We are not at war

Perhaps this is like the refusal to claim we are at war in any number of countries that we're bombing or aiding bombing - if we don't call it a war, then it's not one.

Or perhaps this is just Trump being Trump.

So...today's news?

President Donald Trump ordered his chief trade negotiator to consider imposing tariffs on an additional $100 billion of Chinese products Thursday, in a dramatic escalation of his trade war with China.

[...]

"Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers," Trump said in a statement Thursday evening.

  Chicago Tribune

And he also said that trade wars are easy to win.

We've seen before why the deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. And now we're seeing why starting a trade war with China is a really stupid idea.

Many in the business community are urging Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reach a settlement before the tariffs go into effect, and Republican lawmakers have been urging the U.S. president to back down.

Don't hold your breath.

Funny he doesn't mention that, after the uproar over his aluminum tariff announcement, he was forced to exempt most every country other than China.

"Hopefully the president is just blowing off steam again, but if he's even half-serious, this is nuts," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement Thursday night. "The president has no actual plan to win right now. He's threatening to light American agriculture on fire."

[...]

"If he's serious, this is going to start hitting consumer goods and more Americans will feel it," said Chad Bown, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "This could hit the Walmart shopper if it goes through."

Oh, shit. Farmers and Walmart shoppers are the lion's share of Trump voters.

Thursday night's statement  [...] said Trump wanted U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to consider imposing "$100 billion of additional tariffs" against China. A spokeswoman for Lighthizer later clarified that they would consider tariffs against $100 billion in goods, not $100 billion in actual tariffs.

Trump has no idea what he's saying, does he? Neither does anyone else.

Financial markets have wobbled as investors are led by Trump to think that the trade tensions are escalating, and then they are assuaged by another White House official suggesting that things will be resolved peacefully.

[...]

But every time aides attempt to soften the edge of Trump's trade threats, the president takes direct aim at Beijing and declares that he won't back down until the gap between U.S. imports from China and its exports to that country is dramatically narrowed.

[...]

Trump said the new tariffs under consideration would be a direct response to China's retaliation this week. He also said he has "instructed the Secretary of Agriculture, with the support of other members of my Cabinet, to use his broad authority to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests."

I wonder what that will be.

A direct response to retaliation.  Not war.

[T]rade analysts warned that if Trump is considering additional subsidies to protect farmers from Chinese retaliatory tariffs that could expand the U.S.-China trade spat to other powerhouse agricultural countries like Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

[...]

"This has the potential to escalate this way beyond the U.S.-China box."

I'm telling you, The Large Baby Monster has no idea what he's talking about. He just spouts off in retaliation when something irks him and then tells other people to take care of it. Ask Michael Cohen.

Here's Charlie Pierce's take:

[U]nlike our president*, the people in charge of China know something about something, they’ve aimed their threats at the agricultural midwest, which went heavily for the president* in the last election.

[...]

There’s already some backing and filling from Camp Runamuck; they sent out Larry Kudlow, the White House chief economic adviser who also is something of a clown, to soft-pedal the president*’s threats.

Nevertheless, this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. ZZZ as to why voting for a vulgar talking yam because he makes you feel good about hating all the right people is a very stupid way of deciding who should be president. I wish the folks in Iowa and Nebraska and the Dakotas all the best but, Jesus, people, vote your glycine next time. We’ll all be better off.

  Charles P Pierce

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.