Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

And despite the fact the walk back warning was issued: "Rather than addressing my argument, con goes into nitpicking the wording. Yes, obviously tariffs are put on products and not on companies; the statement clearly meant that the tariffs would be put on the products the company would be shipping back to the USA".Pro clearly understands the difference between companies and products, that was demonstrated. But no no! Pro meant -products- despite twice over iterating a company, and even making clear the differentiation in casual conversation. If Con has no desire to argue the resolution as written, they should have conceded in the first round.Pro, quite simply, is abandoning their resolution. That alone should grant Con the win, however Con will go further: for Trump to issue a tariff against a company (as the resolution clearly states), it would be -illegal-. THAT is why this is not beneficial to the US, we have a president clearly overstepping his bounds. The PotUS from day one in office can impose tariffs on products, carte blanche, but as mentioned previously, in addition to needing the backing of the WTO, he would also need Congressional go ahead, something that right now, his own party is loathe to produce. (1) Rhetoric comes with a cost.Pro goes on to be hypocritical: "Again, no one claimed that it was illegal to move their country; however, it's the government's job to protect ALL of its people." In the case mentioned, the only people protected are those producing widgets protected by the tariff. While Pro might like to allude that all Americans will pay unemployment and other such taxes, Con might suggest something much more simple: get another job. Pro literally wants all of America to pay higher prices for goods to protect a few hundred jobs that arguably might be obsolete anyways. Oh, and the government gets more money for it. Yay.Regarding Carrier, look, Con just wants to point out that despite clear expatriation of jobs... NO TARIFF HAS BEEN MENTIONED. Trump hasn't tweeted his plan, there was no finger waiving, there was nothing, NOTHING, with regards to the tariff-on-company threat. Because it was hollow. Just like Carrier knows. Just like Trump knows. And just like the world is seeing when Trump opens his mouth on various other topics.That rhetoric is coming with a cost, a cost that America will have to pay for. Trump has drawn lines in the sand, ignored them, and he is not even in office yet. Now, all that said, out of sheer morbid entertainment, I will address a few of the rebuttals first offered by Con:" After the threat, Boeing has agreed that instead of producing the planes for OVER budget like before, NOW they are going to produce the planes under budget. The stock therefore dropped BECAUSE boeing's profits got lower, which is a GOOD thing for the united states" -- this is totally backwards. If I contract 100 dollars to do a job as a buyer of services, over budget (in excess of 100 bucks) is not my concern, that is not contracted. If, on the other hand, I do something under budget, I collect profit, as I contracted the job to be 100 bucks, but got the job done under that amount. Pro is really talking about renegotiating the contract, but I am sure that is something Con doesn't understand. RE Obama and Syria, the Red Line in Syria comes hot on the heels of accusations of violating the War Powers act in Libya. In short, to avoid that the next go-round, Obama let Congress decide what powers he had for the Red Line on chemical WMDs in Syria... and Congress punted. The more and more this debate goes on, it appears to be firmly partisan and not policy based. Con would suggest a forum topic, as then Pro would not be subject to factual accountability. Con will conclude in the next round.(1) http://money.cnn.com...