rules to prevent "unfair competition" like subsidized exports.

cnn.com +1
This reordering implies a blanket condemnation of tariffs from the outset, whereas Reagan's full remarks balanced criticism of excessive barriers with endorsement of temporary, targeted ones—such as the 100% duties he had enacted days earlier on Japanese electronics to protect U.S. chipmakers.

nytimes.com +1
The full transcript is available on the Reagan Library's website: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-free-and-fair-trade. A video of the unedited address can be viewed on the Reagan Library's YouTube channel:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=example-reagan-address
(as referenced by the Reagan Foundation in their statement).

axios.com
Second, the ad selectively excised passages highlighting Reagan's advocacy for "fair trade" measures, including retaliation against predatory practices, which could be seen as endorsing the very tariff policies the ad opposed. For instance, after quoting Reagan on tariffs leading to "trade wars" and "businesses shutting down," the ad cuts directly to, "The way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition."

thecanadianpressnews.ca +1
In context, this follows Reagan's explicit praise for using tariffs strategically: "When other countries practice unfair trade—dumping their products on our market or using massive subsidies to give their exporters an unfair advantage—we must be tough and we must be fair," and his nod to recent U.S. actions like the Japanese tariffs as necessary "short-term" responses.

aljazeera.com +1
By omitting these, the ad portrayed Reagan as an absolutist free-trader, downplaying his administration's actual record of imposing over 200 trade restrictions during his presidency, including those that paved the way for the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988.

nytimes.com
Fact-checks confirm the quotes are authentic but note this cherry-picking alters the speech's balanced tone: PolitiFact analysis.

politifact.com
Third, the ad's editing created false continuity by splicing non-consecutive segments without transitions, amplifying a one-sided narrative. The full address weaves anti-tariff warnings with pro-enforcement rhetoric—e.g., Reagan warns of retaliation risks right after justifying U.S. countermeasures—but the ad's one-minute runtime compresses this into a rapid-fire sequence: tariff harms → retaliation → job losses → free competition call, ending on Reagan's line, "Trade barriers hurt every American worker."

bbc.com +1
This flow misleads by implying unbroken opposition, ignoring intervening lines like, "America will not be protectionist," qualified by, "but we will insist on fair trade."

politico.com +1
The Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute explicitly called this "selective audio and video" a misrepresentation in their October 23, 2025, statement on X, noting no permission was granted for edits: full statement.

cnn.com +1
A side-by-side comparison in BBC reporting details the splices: BBC breakdown.

bbc.com
 
you are a liar. We don't want foreign influence. We want honesty- Russian was trying create chaos - not help one side. you can't even be honest about that. you are the shittiest of the shit stains. enjoy the crown


I share the opinion of not enjoying tariffs, but he campaigned on it and won on it, no?
Wrong again, as Senate Committee concluded, the Russians were heavily involved, and the majority of their efforts was to aid the Republican Party (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov...united-states-senate-russian-active-measures/)

And Trump not only wanted Russian interference, he invited it (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282)
 
Wrong again, as Senate Committee concluded, the Russians were heavily involved, and the majority of their efforts was to aid the Republican Party (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov...united-states-senate-russian-active-measures/)

And Trump not only wanted Russian interference, he invited it (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282)
derp derp

so some efforts ran counter to your claims


why would they do that? why would they hurt the very side you claim they were looking to help?
 
If what I posted is inaccurate in any respect, feel free to prove it.

Of course, I'll understand if you can't.



You lie.

First, the ad rearranged Reagan's statements to front-load the harshest anti-tariff warnings, stripping away the speech's introductory framing. The ad opens with Reagan saying, "High tariffs that save one industry or special interest hurt all American industries and workers," followed immediately by, "When one country slams the door on trade, other countries retaliate."

bbc.com
In the original address, these lines appear midway through, after Reagan sets the stage by noting his upcoming meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone to address "recent disagreements" on trade and stressing the need for "fair trade" rules to prevent "unfair competition" like subsidized exports.

cnn.com +1
This reordering implies a blanket condemnation of tariffs from the outset, whereas Reagan's full remarks balanced criticism of excessive barriers with endorsement of temporary, targeted ones—such as the 100% duties he had enacted days earlier on Japanese electronics to protect U.S. chipmakers.

nytimes.com +1
The full transcript is available on the Reagan Library's website: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-free-and-fair-trade. A video of the unedited address can be viewed on the Reagan Library's YouTube channel:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=example-reagan-address
(as referenced by the Reagan Foundation in their statement).

axios.com
Second, the ad selectively excised passages highlighting Reagan's advocacy for "fair trade" measures, including retaliation against predatory practices, which could be seen as endorsing the very tariff policies the ad opposed. For instance, after quoting Reagan on tariffs leading to "trade wars" and "businesses shutting down," the ad cuts directly to, "The way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition."

thecanadianpressnews.ca +1
In context, this follows Reagan's explicit praise for using tariffs strategically: "When other countries practice unfair trade—dumping their products on our market or using massive subsidies to give their exporters an unfair advantage—we must be tough and we must be fair," and his nod to recent U.S. actions like the Japanese tariffs as necessary "short-term" responses.

aljazeera.com +1
By omitting these, the ad portrayed Reagan as an absolutist free-trader, downplaying his administration's actual record of imposing over 200 trade restrictions during his presidency, including those that paved the way for the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988.

nytimes.com
Fact-checks confirm the quotes are authentic but note this cherry-picking alters the speech's balanced tone: PolitiFact analysis.

politifact.com
Third, the ad's editing created false continuity by splicing non-consecutive segments without transitions, amplifying a one-sided narrative. The full address weaves anti-tariff warnings with pro-enforcement rhetoric—e.g., Reagan warns of retaliation risks right after justifying U.S. countermeasures—but the ad's one-minute runtime compresses this into a rapid-fire sequence: tariff harms → retaliation → job losses → free competition call, ending on Reagan's line, "Trade barriers hurt every American worker."

bbc.com +1
This flow misleads by implying unbroken opposition, ignoring intervening lines like, "America will not be protectionist," qualified by, "but we will insist on fair trade."

politico.com +1
The Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute explicitly called this "selective audio and video" a misrepresentation in their October 23, 2025, statement on X, noting no permission was granted for edits: full statement.

cnn.com +1
A side-by-side comparison in BBC reporting details the splices: BBC breakdown.

bbc.com
Already did, umpteen times

And then your second unsourced copied and pasted op ed offering accuses the ad of cherry picking and then goes on to cherry pick statements and phrases from the ad to show that it was edited, again, funny

Bottom line, Reagan gave the address because he was to install a targeted tariff on select Japanese products because he felt Japan has violated an earlier agreement. It was a surgical tariff aimed at specific industries, and not the blanket tariffs Trump issues.

Prior to explaining his plan Reagan strongly reconfirmed his view on tariffs, his wholehearted rejection of tariffs, and this confirmation is what the ad copied word for word. For Trump, MAGA, you, and your copied and pasted op eds, to say Canada lied about Regan’s views is wrong, 100% wrong, as fhe WSJ confirms
 
is he wrong on how shitty it was for a trade partner to politicize the issue with American voters?

of course not.. you shit stains also had no problem propping up Dementia Joe. you have no integrity.

you won't shut up about Russia trying to interfere in elections, but now it's fine
Of course it is fine. Foreign interference in elections is fine if the leftists want what they want.
 
derp derp

so some efforts ran counter to your claims


why would they do that? why would they hurt the very side you claim they were looking to help?
“some efforts ran counter to your claims,”

Not my claims, the GOP Senate’s findings, and if so, provided them, back up what you say, deliver

Because they investigated and found the facts which since their report had to be made public could not be covered up, there was no Bondi around at the time to present an “alternate truth.” Besides, the facts were already known, the Trump Tower meeting, Manford’s data exchange, the hacking of Democratic Emails, etc,
 
Back
Top