The strategy of using wide-reaching tariffs to achieve economic independence from an adversarial country is understandable, although the specific implementation approach is questionable.

“I totally get what the US is doing. It is actually a terrible, terrible plan to have critical supplies completely owned, operated, and controlled by a country that you are essentially locked in a cold war with. Adversarial with. Yeah. Yeah, I get it. I don't think there's a way to go about solving i”

Tariffing countries that are not the target of the adversarial policy, such as Canada, is an illogical strategy.

“The US tariffing Taiwan is like incredibly stupid. By that logic, actually, I mean, shouldn't the US basically say, "Well, since Canada is our 51st state anyway, there's no point in tariffing anything from Canada because neither of them have annexed either of those countries yet."”

A short-term pause in tariffs does not resolve the underlying structural issues or lack of trust in China's intentions.

“I still don't trust these guys and I understand that they want to be respected while they're negotiating and all this other stuff. I just hope this 90day what happened to Iran back in the days when under Trump it was so close and Iran fallen and there being a revolution because of the sanctions.”

The United States is the primary consumer for Chinese goods and therefore holds more leverage in the trade relationship.

“We buy the majority of our stuff from them. So they're they need us more than we need them in terms of import exports. Like we're their number one customer when they're selling us stuff.”

The tariff pause provides short-term market relief but does not negate the necessity for a strategic decoupling from China.

“There needs to be less reliance in China and jobs in America. That was the stated goal. You listen to the White House. We need jobs in America, Americanmade products, and Americanmade suppliers. and we need less reliance.”