Posted on 01/23/2017 2:20:49 PM PST by Mariner
Sounded more desperate than angry.
LOL
Pathetic.
Nah, not a globalist in any sense of the word. Just a realist. China will probably surpass us militarily & economically. Get used to it.
And I wasn’t referring to Trump “disdainfully” as you allege. He’s not perfect, so I’m offering some constructive criticism. It’s healthy for us to do so. 90% of Trump’s policies are right on. I just think it’s unnecessary to use the word “STEALING” - when a lot of the reason we’ve lost jobs/companies to Asia is our own fault.
Perhaps I have more international experience than you, having traveled many times in Asia. I know how these words come across to foreigners. I know how Trump could accomplish the goals of “America first in trade” without using words like China/Japan is “STEALING” from us. It’s inappropriate for any president to carelessly exaggerate. He was basically saying China/Japan are THIEVES.
There are better ways to get our way and I expect he will learn.
In another example, if Trump had more carefully worded his fateful sentence about Illegal aliens/Mexicans are rapists and criminals — he would have gotten literally millions more Hispanic votes and wouldn’t have given the media the hook to convince so many people he’s a racist. He screwed up.
He should have said “a large percentage of them commit crimes.” Instead, the way he said it, it sounded like he was saying ALL Mexican illegals are criminals!! Both you and I know Trump isn’t a racist, but the media and the Left took that and ran with it. Big mistake on Trump’s part and I’m sure he knows it now as he sees crowds of people that are convinced that he’s a racist.
Anyhow, Trump has been learning to not shoot from the mouth as much, so I’m optimistic.
I agree. It’s no different than an oil rig. If you build it, then it is a piece of parked property on someone else’s property.
China cannot surpass us unless we cede it to them.
On any front.
I have the distinct impression you are willing to cede status as the most powerful and richest nation on the planet.
Perhaps all your travels to Asia have caused you to believe this is the right course for this nation to take.
China does have a case that those islands belong to China.We did not dispute their claim in the 1920s,when the Nationalists first claimed them.
Later, when Japan claimed them, we insisted they belonged to China (and not to Japan, by right of conquest.)
Nobody cared about them until oil was discovered in the 1970s(?);now every nation wants a piece of the pie.
Frankly, I’d let the nations involved work it out among themselves.
Good question... I suppose we will have to weigh the costs of going to war with China over the disputed South China Sea, versus the strategic/economic interest the US has in those parts of the world.
I have faith Trump will evaluate that from a business/economic/strategic standpoint and come up with the best solution.
Was Iraq in our strategic interest? Was Bosnia/Croatia? Was Vietnam? Probably no in all the foregoing conflicts.
Was WWII Europe in our strategic interest? Yes then, but probably not now. I say, let Putin have Europe because Europe will be a Muslim zone by pure demographics in 20-30 years. It’s over for Europe.
Thanks for adding that historical perspective! Hard to argue against your points.
The problem is not that China has claimed a bunch of ilsands in dispute. That can easily be resolved diplomatically.
The problem is they have claimed the entire South China Sea as their territorial waters, over which the control the right of passage. For $5 trillion of international commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line
We grew the fastest under tariffs. Tariffs as a percentage of the federal budget were discarded in favor of hurting income.
You can't evade income tax unless you stop productively working. You can evade a tariff by buying US.
You really don't show that much economic understanding.
I understand they weren’t islands, but were man made.
China was completely shut off from world commerce during WWII because Japan seized all her ports, plus Indochina. She was dependent on the Burma road — a desperate measure.
So, now, China wants to be sure that in the event of war, she will not be isolated again. Phase I —defensive—is to make sure those approach waters are kept open, ie, controlled by China.
Phase II — offensive— would be to seize the Philippines
and thereby cut off sea routes to Japan, and isolate her.
But Phase I is purely a result of her isolation during WWII.
No your impression is wrong (of me).
I’m not so “willing to cede status as the most powerful and richest nation on the planet.”
I truly hope we can always be the best, but you and I both know that most powerful nations are only on the top for about 200+ years (in history).
Again, I ask the rhetorical question of you: If China does begin to surpass the US militarily in the future, do you suggest we attack them??? Destroy them?
I’m interested in your answer to the foregoing...
Perhaps I’m just more optimistic than you are that we CAN reach a common ground with China in the future based on commerce.
Compare Chinese culture to Muslim culture where there is absoltely no hope that we can ever co-exist when they have a “kill infidels” mantra codified in their Quran and in Sharia Law.
At least Chinese are more or less civilized and rational, albeit selfish.
I am unwilling to cede military leadership, something we control, to a hypothetical about what China might do.
We’ll be at war with them long before they can approach “superiority”. At some point (like, uh, now) they will challenge us. And it’s up to us to respond assertively.
In the long run they cannot surpass our innovation and development. Their culture does not work that way. And has not for 3,000 years.
“In another example, if Trump had more carefully worded his fateful sentence about Illegal aliens/Mexicans are rapists and criminals — he would have gotten literally millions more Hispanic votes and wouldn’t have given the media the hook to convince so many people he’s a racist. He screwed up.
He should have said “a large percentage of them commit crimes.” Instead, the way he said it, it sounded like he was saying ALL Mexican illegals are criminals!! Both you and I know Trump isn’t a racist, but the media and the Left took that and ran with it. Big mistake on Trump’s part and I’m sure he knows it now as he sees crowds of people that are convinced that he’s a racist.”
This is what Donald said:
“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
It appears you don't pay attention to news or you are overly reliant on MSNBC or CNN. Donald said everything exactly right. The MSM, your apparent news source, is what reimagines what was said. Well, the MSM, and you.
By the way, all illegals are criminals. How you can't understand that unknown international border crossers are not committing crimes or are somehow “unknown, known good people” is beyond belief.
Where is your head?
Perhaps is it you who lacks economic understanding about Tariffs?
Read & Learn:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/milton-friedman-schools-trump-on-trade-tariffs
And here’s a great Milton Friedman video on trade & tariffs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59YWFR8lCEc
We need to jumpstart employment in the US. We encouraged companies to move production to China by increasing taxes and regulations, and supercharged this behavior by not taxing the resulting imports. We need to reverse all three of these actions.
There is no reason to incentivize foreign good purchases when we have a welfare economy. People without jobs receive welfare and unemployment and can contribute to moral decay.
Taxing the untaxed will encourage more creation in the US. It also helps defensively during trade or other wars. It also allows minimization of other taxes while encouraging self-reliance.
After adjustments have been locked in place, we can reduce the excise tax by the same amount as we reduce income and other similar taxes.
And I noticed you didn't rebut my comments. That tells me you can't.
You’re absolutely right, by definition, that all illegals are criminals (by ignoring border laws). But that’s a red herring.
What’s germane to the discussion is the allegation that Trump made about THE CRIMES illegals commit once they’re here.
And yes, I do know what I’m talking about in my two paragraphs you cut & pasted!
No, I despise PMSNBC and Clinton News Network.
Just because I offer constructive criticism of Trump, that’s no need to do ad-homs on the messenger. Open your mind.
I’m sure Trump wishes he had phrased that Illegal Alien statement differently because he took a lot of flak (you and I believe unnecessarily).
The media took the “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists” comments and easily twisted them into “The Mexican illegals are... rapists, criminals, drug people”.
Trump should have been wiser and not give the media anything to sink their teeth into.
He could have said a certain percentage of them are Rapists and a certain percentage of them cause crimes” that’s higher than the norm.
There are certain things a politician can say to improve their popularity and others that do not. Trump already had the majority of the voters behind him on the illegal issue. The marginal benefit to Trump to add those other descriptions of illegals just wasn’t there and backfired.
I, as much as you, wish the media was never given a chance to pin the “racist” label on Trump. But he provided the opening for them.
Trump did not say anything poorly in that set of sentences.
Obama was too scared.
I looked it up.
In 1998, the term “Most Favored Nation” was changed to
“Permanent Normal Trade Relations.”
In his last year in office, 2000, Bill Clinton proposed giving China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Congress added 24 amendments to the proposal, but ran out of time in that election year and jettisoned those amendments.
Like you said, this should never have been done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.