You realize that Democrats are supporting these tarrifs on China as well. China has already won the trade war by dumping steel and aluminum and stealing intellectual property for decades. This isn't even controversal.
Point being, people jump to conclusions without seeing the impact on the total cost of goods. Meanwhile dismissing the point, putting more capital into the pockets of US based companies which improves the economy.
The effect on the final product may be minimal but the intermediate manufacturer of, e.g., the rails that hold the car seats in place may end up having to lay off half their workforce. If the product that makes up 80% of your business has a 15% margin and now your main raw material input rises in price by 25%, you could be in serious trouble.
Tariffs are a political tool. There is some objective here that is not being publicly outlined because it would defeat the purpose of the strategy.
Example: Other countries involved in this "trade war" are placing tariffs specifically on bourbon. Why? What do they have to gain by that sort of rule? Absolutely nothing, other than putting political pressure on the representatives and senators from Kentucky. (Source: NPR, radio earlier this month where a representative of Canada said exactly this. I wish I could find the audio.) This is the very definition of other sovereign countries interfering with American politics. I would bet that the tariffs being placed here locally are designed to have similar effects.
You don't have to buy anything. Just listen to the man himself and it's crystal clear.
This is literally baseless nonsense.
America has a single goal that is beyond transparent: prevent the rise of Chinese apex-technological manufacturers. Everything was okay when China was making shoes and Christmas lights but now they're fabricating increasingly sophisticated computer chips [0], producing more electronic cars than the rest of the world combined [1], and kicking out all sorts of fancy 5G telecom equipment that does more but costs significantly less than what Western manufactuers can offer [2].
The "strategy" here is too little and far too late. Trump's only victory here will be, like so many other victories, purely symbolic: his base might get riled up and support him for taking on the "Chinese" who "stole" all their jobs... but China's competitiveness here won't be affected. Cutting off Americans from China's competitive electronics will just drive up prices in America and make American companies less competitive on the global market. The rest of the world (the other 7.3 billion on the planet) absolutely love China's cheap but capable electronic products. The only thing at this point that will actually stop China's growth here is literal bombs and tanks.
[0] http://mckinseychina.com/whats-next-for-chip-makers-in-china...
[1] https://nextshark.com/china-now-makes-electric-cars-every-co...
[2] https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/mobile-net...
Yes, I understand that perhaps OP's comment might have been influenced by the policy maker, but nothing in their post makes any mention of anything beyond a simple policy critique, so this line of argumentation is, at best, putting words in their mouth.
If a policy is, to one's opinion, good or bad, then it should not matter whether or not the policy was proposed by someone we like or someone we hate, and to that end, it shouldn't matter one whit how popularly supported it is by our legislators, even where that popularity is enjoyed across partisan lines.
Arguing against a policy critique with a critique (or commendation) of the policy-makers is totally non-sequitur.
Well, I have listened to him speak, so yes.