Trump's trade war is economic suicide

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Now this is just FUNNY 

 

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Waiting for someone to falsely claim the protesters were violent before being attacked 

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Hey B/A, I thought farmers Hate Trump 

 

 

[bostonangler]

I'm so glad Trump has listened to me and my postings in this thread. It is good to see him admit China doesn't pay tariffs we do. It is also good to see him realize I was correct with the idea tariffs are political suicide and he backed down from China to save the holidays. Destroying Christmas with higher prices would have ended any chance for him to be re-elected. I'm proud I could help him out and show him the light.

 

Now if he will learn from me that our founding fathers had it right when they said all men are created equal.

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

33 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Hey B/A, I thought farmers Hate Trump 

 

 

 

That guy looks like he farms as much as I do. Yeah I see farmers wearing golf shirts everyday on the farms near my house. Send me your photo and I can photoshop you in front of a tractor and you can tell the world you support bailouts, especially to giant corporate farms. LOL

 

B/A

Edited August 14, 2019 by bostonangler

[bostonangler]

LGD. this may be a little deep and hard to follow for some, but you being from Kansas I would like to know if you think this is accurate.

 

 

[bostonangler]

He can’t pull the trigger.

President Trump delayed the new tariffs on a large batch of Chinese imports that were supposed to go into effect Sept. 1, and exempted some other Chinese imports altogether. The move deescalates Trump’s trade war with China, and amounts to a tacit acknowledgement by Trump that his tariffs might hurt American consumers too much.

Laptops, cellphones, gaming consoles, and other products imported from China won’t face a 10% tariff on Sept. 1, as expected. The Trump administration says the 10% tariffs on those products will go into effect on Dec. 15, instead. But the delay reveals an unwillingness by Trump to raise the cost of products many Americans find essential, suggesting he’s bluffing about ever imposing such a tariff.

The 10% tariff will still land Sept. 1 on other consumer imports from China, including some clothing, footwear, and toys. U.S. importers can apply for tariff exemptions. Another group of Chinese imports will be exempt, supposedly for national-security reasons. Research firm Sandhill Strategy estimates that the list of imports getting a tariff reprieve totals about $155 billion worth of imports per year. That would leave about $145 billion worth of goods subject to the new 10% tariff.

If you’ve lost track, Trump has now imposed 25% tariffs on about $250 billion worth of intermediate goods imported from China, which are components most consumers never see. He announced the new 10% tariff on all remaining Chinese imports on Aug. 1, as talks on a trade deal with China broke down. Those imports are mostly finished consumer products, so shoppers would be more likely to notice higher prices reflecting the added tariff, which is a tax.

Calling Trump’s bluff

Trump has now partially reversed himself on the 10% tariff, without any corresponding concession from China. In fact, China has toughened its stance recently, essentially calling Trump’s bluff. China has refused to fulfill its pledge to start buying more U.S. farm products, for instance. And it has allowed its currency to fall in value more than usual, which makes Chinese exports to other countries cheaper and boosts domestic sales. It’s possible China has decided to bear the pain of Trump’s trade war for the next 15 months and hope Trump loses the 2020 election.

That has left Trump, who fancies himself a master dealmaker, negotiating with himself. Trump’s initial threat on consumer imports from China was to levy a 25% tariff. But when it came time to do it, he lowered that to 10%. And now it’s 10% on just half of those products, rather than all of them. And there’s an appeals process for eliminating the entire tariff.

Boxes marked 'Made in China' are lined up in NewAir's warehouse in Cypress, California, U.S. on May 24, 2019. Picture taken May 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jane Ross

Trump has now revealed his pain point: He’s unwilling to tax American consumers beyond a nominal level, or stomach the stock-market turmoil steep tariffs cause. This is the fundamental problem with tariffs as a tool to gain leverage in trade negotiations: To inflict pain on a trade partner, you have to hurt your own economy first, through higher taxes.

The trade war is far from over, and Trump has other forms of leverage. In addition to the Trump trade war, which is hurting the Chinese economy, China is now dealing with a governance crisis in Hong Kong, where thousands are aggressively protesting the reach of hardline communism into the former British colony. Trump still has the screws tightened on Huawei, through strict limits on its ability to interact with American firms. Trade tensions with China could flare for the rest of Trump’s presidency.

But one way out of the standoff is for Trump to lose. His hand is now weaker, though that might be good for the U.S. economy. If he called off more tariffs, it would be better still...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-caves-on-tariffs-181925373.html

 

Thanks Mr. Trump. I'm glad you listened to me and have admitted China doesn't pay the tariffs.

B/A

[MyLadiesDaddy]

14 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

That guy looks like he farms as much as I do. Yeah I see farmers wearing golf shirts everyday on the farms near my house. Send me your photo and I can photoshop you in front of a tractor and you can tell the world you support system" rel="">support bailouts, especially to giant corporate farms. LOL

 

B/A

I'm beginning to doubt you know any farmers. You keep forgetting I live in a small town of 900 that is a farming community. And if you think those guys don't wear Polo shirts, suits and ties think again. Come around my house at Thanksgiving. Some of the wealthiest people I know are farmers with small independent land. Roughly around 200 to 500 Acres. Not the big corporate Farmers you're talking about.

[bostonangler]

8 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I'm beginning to doubt you know any farmers. You keep forgetting I live in a small town of 900 that is a farming community. And if you think those guys don't wear Polo shirts, suits and ties think again. Come around my house at Thanksgiving. Some of the wealthiest people I know are farmers with small independent land. Roughly around 200 to 500 Acres. Not the big corporate Farmers you're talking about.

 

Did you watch the video? As I said I would like your opinion if it is accurate.

 

 

 

 

B/A

Edited August 14, 2019 by bostonangler

[yota691]

3 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Did you watch the video? As I said I would like your opinion if it is accurate.

Why should he, you didn't bother to watch the other video. You want other to see what you see, but you don't want to see what other see. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

15 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

LGD. this may be a little deep and hard to follow for some, but you being from Kansas I would like to know if you think this is accurate.

 

 

Okay you know that we are not that divergent with our points of view. Now I would say you're more likely to see disaster in a situation. I pray to see a more prosperous Outlook. Major corporations like Monsanto have been buying up small farmland as long as I've been alive. However, they have run into one big problem that being the family farm. The community in which I live, to its detriment , is a community founded by families well over a hundred years ago. There is no amount of money anyone can offer people for their heritage. And I suspect that's probably the same throughout the Midwest.

Now let's discuss the tariffs and how they are affecting today's farmer. I concur that President Trump is playing a dangerous game of backgammon. But I'm willing to give him an opportunity because I believe he's doing it for the greater good of America. Could it backfire? Absolutely. But it could also turn around and create one of the greatest gains our economy has ever seen. Only time will tell.

Furthermore, it stands to reason that naturally the largest of farms would get the largest financial aid. So yes, the big corporations Farms are getting the larger piece of the pie. But they also have the larger expenditure. I know from conversations with the farmers in my community they are happy with what they are getting. However they are a little nervous about how long is to continue at what the final outcome may be. Try to give it some time and see what happens. This is not about who is right or wrong this is about feeding America and the world I'm doing so at a fair price.

[yota691]

35 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

I was correct with the idea tariffs are political suicide and he backed down from China to save the holidays.

Lol Trump hasn't back down on anything...Delaying means to put off. Abolish means to do away. 

[yota691]

Trade War: U.S. Delays 10% Tariffs on Some Chinese Imports

 

 

Sina
6 hours ago
@SAINT 65 We know,that the world needs American people,especially American workers.No country including China can "win" without the help of American people,especially the American workers.China is a country that half of the population are peasants,USA is advanced of that aspect."The world belongs to the working people!"

[Pitcher]

No one wins in a trade war.  Our bond market is inverting which could signal a recession.  I’ve always thought we would have to kill the current Bull Market and burn off the excesses from the years of QE before we RV’ed.  I know it’s not as simple as that, it will be a process, but imho we may be at the beginning of a great unwind, a correction.  

 

Im getting ready to trade this mess today.  Looking at gold long, banks short, and a few ETF’s like uvyx, and sqqq.  Also oil, lower.  I’ll let you know how I do.  

[yota691]

Is ‘Made in China 2025’ a Threat to Global Trade?

China’s industrial policy is aimed at rapidly expanding its high-tech sectors and developing its advanced manufacturing base, but President Trump and other leaders of industrial democracies see the plan as a threat.

Backgrounder by James McBride and Andrew Chatzky

Last updated May 13, 2019

    

 

A worker handles smartphone chip components at a factory in Dongguan, China. Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images

 

The Chinese government has launched “Made in China 2025,” a state-led industrial policy that seeks to make China dominant in global high-tech manufacturing. The program aims to use government subsidies, mobilize state-owned enterprises, and pursue intellectual property acquisition to catch up with—and then surpass—Western technological prowess in advanced industries.  

 

For the United States and other major industrialized democracies, however, these tactics not only undermine Beijing’s stated adherence to international trade rules but also pose a security risk. Washington argues that the policy relies on discriminatory treatment of foreign investment, forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and cyber espionage, practices that have encouraged President Donald J. Trump to levy tariffs on Chinese goods and block several Chinese-backed acquisitions of technology firms. Meanwhile, many other countries have tightened their oversight of foreign investment, intensifying debate over how best to respond to China’s behavior.

What is China 2025?

 

Released in 2015, Made in China 2025 is the government’s ten year plan to update China’s manufacturing base by rapidly developing ten high-tech industries. Chief among these are electric cars and other new energy vehicles, next-generation information technology (IT) and telecommunications, and advanced robotics and artificial intelligence.

Other major sectors include agricultural technology; aerospace engineering; new synthetic materials; advanced electrical equipment; emerging bio-medicine; high-end rail infrastructure; and high-tech maritime engineering.

These sectors are central to the so-called fourth industrial revolution, which refers to the integration of big data, cloud computing, and other emerging technologies into global manufacturing supply chains. In this regard, Chinese policymakers drew inspiration from the German government’s Industry 4.0 development plan.

Beijing’s ultimate goal is to reduce China’s dependence on foreign technology and promote Chinese high-tech manufacturers in the global marketplace. Semiconductors are an area of particular emphasis, given their centrality to nearly all electronic products. China accounts for about 60 percent of global demand for semiconductors but only produces some 13 percent of global supply. China 2025 sets specific targets: by 2025, China aims to achieve 70 percent self-sufficiency in high-tech industries, and by 2049—the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic of China—it seeks a dominant position in global markets.

Chinese officials, wary of international blowback, have increasingly framed the plan as aspirational and unofficial. They have begun to reduce their allusions to it as Western leaders have voiced concerns. In the opening session of the 2019 National People’s Congress, Premier Li Keqiang did not mention China 2025 at all; it was the first time he left the program out of his annual report to the congress since it was first introduced. 

How does it fit into China’s economic model?

China 2025 reflects Beijing’s longstanding development goals. Since the market reforms of leader Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has pursued a mixed economy that combines socialist planning with elements of private enterprise.

In recent decades, the CCP has taken steps to shift the economy away from resource extraction and low value–added, low wage manufacturing—largely mining, energy, and consumer goods such as clothing and footwear, which make up almost half of the country’s economy—to a high-tech, high-productivity economy. China 2025 is intended to push the economy through this difficult transition and over the so-called middle-income trap, in which growth plateaus as wages start to rise, that has bedeviled many other developing countries.

China 2025 is intended to push the economy through this difficult transition and over the so-called middle-income trap.

   

Thus, subsidies and other favoritism for local production and “indigenous” innovation has long been official Chinese policy. In 2006, the National Medium and Long Term Plan [PDF] set out the goal of making China a “world leader” in science and technology, though its targets were not as specific as China 2025.

How does it intend to achieve its goals?

China 2025 accelerates preexisting efforts by devoting more resources and intensifying centralized policy planning to coordinate across government, private companies, and academia. The plan includes publicly stated policies, as well as more opaque actions, which some analysts say are meant to shield China from accusations of violating its commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and avoid retaliation. These tactics include:

Setting explicit targets. Through both public goal setting and semi-official, backchannel coordination, China’s leadership encourages private and public firms to shape their decision-making around the plan’s priorities.

Providing direct subsidies. The government will increase direct support for the China 2025 industries through state funding, low interest loans, tax breaks, and other subsidies. The exact amount is unclear, but some outside estimates [PDF] put the likely number in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Foreign investment and acquisitions. Chinese companies, both private and state-backed, have been encouraged to invest in foreign companies, notably semiconductor firms, to gain access to advanced technology. The value of Chinese acquisitions in the United States peaked in 2016 at over $45 billion.

$45 billion

Chinese acquisitions in the United States, 2016

Source: 

Rhodium Group.

 

Mobilizing state-backed companies. Much of this investment comes from SOEs, or companies or funds backed by the Chinese government. The economic reforms of the 1990s reduced the role of state firms in the economy, but they still account for a third of gross domestic product (GDP) and an estimated two-thirds of China’s outbound investment. Many of China’s global tech leaders, such as Huawei and ZTE, while privately run, are supported by the government.

Forced transfer agreements. Foreign companies complain that to invest or do business in China, they must enter into joint ventures with Chinese firms under terms that require them to share sensitive intellectual property and advanced technological know-how. As CFR Senior Fellow Brad W. Setser has explained, China has used its joint venture rules to acquire outside technologies ranging from high-speed rail to electric vehicle batteries. Some of these rules relating to automakers have since been relaxed.

What are the criticisms of China 2025?

Policymakers and security officials in the United States and other developed countries increasingly see China’s efforts to become a dominant player in advanced technology as a national security problem. The Pentagon warned in 2017 that state-led Chinese investment in U.S. firms working on facial-recognition software, 3-D printing, virtual reality systems, and autonomous vehicles is a threat because such products have “blurred the lines” between civilian and military technologies. In April 2018, U.S. intelligence agencies saidthat Chinese recruitment of foreign scientists, its theft of U.S. intellectual property, and its targeted acquisitions of U.S. firms constituted an “unprecedented threat” to the U.S. industrial base.

More broadly, policymakers worry that China’s state-led model and its ambition to control entire supply chains—for instance, the cobalt industry, which powers most modern electronics—means that entire industries could come under control of a rival geopolitical power. A June 2018 White House report warned that [PDF] China’s economic moves threaten “not only the U.S. economy but also the global innovation system as a whole.”

Critics say that China is distorting global markets by prioritizing political considerations over economic incentives.

   

In the economic realm, critics say that China is distorting global markets by prioritizing political considerations over economic incentives. Its subsidies, they say, skew markets and lead to overproduction and the dumping of cheap products in the global market, as many countries allege continues to be the case with solar panels. In March 2018, a Trump administration investigation [PDF]—launched under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act—concluded that China’s actions were “unreasonable and discriminatory.” Trump has long criticized Chinese trade, investment, and currency policies for increasing the U.S. trade deficit, which he claims undercuts U.S. manufacturers.

Meanwhile, companies based in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere complain of an asymmetry in which China is free to invest in foreign countries, but foreign companies selling to and operating in China are highly constrained by investment requirements and other regulations.

How do China’s actions compare with economic policies elsewhere?

China’s leaders say that their commitment to a state-led industrial policy is necessary to increase incomes for their people and compete in the fast-changing global marketplace. They point out that China’s average per capita income is still far below that of the developed world, at around $8,000 a year. Per capita income in the United States is $56,000.

They also argue that they are only imitating what other successful developed countries have done. The United States used tariffs and other government support to nurture native industries in the early days of its industrialization, while the rapid development of the so-called Asian tigers, such as South Korea in the twentieth century, featured extensive state support. Analysts say China is also drawing inspiration from more recent industrial policies by countries such as Japan and Germany, which have sought to integrate new information technologies into their manufacturing sectors.

$8,000

China's annual per capita income, versus $56,000 in the United States

Source: 

Washington Post.

   

Many European and U.S. policymakers, however, say China is different. European businesses argue that [PDF] there are stark differences between China 2025 and Germany’s Industry 4.0 plan. For one, Germany’s state subsidies are much smaller, and they are almost entirely dedicated to basic research. Germany also lacks targets for replacing imports or quotas for indigenous production. What’s more, its economy is generally open to outside participation and competition. German officials, like many other Western policymakers, have complained that while their economy is open to Chinese investment, market access for their companies in China is severely limited.

What policy tools does the U.S. have to respond?

As the perceived threat from Chinese industrial policy has blurred the lines between trade policy and national security, the U.S. executive branch has increasingly taken advantage of powers delegated to it by Congress. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and other legislation has given the president the power to levy tariffs and other trade measures if he determines that it is necessary for the country’s security. Washington has used these and other tools to counter China’s economic policymaking.

CFIUS and other potential investment-review measures. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an inter-agency body that reviews foreign investments and acquisitions and can recommend that the president block deals if they threaten U.S. security interests. The number of transactions CFIUS has blocked has accelerated under both Barack Obama and Trump. Still, the Trump administration argues that the agency is understaffed and lacks enough authority to respond to the scale of the threat from Chinese investments, especially since some firms purposely structure deals to hide the involvement of Chinese state funds.

In June 2018, Trump floated using executive powers to ban tech-related acquisitions by firms with at least 25 percent Chinese ownership and impose new export controls on critical technologies. He has so far held off implementing these. Meanwhile, Congress passed legislation in 2018 that increased CFIUS’s purview to a wider range of transactions.

Tariffs and other trade remedies. The White House’s Section 301 investigation into China recommended protective tariffs in March 2018. The administration had already applied tariffs on solar panels and steel and aluminum imports, a move it said was necessary in part due to Chinese overproduction. In July and August 2018, the United States applied 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and in September it applied 10 percent tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of goods. Washington raised that tariff to 25 percent in May 2019, after U.S.-China trade talks faltered. Trump has also threatened to extend the 25 percent tariffs to all remaining imports of Chinese goods.

Other restrictions on Chinese firms. The U.S. government has targeted Chinese technology companies over national security concerns. A 2012 report by the House Intelligence Committee declared Huawei and ZTE threats to national security due to the potential for Beijing to use their networks for spying or sabotage, and the Commerce department restricted their ability to sell their products, contract with government agencies, and otherwise operate in the United States.

World Trade Organization. Trump’s actions have intensified debate over the role of the WTO. The Trump administration believes that the WTO forum is insufficient for addressing China’s abuses, because, they allege, China has been undermining the principles of open trade even while observing the letter of the law. Some experts say China’s economy has evolved past what the architects of the WTO envisioned and thus WTO rules are too narrow to address Beijing’s actions. Others say that given a concerted diplomatic effort, the WTO process could challenge and eventually reform China’s economic model.

How have other countries responded?

Numerous other developed countries have pushed back against China’s trade and investment practices. Australia has been the second-largest recipient of investment from China since 2007, after the United States. Australia’s oversight of Chinese investment has intensified since 2016, when Canberra rejected Chinese bids to buy Australian agribusiness and electricity grid operators.

Germany is another important case, as its high-tech manufacturing economy has made it China’s top investment destination in Europe. Chinese involvement in German industrial giants, including Daimler, which is developing new battery technologies, and Kuka, the country’s largest robotics producer, has raised alarms and led Berlin to call for a European Union–wide investment review body. France, too, has increased restrictions on foreign investment to stop what it calls “looting” of sensitive technologies. However, many smaller European countries, such as Greece and Portugal, worry that restricting outside capital could hamper their economic growth.     

At the EU level, leaders have long complained about Chinese subsidies that distort the global economy, as well as restricted market access for European firms and the lack of protection for their intellectual property. The EU has filed complaints against China at the WTO and imposed anti-dumping measures on many products. Many of these issues are regularly aired during EU-China summits, the most recent of which, in July 2018, saw China promise improved market access and further talks for a comprehensive investment agreement.    

[bostonangler]

23 minutes ago, yota691 said:

Lol Trump hasn't back down on anything...Delaying means to put off. Abolish means to do away. 

 

Yes he has shown he understands the tariffs were indeed political suicide... Killing Christmas would have been the end of any chance for re-election... I doubt he figured it out on his own, but someone explained to him people were going to feel the pain.

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

Trump just acknowledged that tariffs are paid by Americans, footwear trade group CEO says

The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA) is breathing a small sigh of relief as President Trump delays the implementation of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese Goods.

"The announcement today that the Trump Administration will be delaying the additional 10% tariff on some footwear until December 1 is an acknowledgment that tariffs are indeed paid by Americans,” the group’s president and CEO Matt Priest said in a statement. “It is no coincidence that the Administration is allowing certain shoes to come in without raising taxes in hopes that prices do not rise at retail during the holidays. Our industry's loud unified voice left a clear impression that shoe tariffs are already extremely high, upwards of 67.5%, and any further tariffs would directly raise costs on consumers and cost footwear jobs."

Priest, also says while the FDRA is pleased with the decision to delay new tariffs on certain shoes, they are not satisfied.

"We will continue to fight for any exclusions on new tariffs and we will fight to delay new tariffs on shoes until the entire tariff threat is lifted off the backs of American families,” he said.

On August 1, President Trump tweeted that tariffs of 10% would be placed on approximately $300 billion of Chinese imports while the U.S. and China negotiate a new trade deal. The president has now instructed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to delay those proposed tariffs. The additional duties on these items were set to go into effect on September 1 but have been pushed back to take effect on December 15.

Trump's willingness to impose tariffs on Chinese imports has loomed large over the U.S. footwear industry since 70% of shoes sold in the U.S. come from China. Groups such as the FDRA and the American Apparel and Footwear Association have routinely spoken out about tariffs. The groups have also highlighted the negative effect they can have on jobs within the retail footwear industry. The FDRA said the now delayed 10% tariff: "President Trump is, in effect, using American families as a hostage in his trade war negotiations." The group also said that would not take this news lying down.

Tariffs and the threat of tariffs have been a longtime staple in President Trump's trade war tool-belt. The decision to put these latest duties on hold has many in the footwear industry holding out hope that headway could be made in the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and China.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/footwear-distributors-retailers-america-trump-delay-tariffs-211032604.html

 

 

B/A

[umbertino]

Quote

"The world belongs to the working people!"

End Quote

 

If that's sarcastic , ok.....You got me.....But if it's not, then I say:....Awesome, Yota.... That sounds communist and revolutionary somehow......Good ole Karl would be proud of you...!

[yota691]

47 minutes ago, umbertino said:

That sounds communist and revolutionary somehow

That went right over your head..I guess reading an believing articles from the Guardian should have a label stating warning this cause side effects that lead to communist beliefs ..🤓

[umbertino]

4 minutes ago, yota691 said:

That went right over your head..I guess reading an believing articles from the Guardian should have a label stating warning this cause side effects that lead to communist beliefs ..🤓

 

I started by saying  " If that's sarcastic , ok.....You got me" .....

 

And of course the Guardian has nothing to do with this as I didn't talk about nor quoted any Guardian article  in this specific circumstance.....But that's ok....

 

I see I can't even joke with you in an innocent way...Ok...Another lesson lerned...I'll abstain from now on......Jokes banned

[Pitcher]

58 minutes ago, yota691 said:

nt right over your head..I guess reading an believing articles from the Guardian should have a label stating warning this cause

 

 

They are not here to be agreeable, understanding, open minded, or even open for debate.  They are here to confuse, work a hateful agenda, argue,  deny, deflect, preach doom and gloom and get you off your talking points.  Put them on ignore and post what you want 

yota.  To do otherwise is like talking to a petulant little kid,

 

Parent talking to his kid

 

Clean your room

Why?

Because I told you to

Because why?

Dont get smart with me kid

Why?

You are a brat

I know I am but so are you

Just go to your room

Why?

 

It’s pure insanity much like talking with these Dem Liberals. 

Dont bother responding Dem Liberals. You are all on ignore.

Dont need your aggravation. 

 

Just remember this come election time.  Dems are the Party of these fine American qualities (sarcasm)

 

1. Open Borders, Sanctuary Cities, Free Healthcare and Social Security for Illegals. Voting privileges for illegals

2.  Spying on an opponent, Resistance, Antifa, 

3.  Tried to overthrow our President with help from Dem Supporters/leaders of CIA, FBI, NSA. Phony Dossier, Russian Collusion

4.  Allowed Big Tech, Google, Amazon, and Face Book to censor Conservatives

5.  Weaponized the IRS, DOJ, FBI, and CIA against anything Conservative.  

6. Have propagated an environment of Hate, Race baiting, intolerance, uninclusiveness, that the white race and white men should be eliminated, that deplorables should be sent to death camps

7. The Party of Socialism, and the New Green Deal

8.The Party that allows their Congress people to call our President a mo’foer 

9. Have every Hollywood Elitist, every major network, and every major University preaching against our culture, our economic system, our religion and values, while telling us China and Russia are virtuous.

10. Trying to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights

11. Gave us a 100% non functioning Healthcare system for 70% of WORKING AMERICANS 

12.  Alowwed the Drug Companies, the Insurance Companies, the Doctors, and Hospital Corporations the ability to gouge us

 

I could go on and on and to be fair many Rep supported these same policies because they are spineless, scared, paid off politicians who need to be sent packing. Im all for a dialogue on any of these and have tried many times over the last year to get an honest debate going.  It will never happen.  Certain people will never reply or debate anything that goes against their agenda.  Instead you will get numerous Left written articles that tell half truths or called a bunch of nasty names.   So go ahead and keep posting your Liberal garbage.  I’m not reading it or trying to be reasonable with you folks anymore.  Shabs has a great thread going, the Solution Thread. Let’s see if that thread can stay on point.  

 

 

 

 

[Pitcher]

Look at the Header from this Thread.  “Trump’s trade war is economic suicide”.   Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish!!!

 

If you allow China, Europe, or any country, to continue the theft of our jobs, our Intellectual Property, the manipulation of currency to gain an unfair trade advantage, well , THAT IS REAL ECONOMIC SUICIDE, or death of a country by 1000 cuts.  I call it the Boiling of the frog story.

 

 At first everything seemed ok. Free trade sounds great, but it wasn’t Free Trade, it was a set up to get us in the pot.  Now the pot is getting uncomfortably hot.  Do we stay in and boil or jump out and fight.  President Trump is fighting but is he getting any support.. Nope!!!  Just Liberal whining and slanted garbage like this entire Thread started by a .................

[bostonangler]

It would appear, the obvious just ain't that obvious for some... His policies are killing America... You want to fix trade with China you take your time. You don't flip a switch. It took time to get in and it will take time to get out. We (well most of us) can see his plan is a joke. A sad joke if you are an American. We had a deal to start fixing trade with The Trans Pacific Partnership, a deal where China was excluded. Where we could have truly negotiated real deals. I find it hard to believe anyone with half a brain can't see he has no clue at what he is doing...

 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, is a defunct proposed trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States signed on 4 February 2016, which was not ratified as required and did not take effect. After the United States withdrew its signature,^[6] the agreement could not enter into force. The remaining nations negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the negotiating countries to twelve. In January 2017, the United States withdrew from the agreement.^[5][7] The other 11 TPP countries agreed in May 2017 to revive it^[8][9] and reached agreement in January 2018. In March 2018, the 11 countries signed the revised version of the agreement, called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.^[10] After ratification by six of them (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore), the agreement came into force for those countries on 30 December 2018.

 

You  see, if Trump had a clue he would have used this alliance to start fixing things. But nope he is smarter than everyone. He's the greatest ever. Just ask him. Now everyone is working around America and will do so until we get stable  intelligent leadership. No country can live on an island in today's shrinking world. The days of Leave it to Beaver are gone forever...

The world is telling us.... "Either you're with us or you're against us".. They are realizing they don't need us like they used to...

 

JMHO

 

B/A