Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Uh the current Pres is Obama. Funny how this is somehow Trump's fault. Let me guess, because Trump answered his phone on election night?
Once Trump is sworn in, he'll send these rats scurrying. All he has to do is threaten tariffs on China and they'll get down on their knees.
We have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Uh the current Pres is Obama. Funny how this is somehow Trump's fault. Let me guess, because Trump answered his phone on election night?
Once Trump is sworn in, he'll send these rats scurrying. All he has to do is threaten tariffs on China and they'll get down on their knees.
We have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Well, US military vessels and civilian vessels from the US and Australia and other places, as well as aircraft, have been attempting to exercise their right to free navigation in the South China Sea, despite being intimidated.Obama fellated the Chinese for his entire 8 years. He let them militarize the entire South China Sea AND steal our technology with no consequences!
Let's consider realpolitik before finger pointing.
Would it have made the world safer has the US sent a carrier group or two into the S. China Sea? Or drawn a line in the sea to confront China's ambition's?
What do you recommend, zero sum games, or diplomatic efforts to create win-win solutions?
Fair question to a big and growing problem.
I'm a fan of "peace through strength". We didn't have to directly confront the Chinese in their vast build up, which is in clear violation of international treaties and disputing international waters, in the So. China Sea, but we could have expressed our concern and dissatisfaction for a start. Then we could have offered to supply Brunei, Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore weapons as a counterweight to the growing Dragon in So China Sea. $5 Trillion of shipping moves through those lanes. It might become a flash point and I wonder what our plan is.
In any event I'm glad Mattis will be the one directing planning and strategy
Obama fellated the Chinese for his entire 8 years. He let them militarize the entire South China Sea AND steal our technology with no consequences!
Let's consider realpolitik before finger pointing.
Would it have made the world safer has the US sent a carrier group or two into the S. China Sea? Or drawn a line in the sea to confront China's ambition's?
What do you recommend, zero sum games, or diplomatic efforts to create win-win solutions?
Fair question to a big and growing problem.
I'm a fan of "peace through strength". We didn't have to directly confront the Chinese in their vast build up, which is in clear violation of international treaties and disputing international waters, in the So. China Sea, but we could have expressed our concern and dissatisfaction for a start. Then we could have offered to supply Brunei, Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore weapons as a counterweight to the growing Dragon in So China Sea. $5 Trillion of shipping moves through those lanes. It might become a flash point and I wonder what our plan is.
In any event I'm glad Mattis will be the one directing planning and strategy
It is a growing problem, maybe The District ought to follow the lead of Gov. Brown and California in pursuing win-win policies on trade, and not engage in brinkmanship.
See: Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. - Newsroom
Good, that's their sphere of influence and Taiwan is part of China
The Orange Cheetolini is going to get a reality check
HONG KONG — China sent its sole aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday morning, Taiwan officials said, a defiant move that signals China’s growing naval strength and may foreshadow an early foreign policy challenge for President-elect Donald J. Trumpwhen he takes office in nine days.
The transit of the aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, which had been conducting exercises in the South China Sea, comes amid rising tensions between Taiwan and China, and after Mr. Trump broke decades of protocol by speaking on the phone with Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, after his election victory. Ms. Tsai leads a political party that has traditionally supported Taiwan’s formal independence from China.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/china-taiwan-strait-aircraft-carrier-trump.html
So one of our new Virginia Class Subs gets some target acquisition and screen avoidance practice.
Some sub skipper is probably chomping at the bit right now for some "fun"
Guno rooting for the Chinese.
guano is a supporter of authoritarian regimes everywhere! Especially if they kill christians, gays, and "white" people. Just your below average racist bigot.
Obama fellated the Chinese for his entire 8 years. He let them militarize the entire South China Sea AND steal our technology with no consequences!
Let's consider realpolitik before finger pointing.
Would it have made the world safer has the US sent a carrier group or two into the S. China Sea? Or drawn a line in the sea to confront China's ambition's?
What do you recommend, zero sum games, or diplomatic efforts to create win-win solutions?
Fair question to a big and growing problem.
I'm a fan of "peace through strength". We didn't have to directly confront the Chinese in their vast build up, which is in clear violation of international treaties and disputing international waters, in the So. China Sea, but we could have expressed our concern and dissatisfaction for a start. Then we could have offered to supply Brunei, Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore weapons as a counterweight to the growing Dragon in So China Sea. $5 Trillion of shipping moves through those lanes. It might become a flash point and I wonder what our plan is.
In any event I'm glad Mattis will be the one directing planning and strategy
It is a growing problem, maybe The District ought to follow the lead of Gov. Brown and California in pursuing win-win policies on trade, and not engage in brinkmanship.
See: Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. - Newsroom
China's already engaged in brinkmanship, where's our win in the win-win? Not going to war, is not a win
Obama fellated the Chinese for his entire 8 years. He let them militarize the entire South China Sea AND steal our technology with no consequences!
Let's consider realpolitik before finger pointing.
Would it have made the world safer has the US sent a carrier group or two into the S. China Sea? Or drawn a line in the sea to confront China's ambition's?
What do you recommend, zero sum games, or diplomatic efforts to create win-win solutions?
Fair question to a big and growing problem.
I'm a fan of "peace through strength". We didn't have to directly confront the Chinese in their vast build up, which is in clear violation of international treaties and disputing international waters, in the So. China Sea, but we could have expressed our concern and dissatisfaction for a start. Then we could have offered to supply Brunei, Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore weapons as a counterweight to the growing Dragon in So China Sea. $5 Trillion of shipping moves through those lanes. It might become a flash point and I wonder what our plan is.
In any event I'm glad Mattis will be the one directing planning and strategy
It is a growing problem, maybe The District ought to follow the lead of Gov. Brown and California in pursuing win-win policies on trade, and not engage in brinkmanship.
See: Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. - Newsroom
China's already engaged in brinkmanship, where's our win in the win-win? Not going to war, is not a win
Going to war is a failure of diplomacy, which has yet to fail. We have some common interests with China and Russia, one being the target of terrorism. When we are talking, we are not killing each others kids. I thought most of us learned something with the foreign policy nightmare of Bush&Co.
YesUh the current Pres is Obama. Funny how this is somehow Trump's fault. Let me guess, because Trump answered his phone on election night?
Once Trump is sworn in, he'll send these rats scurrying. All he has to do is threaten tariffs on China and they'll get down on their knees.
We have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Can South America and Australia make up the sheer volume of US agricultural exports to China?
Why wouldn't the EU and Canada jump on the bandwagon, considering their own trade balance issues?
Does Airbus have the production capacity to meet China's growing need for multiple modern aircraft?
More importantly, what is more crucial, the US placating its population, or China, placating it's rapidly expanding middle class, which currently has a sizable male/female gender imbalance?
YesUh the current Pres is Obama. Funny how this is somehow Trump's fault. Let me guess, because Trump answered his phone on election night?
Once Trump is sworn in, he'll send these rats scurrying. All he has to do is threaten tariffs on China and they'll get down on their knees.
We have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Can South America and Australia make up the sheer volume of US agricultural exports to China?
Why wouldn't the EU and Canada jump on the bandwagon, considering their own trade balance issues?
Does Airbus have the production capacity to meet China's growing need for multiple modern aircraft?
More importantly, what is more crucial, the US placating its population, or China, placating it's rapidly expanding middle class, which currently has a sizable male/female gender imbalance?
No- because the EU and Canada would jump on the chance to take away American jobs.
Yes
What is more crucial?
Starting a trade war with China that would hurt all Americans?
Or not.
. What's the difference in the Chinese and the Russians ?? The left crying about the Russians the Russians, but now they love the Chinese ? Anyone who can destroy that old white boogeyman's power in America, the left are on board with it. Pathetic.Good, that's their sphere of influence and Taiwan is part of China
The Orange Cheetolini is going to get a reality check
HONG KONG — China sent its sole aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday morning, Taiwan officials said, a defiant move that signals China’s growing naval strength and may foreshadow an early foreign policy challenge for President-elect Donald J. Trumpwhen he takes office in nine days.
The transit of the aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, which had been conducting exercises in the South China Sea, comes amid rising tensions between Taiwan and China, and after Mr. Trump broke decades of protocol by speaking on the phone with Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, after his election victory. Ms. Tsai leads a political party that has traditionally supported Taiwan’s formal independence from China.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/china-taiwan-strait-aircraft-carrier-trump.html
So one of our new Virginia Class Subs gets some target acquisition and screen avoidance practice.
Some sub skipper is probably chomping at the bit right now for some "fun"
Guno rooting for the Chinese.
You have to draw the line at sometime, hopefully Trumpet is man enough to do what Obalma was unable to do..Stand fast on convictions.
Sure, he has the conviction to use the word "I" more than Oblama..You have to draw the line at sometime, hopefully Trumpet is man enough to do what Obalma was unable to do..Stand fast on convictions.
Trump has "convictions"?
YesWe have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Can South America and Australia make up the sheer volume of US agricultural exports to China?
Why wouldn't the EU and Canada jump on the bandwagon, considering their own trade balance issues?
Does Airbus have the production capacity to meet China's growing need for multiple modern aircraft?
More importantly, what is more crucial, the US placating its population, or China, placating it's rapidly expanding middle class, which currently has a sizable male/female gender imbalance?
No- because the EU and Canada would jump on the chance to take away American jobs.
Yes
What is more crucial?
Starting a trade war with China that would hurt all Americans?
Or not.
Hmmmm "Trade war". Bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US is a bad thing. What planet do you live on again?
You have to draw the line at sometime, hopefully Trumpet is man enough to do what Obalma was unable to do..Stand fast on convictions.
Trump has "convictions"?
Sure he was of fraud...You have to draw the line at sometime, hopefully Trumpet is man enough to do what Obalma was unable to do..Stand fast on convictions.
Trump has "convictions"?
Trump has never been convicted.
Yet.
YesThe difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Can South America and Australia make up the sheer volume of US agricultural exports to China?
Why wouldn't the EU and Canada jump on the bandwagon, considering their own trade balance issues?
Does Airbus have the production capacity to meet China's growing need for multiple modern aircraft?
More importantly, what is more crucial, the US placating its population, or China, placating it's rapidly expanding middle class, which currently has a sizable male/female gender imbalance?
No- because the EU and Canada would jump on the chance to take away American jobs.
Yes
What is more crucial?
Starting a trade war with China that would hurt all Americans?
Or not.
Hmmmm "Trade war". Bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US is a bad thing. What planet do you live on again?
I am sorry- I have studied history and economics, so I am familiar with the history of trade wars. I pay attention to international trade, so I am familiar with both American imports and American exports. But I shouldn't have assumed that others know these things.
Putting tariff's on items made in China doesn't miraculously mean those jobs come to the United States. Nor does it mean that China won't retaliate by putting tariffs on the manufactured goods- and agricultural products that we sell to China. And the parts made in China that U.S. manufacturers rely upon to make product? U.S. manufacturing gets more expensive too- and less competitive with the EU and Canada and others.
If it just stays between China and the United States, then it might not develop into a full blown trade war with the entire world- after all, other countries will gladly sell their products to China, and take those American jobs.
And of course if it is too expensive to import from China- manufacturers switch to Vietnam, or India, or Bangladesh- which is exactly what is happening right now.
Hopefully President Trump will actually negotiate with China rather than slapping on tariffs- certainly more could be done to improve our trade with China- intellectual property rights being the biggest problem- but just slapping higher tariffs on China would invite retaliation and hurt American business- and cost us jobs.
YesUh the current Pres is Obama. Funny how this is somehow Trump's fault. Let me guess, because Trump answered his phone on election night?
Once Trump is sworn in, he'll send these rats scurrying. All he has to do is threaten tariffs on China and they'll get down on their knees.
We have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Can South America and Australia make up the sheer volume of US agricultural exports to China?
Why wouldn't the EU and Canada jump on the bandwagon, considering their own trade balance issues?
Does Airbus have the production capacity to meet China's growing need for multiple modern aircraft?
More importantly, what is more crucial, the US placating its population, or China, placating it's rapidly expanding middle class, which currently has a sizable male/female gender imbalance?
No- because the EU and Canada would jump on the chance to take away American jobs.
Yes
What is more crucial?
Starting a trade war with China that would hurt all Americans?
Or not.
YesWe have had tariff's on China for decades.
Of course Trump has threatened 30% tariff's on China.
Which translates to 30% higher costs for most of what Walmart customers buy.
And what will China do?
China will put similar tariff's on American imports- Boeing planes, agriculture(screw American farmers- they are getting too rich as it is!) and products from American manufacturers.
And then we get to plunge into a full blown trade war.
Sounds good- right?
The difference is China will have a hard time replacing the imports it imposes tarriffs on, especially the agricultural products, and some of the higher end products, like mining equipment, airplanes, and the like.
Couple that with it's own restive population, it has more to lose in a tit for tat fight than the US does.
Agriculture?
China is already sourcing from South America and Australia- if the U.S. is not competitive they can source from there.
Mining equipment? The EU and Canada will gladly take those jobs.
Airplanes? Airbus is already making competition tough on Boeing.
The United States is a huge market for China, but China is a huge market for the United States. We would be two guys in a canoe shooting holes in the canoe to get back at each other.
Can South America and Australia make up the sheer volume of US agricultural exports to China?
Why wouldn't the EU and Canada jump on the bandwagon, considering their own trade balance issues?
Does Airbus have the production capacity to meet China's growing need for multiple modern aircraft?
More importantly, what is more crucial, the US placating its population, or China, placating it's rapidly expanding middle class, which currently has a sizable male/female gender imbalance?
No- because the EU and Canada would jump on the chance to take away American jobs.
Yes
What is more crucial?
Starting a trade war with China that would hurt all Americans?
Or not.
It won't start a "trade war", China can't afford it. They're a paper tiger and will back down as soon as Trump pulls out the stick.
