Hong Kong Protests

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
5,037
Reaction score
1,556
Points
113
I don’t ”defend anything Trump does”. Just much of the criticism that the Dems and your like do here.

Do you deny that foreign relations are complex? That it’s not as simple as saying we’re going to ignore current events and forge ahead.

What are your ideas for challenging China? What are Biden’s for that matter?

What I know is that we’re far more active in challenging China than we ever were when Obama was President, and it’s not close.
You reflexively defend almost everything he does. Don't lie.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,394
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
Via sanctions, yes. Via support and partnerships with other countries in APAC, yes.

FWIW, I was actually critical of Steve Kerr as well:



No, that's cool. I was genuinely curious.

We generally agree, ideally, I would like for the US to work with other countries to counteract China, but if they are getting drunk on Chinese money (which a lot of Americans are as well), then we need to go at it alone or with a smaller coalition.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,394
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
You reflexively defend almost everything he does. Don't lie.
In his defense, liberals are pretty bad at picking the actual points people should be made at him about. So on message boards that always seem to go conservative vs. liberal, you're stuck defending him because most of the criticisms coming from the left are absurd.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
I don’t ”defend anything Trump does”. Just much of the criticism that the Dems and your like do here.

Do you deny that foreign relations are complex? That it’s not as simple as saying we’re going to ignore current events and forge ahead.

What are your ideas for challenging China? What are Biden’s for that matter?

What I know is that we’re far more active in challenging China than we ever were when Obama was President, and it’s not close.
A) Good to see you admit your list of things that have changed since August was not in any way a good defense of inaction.

B) My idea for challenging China would be to pass the bill that the Republican Junior Senator from North Dakota cosponsored instead of forcing the Republican Junior Senator from North Dakota to oppose it.

C) Trumpkins: Biden won't be tough on China like Trump!
Everyone else: Trump's not tough on China!
Trumpkins: You must understand foreign relations are complex!

Trumpkins: Obama wasn't strident enough in his defense of protesters in Tehran!
Everyone else: More strident than Trump's defense of the HK protesters.
Trumpkins: You must understand, err... I mean, you see...

D) What are the ways that Trump is tough on China? A trade war that hurt us as much as it hurt them? Backing out of a trade deal that would have increased our influence in the region and then watching China sign on to it? Encouraging them to go ahead and build concentration camps for Muslims? Asking them to help him get elected? Letting lobbyists funded by China influence him?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
A) Good to see you admit your list of things that have changed since August was not in any way a good defense of inaction.

B) My idea for challenging China would be to pass the bill that the Republican Junior Senator from North Dakota cosponsored instead of forcing the Republican Junior Senator from North Dakota to oppose it.

C) Trumpkins: Biden won't be tough on China like Trump!
Everyone else: Trump's not tough on China!
Trumpkins: You must understand foreign relations are complex!

Trumpkins: Obama wasn't strident enough in his defense of protesters in Tehran!
Everyone else: More strident than Trump's defense of the HK protesters.
Trumpkins: You must understand, err... I mean, you see...

D) What are the ways that Trump is tough on China? A trade war that hurt us as much as it hurt them? Backing out of a trade deal that would have increased our influence in the region and then watching China sign on to it? Encouraging them to go ahead and build concentration camps for Muslims? Asking them to help him get elected? Letting lobbyists funded by China influence him?
Well, you’ve got stocker convinced, so that‘s a strike against you.

The China tariffs brought in lots of cash. Got them serious about signing a more balanced trade agreement, at least in phase 1.
We finally have woken up to the fact that the China is swindling us while they steal our company’s and govt’s intellectual property. We will be reducing our dependence and moving more manufacturing to other countries that aren’t our enemy or back home.

We’ve paused their military expansion into the South China Sea.

Obama did none of that.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
Well, you’ve got stocker convinced, so that‘s a strike against you.

The China tariffs brought in lots of cash. Got them serious about signing a more balanced trade agreement, at least in phase 1.
We finally have woken up to the fact that the China is swindling us while they steal our company’s and govt’s intellectual property. We will be reducing our dependence and moving more manufacturing to other countries that aren’t our enemy or back home.

We’ve paused their military expansion into the South China Sea.

Obama did none of that.
Tariffs are taxes on Americans. You know this. And they didn't actually help anyone, they hurt farmers, steel workers, and the economy in general.

The trade deal itself is not getting tough on anyone. It's basically stuff China had already agreed too prior to the trade war, combined with targets the Chinese don't actually have to achieve.

China remains extremely aggressive in the South China Sea.



 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
Tariffs are taxes on Americans. You know this. And they didn't actually help anyone, they hurt farmers, steel workers, and the economy in general.

The trade deal itself is not getting tough on anyone. It's basically stuff China had already agreed too prior to the trade war, combined with targets the Chinese don't actually have to achieve.

China remains extremely aggressive in the South China Sea.



China harassing Malaysian exploration boat. Sounds “ominous”. Should we shoot their ships out of the water?
China expanded during in the South China Sea during the Obama administration. Thanks Obama!

Tariffs are taxes on the US’s customers only if demand doesn’t fall, there is no competition or alternative, and/or prices go up on the tariffed product. Prove that is the case.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
China harassing Malaysian exploration boat. Sounds “ominous”. Should we shoot their ships out of the water?
China expanded during in the South China Sea during the Obama administration. Thanks Obama!

Tariffs are taxes on the US’s customers only if demand doesn’t fall, there is no competition or alternative, and/or prices go up on the tariffed product. Prove that is the case.
Congrats on taking one of the many examples of their continued aggressive behavior and diminishing it. All of that stuff is in the last couple of months. They also deployed missiles to the SCS, continued building military facilities in the Spratly Islands, and established administrative districts in the Spratlys, Paracels, and Macclesfield Bank.

China expanded during in the South China Sea during the Trump administration. Thanks Trump!

You cited the income from tariffs. Every dollar in tariffs was paid by a US company or consumer by definition. Only you, bga1, and Trump pretend this isn't true.

The first month of Trump's tariffs was March 2018. We imported $38.3B worth of goods from China that month. Over the rest of 2018 and 2019, out of 21 months, the import figure met or exceeded that number 16 times.


You still haven't explained why it makes sense to torpedo Cramer's bill after everything that has happened in the last 6 months.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
Congrats on taking one of the many examples of their continued aggressive behavior and diminishing it. All of that stuff is in the last couple of months. They also deployed missiles to the SCS, continued building military facilities in the Spratly Islands, and established administrative districts in the Spratlys, Paracels, and Macclesfield Bank.

China expanded during in the South China Sea during the Trump administration. Thanks Trump!

You cited the income from tariffs. Every dollar in tariffs was paid by a US company or consumer by definition. Only you, bga1, and Trump pretend this isn't true.

The first month of Trump's tariffs was March 2018. We imported $38.3B worth of goods from China that month. Over the rest of 2018 and 2019, out of 21 months, the import figure met or exceeded that number 16 times.


You still haven't explained why it makes sense to torpedo Cramer's bill after everything that has happened in the last 6 months.
Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Do you assume that you know it all? Haha. Yes.

Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.

But what is very obvious is what happened in the SC Sea when Obama was President.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Do you assume that you know it all? Haha. Yes.

Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.

But what is very obvious is what happened in the SC Sea when Obama was President.
CONS: Vote Trump! Biden won't be tough on China!
LIBS: Trump's not tough on China.
CONS: Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
CONS: Vote Trump! Biden won't be tough on China!
LIBS: Trump's not tough on China.
CONS: Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.
We can only evaluate what we see. What we see is Trump is far tougher on China that what Obama was. What we can see is that Biden has made statements that say “china isn’t competition for us”. How stupid is that? What we can see is that Biden has indicated that he’d be soft on China and that his son has had questionable relationships with China. Please don’t bring up Ivanka patents. It’s not even close to getting $1.5 billion in investment from a Chinese govt own bank as seed money for his equity firm.

But yes, trying to speculate on a single action is foolish b/c of what we don’t know is going on in the background.

Please stop paraphrasing my comments. It doesn’t reflect what I said. My comments speak for themself and don’t have to be paraphrased and distorted, unless it is for you to try to score some rhetorical points.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
889
Points
113
A) Good to see you admit your list of things that have changed since August was not in any way a good defense of inaction.

B) My idea for challenging China would be to pass the bill that the Republican Junior Senator from North Dakota cosponsored instead of forcing the Republican Junior Senator from North Dakota to oppose it.

C) Trumpkins: Biden won't be tough on China like Trump!
Everyone else: Trump's not tough on China!
Trumpkins: You must understand foreign relations are complex!

Trumpkins: Obama wasn't strident enough in his defense of protesters in Tehran!
Everyone else: More strident than Trump's defense of the HK protesters.
Trumpkins: You must understand, err... I mean, you see...

D) What are the ways that Trump is tough on China? A trade war that hurt us as much as it hurt them? Backing out of a trade deal that would have increased our influence in the region and then watching China sign on to it? Encouraging them to go ahead and build concentration camps for Muslims? Asking them to help him get elected? Letting lobbyists funded by China influence him?
Manufacturing consultant Kearney
came out with their annual Reshoring Index report. It showed a dramatic increase in U.S. manufacturing and a dramatic decrease in American manufacturing imports from China in 2019. Credit for this significant change was assigned to the tariffs. Vietnam is also. listed as the biggest beneficiary of this change, also Mexico.

Huawei is attempting, of course, to become the 5G leader. It is now saying its survival is at stake as Trump has been cutting it off from semiconductor suppliers.

A 2019 chamber of commerce survey found that 40% of american manufacturing companies had or were planning to move elselsewhere.

The tariffs certainly have resulted in pain to certain areas of the american economy. Could the tariffs have been structured a different way that would have been better? Maybe, maybe not.
Point is that our other leaders had not stood up to china, Trump did.
Biden unbelievably said China is not even a threat to us they are so far behind.

However, Trump gets no credit. In fact, somehow gets blamed. Not surprising when practically the whole white house press is lefty.
(How would you feel if the white house press consisted of only fox news?)
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
889
Points
113
Would like to hear an explanation from someone, anyone, how SJWs Kerr and Lebron are justified in refusing to support hong kong protesters. (Especially also in light of the Uighur situation.) Not holding my breath.

Contrast their cowardly self-serving stance to Trump's willingness to take a stand against china, even though it may cost him politically.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,743
Reaction score
3,739
Points
113
Would like to hear an explanation from someone, anyone, how SJWs Kerr and Lebron are justified in refusing to support hong kong protesters. (Especially also in light of the Uighur situation.) Not holding my breath.

Contrast their cowardly self-serving stance to Trump's willingness to take a stand against china, even though it may cost him politically.
$$$$$
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,743
Reaction score
3,739
Points
113
CONS: Vote Trump! Biden won't be tough on China!
LIBS: Trump's not tough on China.
CONS: Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.
Shorter...
JTF- liar
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Do you assume that you know it all? Haha. Yes.

Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.

But what is very obvious is what happened in the SC Sea when Obama was President.
CONS: Vote Trump! Biden won't be tough on China!
LIBS: Trump's not tough on China.
CONS: Most of the activities that occur between China and the US are out of the site of the media and the public. Without knowing what’s happening in the background, hypothesizing about why some specific action was taken is just that, hypothesizing.
Shorter...
JTF- liar
Which part of what I wrote is a lie? Are you saying it's a lie that we should vote Trump? Or are you saying it's a lie that Biden won't be tough on China? Or am I lying when I quote KGF directly?
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
944
Reaction score
437
Points
63
Which part of what I wrote is a lie? Are you saying it's a lie that we should vote Trump? Or are you saying it's a lie that Biden won't be tough on China? Or am I lying when I quote KGF directly?
In an interview Nancy Pelosi said China wanted Biden to win.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
944
Reaction score
437
Points
63
The Federalist has misled you.



What’s the difference. Who’s the they in that sentence. US intelligence agencies, Nancy’s staffers? I heard the quote directly on cnn not the federalist. Also what does she mean they are really not getting involved in the election. Are they, china kind of getting involved in the election. So kind of involved is ok, well what’s your definition of kind of. I bet my definition is different from your definition. If you believe that the 2nd largest economy in the world is not trying to get certain people elected you’re a fool.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
2,930
Points
113
I'm fine with saying nothing. I'm not fine with Trump's "both sides"ing it. Hong Kong protesters are in the right, period. I get that there are political calculations, but say nothing, or even a banal statement about the US always standing on the side of liberty and self determination.
And yet you're outraged by the NBA.

Not a shallow, low IQ, low morality Trump voter at all.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
What’s the difference. Who’s the they in that sentence. US intelligence agencies, Nancy’s staffers? I heard the quote directly on cnn not the federalist. Also what does she mean they are really not getting involved in the election. Are they, china kind of getting involved in the election. So kind of involved is ok, well what’s your definition of kind of. I bet my definition is different from your definition. If you believe that the 2nd largest economy in the world is not trying to get certain people elected you’re a fool.
it's a dumb game you and Nancy are playing. Of course China would prefer Biden. Probably most countries, enemies and friends, would prefer Biden, with a few exceptions.
The point is that it was presented as Pelosi's assessment, when she made it quite clear that she wasn't convinced by the assessment. If Parkinglot heard it directly, it was him mischaracterizing it, but I saw it mischaracterized that same way on Twitter.

I do think that S2 is right, though, about most countries' preference.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,248
Reaction score
2,464
Points
113
The point is that it was presented as Pelosi's assessment, when she made it quite clear that she wasn't convinced by the assessment. If Parkinglot heard it directly, it was him mischaracterizing it, but I saw it mischaracterized that same way on Twitter.

I do think that S2 is right, though, about most countries' preference.
Nancy is a seasoned politician. I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that she let the truth slip, realized it, and cleaned it up.
so you agree with the statement, but you're still working hard to contradict it.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,248
Reaction score
2,464
Points
113
And yet you're outraged by the NBA.

Not a shallow, low IQ, low morality Trump voter at all.
maybe you should have read this post from 2 hours ago, regarding Trump's Hong Kong statement. Unequivocal.
Yeah, that's outrageous. No country in the world deserves our support more than Hong Kong.
Yes, I'm also outraged by the NBA, because they are wearing the social justice warrior vest proudly and bowing to the biggest violator of civil rights on the planet for money.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,539
Points
113
Nancy is a seasoned politician. I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that she let the truth slip, realized it, and cleaned it up.
so you agree with the statement, but you're still working hard to contradict it.
She said the words "they said" even before she said "prefer Biden." The transcript makes it pretty clear the "they" is the ODNI

BASH: Can you lean into it a little bit more, for the sake of voters wondering what's going on?

PELOSI: Well, I can't divulge information that is classified. That's why we want them to do it.

But I will say this, that, for some reason, they have tried to have some equivalence. I take second place to no one on my criticism of China for over 30 years. They have -- I have said to my staff the other day, they say I'm the most unliked American in China -- disliked American in China.

They say, no, they don't say that. They say you're the most hated American in China, because of their human rights violations, their trade policy, their proliferation of weapons and that.

BASH: Right.

PELOSI: But -- so, I have no -- take no criticism for saying this.

BASH: So...

PELOSI: But the Chinese, they -- what they said is, China would prefer Joe Biden.Whether they do -- that's their conclusion, that they would prefer Joe Biden.
I agree with the statement that most countries would prefer Biden. I'm not sure that includes the Chinese, who were told explicitly by Trump that he wouldn't care if they put Uighurs in concentration camps.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,248
Reaction score
2,464
Points
113
She said the words "they said" even before she said "prefer Biden." The transcript makes it pretty clear the "they" is the ODNI



I agree with the statement that most countries would prefer Biden. I'm not sure that includes the Chinese, who were told explicitly by Trump that he wouldn't care if they put Uighurs in concentration camps.
I don't think the point is whether Nancy thinks it or intelligence agencies think it. This is what is called a diversion. My point was clear, it's TRUE in Nancy's brain that China prefers Biden. She's saying after letting it slip that she's skeptical, because it's politically damaging for her party. And LOL that China gives a rip about Nancy Pelosi's opinion.

I'm not familiar with this supposed Trump explicit statement. I would just say that even though I disagree with many aspects of Trump's trade war with China, it's obvious that they would prefer not to have to deal with it. so of course they would rather have a stooge like Biden in power.
 
Top Bottom