Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

As con seems to be unaware, things can be BOTH a campaign slogan AND a platform or JUST a campaign slogan. Con also seems unaware that people lie in politics all of the time; in fact, it's the standard practice. However, although it's impossible to ever know exactly what would happen, logical people can make reasonable deductions. It is obvious to anyone who thinks logically that Donald Trump is going to make an effort to keep American jobs here. What should also be obvious is that since Donald Trump is a negotiator, the 35% tariff might not actually be the reality; as we both agree, it's just a threat after all. However, this argument is about WHETHER OR NOT THE THREAT OF A 35% TARIFF IS BENEFICIAL TO THE UNITED STATES; IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A LIE OR WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE 35% INSTEAD OF 20%. "So, what exactly happens from threats? After Trump threatened to cancel the Air Force One Project, Boeing stock dropped about 1% in premarket trading (1). I am not confident how that was beneficial." Con doesn't understand how this is beneficial; however, it should be obvious. Having the stock drop isn't the beneficial part; it's beneficial because it saves the government money. 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.http://www.nytimes.com... Con has provided an example FOR my argument when he mentions boeing; con has shot himself in the foot. Boeing is perfect example on how a simple threat, e.g. Donald Trump saying he will go with Lockheed to build planes, results in beneficial gains for the united states. And when the threat works, such in this case, the benefits are even greater since the threat doesn't materialize and impose costs on the united states. (If the threat materialized, the cost would be that lockheed probably wouldn't build a plane as well as boeing, a company who has built these planes for years.) Con also doesn't understand that there are different types of threats. A 35% tariff is clearly a "negotiating threat." When con mentions hollow threats, he is describing a difference between Obama and Trump, which is slightly irrelevant, but I will address it. Yes, it's obviously true that every time you make a threat and you get put to the test and don't follow through, your credibility goes down. This is what happened with Obama in Syria, for example, when he threatened assad with a redline yet never followed through. That is why it's important to follow through on threats. Trump has shown in business he is more than willing to follow through on threats. In business, threats and negotiations are made all of the time; if Trump never followed through on any of them, he'd be a horrible businessman rather than a successful one. Con clearly doesn't understand the carrier deal; although Trump MAY have given him credit for certain jobs which are staying, the reality is that he did indeed save MANY jobs which were not staying. Con is arguing that using "spin" indicates weakness, which of course is false. Weakness is not having power or not following through on threats; spinning a message to make it look better than it is is something entirely different and irrelevant to this debate. Con mentions automation, which although true, is also irrelevant. Con is attempting to project what Trump WOULD do to preserve these jobs when that wasn't the debate at all. The argument is simple: Trump threatening to impose a 35% tariff on US companies threatening to leave is beneficial to the US. Period. /Debate