Dems say "trade deficits don't matter"....lets debate that stupid position

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes ? How so . You were forced to buy a Volkswagen?

Your desperation is duly noted.

My business has required that I have, in decades past, a radio car phone, Palm Pilot, then cell phones, smartphones, countless computers, laptops, printers, laser then color and laser, fax machines, expensive shoes, suits, shirts, sheets, pillowcases, and the list goes on!

What’s your point . Did you not have American options? Sure you can’t find an American
Tv , but what about everything else .

It’s fucking rediculous to complain that the government won’t stop you from Buying foreign made goods .

Sure you can buy a TV made in America.

List of Televisions That Are Made in America | Techwalla.com

None of which are among the top-rated tvs in America. Plus, in you source.

While many Panasonic TV models are assembled in Malaysia, the company does sell a few TV models assembled in the U.S. For example, some 20-inch TV/VCR combination TVs are assembled in the U.S

You are right, none of the top rated TVs are made in America, which is why people do not buy American made TVs, they are more expensive and lower quality.

 

[edthecynic]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

 

[kyzr]

No, the OP says that having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak and you will probably need to borrow or devalue your currency. IMHO a surplus is better than a deficit. It seems to be common sense that if you're not making money you will soon be out of money.

Venezuela and Iran had trade surpluses in 2017. So, by your logic their economy is healthy and the US economy is weak.

Think about that for just a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Think China would go for a big trade deficit with the US, (if trade deficits really don't matter)

Once again, according to your own words the economy of Venezuela and Iran is stronger than that of the US. Do you stand by that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Reading comprehension issues?? Never mention Venezuela or Iran?! My OP essentially supports the Trump/Navarro/Lightheiser position of re-negotiating bad trade deals. Bad trade deals create large trade deficits, good trade deals have no deficits or better yet a trade surplus. Stop with the red herring or straw men arguments. Debate the trade deals.

No, I have no comprehension issues at all. These are your words..."having a trade surplus means that your economy is healthy, and a huge trade deficit means that your economy is weak". I gave you two countries that had trade surpluses in 2017 (Iran and Venezuela) , would you call their economies healthy?
The United States has the largest GDP in the world, we have the most wealth in the world, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialized world, and we are at 109 straight months of economic expansion...do you claim that we have a weak economy?

China also has a large trade surplus and their economy is on track to equal the US in size/strength. So lets compare apples to apples, and not compare the US to a weak socialist economy. The US keeps borrowing money (from China) to keep afloat. Where does China get all that money to lend to the US? Trump is trying to develop more US factories and jobs to grow the US economy by creating better trade deals. Your argument seems to be that bad trade deals are okay.
Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency? Why does China like a trade surplus?

 

[kyzr]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

Comparative Advantage is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage. The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

China also has a large trade surplus and their economy is on track to equal the US in size/strength. So lets compare apples to apples, and not compare the US to a weak socialist economy.

So, you then admit that a trade surplus does not equal a strong economy and a trade deficit does not equal a weak economy? This is a very vital thing for you to understand if you wish to understand international trade and basic economics.

The US keeps borrowing money (from China) to keep afloat. Where does China get all that money to lend to the US?

It seems that you are conflating to things that are not the same. The US government's deficit is not the same as our trade deficit and the two have little to do with each other.

Our Fed Govt runs a deficit because we spend more than we bring in, it is that simple. Our problem is not a lack of funds, it is overspending.

Our country has a trade deficit because you and I and every other American citizens chooses to buy things made in different countries. We do so for price, quality and a combination of the two. This is not a bad thing, this is a good thing. There are areas that the US cannot compete in due to the differences in the workforce's and the cost of living in different nations. But again, this is not a bad thing, it is good that workers in the US make more than 3 dollars an hour and it is good that we have the standard of living that we do.

In our daily lives we all run trade deficits and trade surpluses. These are not bad things.

Trump is trying to develop more US factories and jobs to grow the US economy by creating better trade deals. Your argument seems to be that bad trade deals are okay.

My argument is that the deals are not as bad as you have been told. I base that on the current state of this country. 109 straight months of economic expansion, the 2nd longest such period in the history of this country. We have full employment, in fact we have more jobs than people to fill them. Our financial markets are doing well, even with being stagnant for the last 200 plus days due to the trade war. If these trade deals were as bad as we have been told, why are we doing so well?

Another reason I say they are not that bad are the tweaks of NAFTA. If NAFTA was as bad as people like to pretend, then the minor tweaks agreed on by the US and Mexico would not makes any difference at all.

 

[edthecynic]

Ok. Do yourself a huge favor. None of us here are economist so we must rely on those who are experts for the answers. You have made numerous erroneous statements in this thread. Before you post again on this thread, watch the following video.......and then you will want to beg the MODS to remove this thread.

Friedman is wrong about most things, but on free trade he is 100% correct, and if you noticed he cited the Law of Comparative Advantage, although he did not cite it as a Law, as the rational for how and what to trade.

 

[edthecynic]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

Comparative Advantage is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage. The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency?

Comparative advantage means so much more than just producing goods using fewer resources, it means no country is ever at a trading disadvantage as long as different goods are produced at different efficiencies. It says that country A should produce what it produces most efficiently and trade for the rest with country B even if country A can out produce country B on everything. And country B should produce what country A produces less efficiently and trade with country A for the rest. Both countries get more of each other's products by trading than if they produced them themselves.

That is the absolute beauty of the Law of Comparative advantage, both trading countries make out better by trading under ALL circumstances!!!!!

 

[kyzr]

China also has a large trade surplus and their economy is on track to equal the US in size/strength. So lets compare apples to apples, and not compare the US to a weak socialist economy.

So, you then admit that a trade surplus does not equal a strong economy and a trade deficit does not equal a weak economy? This is a very vital thing for you to understand if you wish to understand international trade and basic economics.

The US keeps borrowing money (from China) to keep afloat. Where does China get all that money to lend to the US?

It seems that you are conflating to things that are not the same. The US government's deficit is not the same as our trade deficit and the two have little to do with each other.

Our Fed Govt runs a deficit because we spend more than we bring in, it is that simple. Our problem is not a lack of funds, it is overspending.

Our country has a trade deficit because you and I and every other American citizens chooses to buy things made in different countries. We do so for price, quality and a combination of the two. This is not a bad thing, this is a good thing. There are areas that the US cannot compete in due to the differences in the workforce's and the cost of living in different nations. But again, this is not a bad thing, it is good that workers in the US make more than 3 dollars an hour and it is good that we have the standard of living that we do.

In our daily lives we all run trade deficits and trade surpluses. These are not bad things.

Trump is trying to develop more US factories and jobs to grow the US economy by creating better trade deals. Your argument seems to be that bad trade deals are okay.

My argument is that the deals are not as bad as you have been told. I base that on the current state of this country. 109 straight months of economic expansion, the 2nd longest such period in the history of this country. We have full employment, in fact we have more jobs than people to fill them. Our financial markets are doing well, even with being stagnant for the last 200 plus days due to the trade war. If these trade deals were as bad as we have been told, why are we doing so well?

Another reason I say they are not that bad are the tweaks of NAFTA. If NAFTA was as bad as people like to pretend, then the minor tweaks agreed on by the US and Mexico would not makes any difference at all.

I readily that a trade surplus is NOT the ONLY factor that determines a strong economy, and a trade deficit a weak economy. There are many other factors involved, such as currency, comparative advantage, labor rates, skilled labor, natural resources, various regulations, political stability, roads, factories, capital investment, taxes, population, population income, etc....

I see your point, the US economy is humming along at ~3%, thanks to the tax cut and reduction in regulations, so things look okay on the surface. But, with wages stagnating for decades, and thousands of factories moving overseas how long until we turn into Mexico, where there are billionaires and peons? I applaud Trump for trying to raise the standard of living for the bottom half of the population, by bringing back good paying factory and energy jobs. The joint chiefs say that the Debt is the biggest threat the US faces:
Here's what a top intel chief says is the biggest internal threat to US national security
Mullen: Debt is top national security threat - CNN.com

So how can the US address the Debt? Grow the economy, and reduce entitlements and military spending. How best to grow the economy? Create better paying jobs, and develop new products.

 

[kyzr]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

Comparative Advantage is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage. The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency?

Comparative advantage means so much more than just producing goods using fewer resources, it means no country is ever at a trading disadvantage as long as different goods are produced at different efficiencies. It says that country A should produce what it produces most efficiently and trade for the rest with country B even if country A can out produce country B on everything. And country B should produce what country A produces less efficiently and trade with country A for the rest. Both countries get more of each other's products by trading than if they produced them themselves.

That is the absolute beauty of the Law of Comparative advantage, both trading countries make out better by trading under ALL circumstances!!!!!

Please factor in what happens when certain countries impose 100% tariffs on Harley motorcycles for example, and Harleys' country imposes no tariffs on anything. Trump is trying to get to a free and fair trade policy.

 

[edthecynic]

the US economy is humming along at ~3%

If by ~3% you mean 2.7% then you would be correct.

 

[jc456]

Are people forced to buy foreign goods ?

I get it if the other country is cheating , but just cause we buy more from X doesn’t mean it’s bad . Maybe they have a product we don’t .

By the way . We export a lot of shit .

sure they are if our manufacturing stop producing because of the foreign goods prices.

 

[edthecynic]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

Comparative Advantage is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage. The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency?

Comparative advantage means so much more than just producing goods using fewer resources, it means no country is ever at a trading disadvantage as long as different goods are produced at different efficiencies. It says that country A should produce what it produces most efficiently and trade for the rest with country B even if country A can out produce country B on everything. And country B should produce what country A produces less efficiently and trade with country A for the rest. Both countries get more of each other's products by trading than if they produced them themselves.

That is the absolute beauty of the Law of Comparative advantage, both trading countries make out better by trading under ALL circumstances!!!!!

Please factor in what happens when certain countries impose 100% tariffs on Harley motorcycles for example, and Harleys' country imposes no tariffs on anything. Trump is trying to get to a free and fair trade policy.

The country that imposes a 100% tariff SCREWS their OWN comparative advantage and thus stupidly screw themselves in the long run. We should not be stupid along with them and impose tariffs because in spite of their tariffs reducing our comparative advantage by trading with them, we still have a comparative advantage as long as we continue to produce what we produce most efficiently and trade for the rest. By imposing tariffs the other country loses their comparative advantage completely.

Tramp has no idea what he is doing, or he would be supporting free trade and letting the stupid countries screw themselves with their tariffs.

 

[sartre play]

Thanks every one, with a total of two college economic classes usually stay out of economic discussions.
but could some one address the more personal side of what is going on? yes we have the guns & the dollar, we are powerful, Mexico & Canada are our close neighbors, some how it feels like we are bullying more than negotiating, like brining a shovel to a dinner party when every one else is bringing a spoon. I may never need anything important from my neighbors, but I treat them with respect, & this has paid off for all of us, little kindness exchanges of help, keeping an eye on our property, good information & even jobs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I readily that a trade surplus is NOT the ONLY factor that determines a strong economy, and a trade deficit a weak economy. There are many other factors involved, such as currency, comparative advantage, labor rates, skilled labor, natural resources, various regulations, political stability, roads, factories, capital investment, taxes, population, population income, etc....

That is a good start.

I see your point, the US economy is humming along at ~3%, thanks to the tax cut and reduction in regulations, so things look okay on the surface.

The US economy is humming at the same rate it has been for the last 6 years, nothing changed in the last two.

But, with wages stagnating for decades, and thousands of factories moving overseas how long until we turn into Mexico, where there are billionaires and peons?

Wages are stagnant that is for sure. 80% of the factories jobs lost in the last 20 years are due to automation, not moving overseas. We will never turn into Mexico unless you statist have your way and get the government even more involved in our lives. Factory jobs are no longer the cash cow for people that they once were, times change people need to adapt.

So how can the US address the Debt? Grow the economy, and reduce entitlements and military spending. How best to grow the economy? Create better paying jobs, and develop new products.

We do not have an income problem in this country, we have a spending problem No growing will outpace our spending. And nobody, not even Trump is calling for reduced spending in both entitlements and military

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

Comparative Advantage is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage. The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency?

Comparative advantage means so much more than just producing goods using fewer resources, it means no country is ever at a trading disadvantage as long as different goods are produced at different efficiencies. It says that country A should produce what it produces most efficiently and trade for the rest with country B even if country A can out produce country B on everything. And country B should produce what country A produces less efficiently and trade with country A for the rest. Both countries get more of each other's products by trading than if they produced them themselves.

That is the absolute beauty of the Law of Comparative advantage, both trading countries make out better by trading under ALL circumstances!!!!!

Please factor in what happens when certain countries impose 100% tariffs on Harley motorcycles for example, and Harleys' country imposes no tariffs on anything. Trump is trying to get to a free and fair trade policy.

Where do you get the idea that we do not impose tariffs?

We impose thousands of tariffs just like every other nation.

Tariff Databases | USITC

We also subsidies industries just like every other nation. Our dairy industry gets 70% of their revenue due to subsidies. you have been sold a bill of goods by Trump.

 

[kyzr]

Countries with trade surpluses can buy factories and properties in debtor countries, their currency is strong, their credit rating is strong, just the opposite for debtor countries.

IMHO it is much better to have a trade surplus than a trade deficit.

But if one country has a surplus then another has to have a deficit, and if trade deficits are bad then trade would be bad. But trade IS good, so trade is dependent on something other than surpluses and deficits.
That something is the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Funny you never hear about the Law of Comparative Advantage from either side when discussing trade!!!!!
I'll bet few here even know what it is, and you can be sure Tramp never heard of it!

Comparative Advantage is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage. The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. Currency manipulation might be another way to increase exports, like China does. But if trade deficits don't matter, why would China devalue its currency?

Comparative advantage means so much more than just producing goods using fewer resources, it means no country is ever at a trading disadvantage as long as different goods are produced at different efficiencies. It says that country A should produce what it produces most efficiently and trade for the rest with country B even if country A can out produce country B on everything. And country B should produce what country A produces less efficiently and trade with country A for the rest. Both countries get more of each other's products by trading than if they produced them themselves.

That is the absolute beauty of the Law of Comparative advantage, both trading countries make out better by trading under ALL circumstances!!!!!

Please factor in what happens when certain countries impose 100% tariffs on Harley motorcycles for example, and Harleys' country imposes no tariffs on anything. Trump is trying to get to a free and fair trade policy.

The country that imposes a 100% tariff SCREWS their OWN comparative advantage and thus stupidly screw themselves in the long run. We should not be stupid along with them and impose tariffs because in spite of their tariffs reducing our comparative advantage by trading with them, we still have a comparative advantage as long as we continue to produce what we produce most efficiently and trade for the rest. By imposing tariffs the other country loses their comparative advantage completely.

Tramp has no idea what he is doing, or he would be supporting free trade and letting the stupid countries screw themselves with their tariffs.

We'll simply agree to disagree. A friend of mine sells Harley MCs. He had a sale to Germany all set, then the guy cancelled because the price would be double due to German tariffs. The guys that got screwed are the Harley folks, not the German guy. Trump wants free and fair trade, i.e. no tariffs. If they want to do tariffs, then lets do tariffs, and we'll see who says "uncle" first.

 

[kyzr]

I readily that a trade surplus is NOT the ONLY factor that determines a strong economy, and a trade deficit a weak economy. There are many other factors involved, such as currency, comparative advantage, labor rates, skilled labor, natural resources, various regulations, political stability, roads, factories, capital investment, taxes, population, population income, etc....

That is a good start.

I see your point, the US economy is humming along at ~3%, thanks to the tax cut and reduction in regulations, so things look okay on the surface.

The US economy is humming at the same rate it has been for the last 6 years, nothing changed in the last two.

But, with wages stagnating for decades, and thousands of factories moving overseas how long until we turn into Mexico, where there are billionaires and peons?

Wages are stagnant that is for sure. 80% of the factories jobs lost in the last 20 years are due to automation, not moving overseas. We will never turn into Mexico unless you statist have your way and get the government even more involved in our lives. Factory jobs are no longer the cash cow for people that they once were, times change people need to adapt.

So how can the US address the Debt? Grow the economy, and reduce entitlements and military spending. How best to grow the economy? Create better paying jobs, and develop new products.

We do not have an income problem in this country, we have a spending problem No growing will outpace our spending. And nobody, not even Trump is calling for reduced spending in both entitlements and military

Then the US is screwed. Trump's game plan seemed to be to grow the economy and get back to a balanced budget. The following article looks pretty grim. No wonder Ryan bailed...
Analysis of CBO’s April 2018 Budget and Economic Outlook

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I readily that a trade surplus is NOT the ONLY factor that determines a strong economy, and a trade deficit a weak economy. There are many other factors involved, such as currency, comparative advantage, labor rates, skilled labor, natural resources, various regulations, political stability, roads, factories, capital investment, taxes, population, population income, etc....

That is a good start.

I see your point, the US economy is humming along at ~3%, thanks to the tax cut and reduction in regulations, so things look okay on the surface.

The US economy is humming at the same rate it has been for the last 6 years, nothing changed in the last two.

But, with wages stagnating for decades, and thousands of factories moving overseas how long until we turn into Mexico, where there are billionaires and peons?

Wages are stagnant that is for sure. 80% of the factories jobs lost in the last 20 years are due to automation, not moving overseas. We will never turn into Mexico unless you statist have your way and get the government even more involved in our lives. Factory jobs are no longer the cash cow for people that they once were, times change people need to adapt.

So how can the US address the Debt? Grow the economy, and reduce entitlements and military spending. How best to grow the economy? Create better paying jobs, and develop new products.

We do not have an income problem in this country, we have a spending problem No growing will outpace our spending. And nobody, not even Trump is calling for reduced spending in both entitlements and military

Then the US is screwed. Trump's game plan seemed to be to grow the economy and get back to a balanced budget. The following article looks pretty grim. No wonder Ryan bailed...
Analysis of CBO’s April 2018 Budget and Economic Outlook

Where did you get the idea that Trump wanted a balanced budget? He has not called for spending cuts, just spending more money in different areas. The tax cuts have also exacerbated the problem by slowing revenue growth. After a record braking April that was driven by people like me sending the Feds a check to cover the part of our tax burden that payroll deductions did not cover from the previous year, May and June have seen less revenue generated than the May and June of 2017. That is not good at all.

 

[task0778]

Thanks every one, with a total of two college economic classes usually stay out of economic discussions.
but could some one address the more personal side of what is going on? yes we have the guns & the dollar, we are powerful, Mexico & Canada are our close neighbors, some how it feels like we are bullying more than negotiating, like brining a shovel to a dinner party when every one else is bringing a spoon. I may never need anything important from my neighbors, but I treat them with respect, & this has paid off for all of us, little kindness exchanges of help, keeping an eye on our property, good information & even jobs.

I think that when it comes to international trade you have to whack 'em over the head with a shovel to get their attention. Diplomacy hasn't worked, making nice-nice hasn't worked, so I'm good with making sure that there's no doubt about it - we mean business. The current trade situation may have been fair (sorta) long ago, but times have changed and they need to be reworked. Maybe it's bullying or close to it, but you know what? I don't care, cuz we've been getting screwed with these unequal tariffs for too long.

Everybody says "tariffs are a bad deal", and they are if they are sustained for a lengthy period of time. However, if used as a short-term tool to get better trade deals then maybe it ain't such a bad thing. For me, it's hard to bitch about a president who says what he means and means that he says and backs it up with action. I don't want to be feared but I do want to be respected, and frankly I think we lost a lot of respect from both friends and enemies in recent years.

 

[EGR one]

It’s weird the way Republican say something really stupid and then say Democrats said that and so we should debate.

The thing is Democrats don’t have to make stuff up because the things that Republicans do are not only stupid but they’re really creepy.

Like stripping parents of their children.

It’s like a crime against humanity and despised internationally.

And I didn’t even have to make it up.

If you think that separating children from their parents is a crime against humanity, then why have you only voiced your concern when it happens to illegal aliens? Separating children from their parents happens every day to American citizens, and I have never heard one brain dead progressive complain about it.

And, I didn't even have to make it up.