Politicspolitics

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:01 PM

Why would the liberal want the U.S. to lose a trade war,

or any type of war, for that matter?

72 replies, 569 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why would the liberal want the U.S. to lose a trade war, (Original post)
Fred Sanford Wednesday OP
imwithfred Wednesday #1
DillyDilly500 Wednesday #3
fuel Friday #60
DillyDilly500 Wednesday #2
Fred Sanford Wednesday #5
D26-15 Wednesday #7
fuel Friday #68
specs Wednesday #8
DillyDilly500 Wednesday #10
Qukid Wednesday #13
TheShoe Wednesday #16
foia Wednesday #17
TheShoe Wednesday #18
GoldwatersSoul Thursday #27
Fred Sanford Thursday #28
GoldwatersSoul Thursday #38
Jardinier Wednesday #19
Muddling Through Thursday #25
specs Wednesday #21
TheShoe Wednesday #22
specs Thursday #32
TheShoe Thursday #34
Carl Saturday #71
bfox74 Wednesday #4
quad489 Wednesday #6
Fred Sanford Wednesday #9
CornFed Wednesday #11
Horsefeathers Thursday #26
JanetS Wednesday #12
Fred Sanford Wednesday #14
jh4freedom Wednesday #15
Dinkydow Saturday #72
PrescientWon. Wednesday #20
jh4freedom Thursday #23
quad489 Thursday #24
jh4freedom Thursday #35
oflguy Thursday #40
quad489 Thursday #43
Sullivan Thursday #29
quad489 Thursday #30
Sullivan Thursday #31
specs Thursday #33
Fred Sanford Thursday #36
specs Thursday #37
Sullivan Thursday #39
specs Thursday #41
Sullivan Thursday #42
quad489 Thursday #45
Sullivan Friday #46
quad489 Friday #49
Sullivan Friday #69
quad489 Friday #70
quad489 Thursday #44
Valishin Friday #47
Fred Sanford Friday #48
quad489 Friday #50
fuel Friday #51
fuel Friday #52
fuel Friday #53
fuel Friday #54
fuel Friday #55
fuel Friday #56
fuel Friday #57
fuel Friday #58
fuel Friday #59
fuel Friday #61
fuel Friday #62
fuel Friday #63
fuel Friday #64
fuel Friday #65
fuel Friday #66
fuel Friday #67

Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:04 PM

1. Because Democrats and primitives hate America; they hate

America for its greatness, for its exceptionalism, for its magnanimity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imwithfred (Reply #1)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:10 PM

3. You talking to yourself Fred.,,?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imwithfred (Reply #1)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:09 PM

2. Purge the mouthbreathers from office is my guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DillyDilly500 (Reply #2)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:13 PM

5. It's time you got over Fat Hillary's defeat.*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Reply #5)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:16 PM

7. That will never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Reply #5)


Response to DillyDilly500 (Reply #2)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:17 PM

8. Hillary lost NPC, so we didn't even see a mouth breather

Take office. Lol @ the NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #8)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:22 PM

10. Oh, I don't think I'll ever recover from your 2nd grade

taunts.

Were you bullied as a kid then went on to be a cop or am I thinking of another forum specimen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DillyDilly500 (Reply #10)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:33 PM

13. Some pussy alerted on this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DillyDilly500 (Reply #10)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:59 PM

16. Sorry poster

The taunts are clearly at the third grade level. It’s funny to watch these CONs trying to relive their third grade glory year publicly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheShoe (Reply #16)

Wed May 15, 2019, 05:29 PM

17. While you try to relive Hillary's voctory

that never happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #17)

Wed May 15, 2019, 05:33 PM

18. Hillary lost poster.

Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheShoe (Reply #18)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:40 AM

27. Are you over your tiff???

Speaking of 3rd grade crybabies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #27)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:42 AM

28. Emotional sock accounts like his are just Romper Room.*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Reply #28)

Thu May 16, 2019, 07:31 PM

38. I am sure I am on ignore...

I said something the other day to the effect. Some people are pussies. He alerted and no hide so I am sure he "took his ball and went home."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheShoe (Reply #16)

Wed May 15, 2019, 05:37 PM

19. Hey knock it off. I never made it to 3rd grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jardinier (Reply #19)

Thu May 16, 2019, 07:56 AM

25. Best 3 years of my life..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DillyDilly500 (Reply #10)

Wed May 15, 2019, 07:23 PM

21. Lol @ the NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #21)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:05 PM

22. look at this poster

retreating to a lame meme. guess that is where you go when you nothing left in the ol' noggin.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheShoe (Reply #22)

Thu May 16, 2019, 12:31 PM

32. Well NPC, when dealing with the brain dead DemocRats and their voters

It is pointless in trying to reach you regressives on any intellectual level. So, it is just lol at your ignorance and intellectually dishonest behavior.

Or in terms you and your programmer can understand.

Lol @ the NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #32)

Thu May 16, 2019, 01:03 PM

34. LOL

NPC... BEEP.... NPC... DemocRats....BEEP.....NPC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheShoe (Reply #22)

Sat May 18, 2019, 05:51 AM

71. Was the irony of this post deliberate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:11 PM

4. Their only interest is power.

As long as things are going well, and they are not in power, they must hope for anything and everything bad for America.

Sick fucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:14 PM

6. Well, you gotta remember you're dealing w/low IQ/EQ dolts who believe Trump started it..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #6)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:18 PM

9. Isn't it amazing...yet troublesome, the Lefty wants to just gargle China

and not change anything for the long term benefit of the United States.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Reply #9)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:29 PM

11. When given the choice, lefty will always choose "gargle"

It's their default

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CornFed (Reply #11)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:00 AM

26. Natch*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:29 PM

12. Remember, Bill Maher said he hopes for a recession to get rid of Trump

He wants Americans to suffer (he wouldn't of course).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanetS (Reply #12)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:42 PM

14. That's an excellent example, Janet.*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 04:57 PM

15. We are not going to lose a trade war

But when its presidential election time, the opposition does not want the party in power to succeed, whether the incumbent is named Obama or Trump, Bush or Clinton.

No one has really won a war, trade or otherwise (meaning a complete and total surrender) since 1945. This current trade war will end in a negotiation with both sides getting some of what they want but not all. Both sides will declare victory.

The Chinese Communist Party leadership won’t surrender primarily because the U.S. is currently in debt to China to the tune of $1.13 trillion as of February, 2019. That's 28% of the $4.02 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of our $22 trillion national debt is owned by either the American people or by the various branches of the U.S. government itself (intragovernmental debt). We need the Chicoms and the Chicoms need us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #15)

Sat May 18, 2019, 07:17 AM

72. JH4, Think About It

When you owe the bank $100,000, you worry
When you owe the bank $100,000,000, the bank worries.

If pressed by China on the $1.13 trillion, they have to remember that the debt is measured in dollars and not in gold or oil. Trump could just tell the treasury to crank out a stack of bills and hand them to China. Yes, it would trigger a round of inflation, but it would destroy China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 05:56 PM

20. they can't allow TRUMP a victory, even a victory for the entire USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #20)

Thu May 16, 2019, 12:23 AM

23. It was the same for Obama

No victories for the opposition. If the American people had wanted Trump to have victories they wouldn’t have put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair. Americans have never much cared for one party rule. They gave Obama two years of it and they gave Trump two years of it. And with both, the People then said “checks and balances over presidential victories.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #23)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:36 AM

24. Uh, the ''American people'' did not put Pelosi in the chair, your dem congress critters did that...

"If the American people had wanted Trump to have victories they wouldn’t have put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair."

...and you know that.

"They gave Obama two years of it and they gave Trump two years of it.".............and once again you're proving your partisanship (or ignorance) if you believe Obama and Trump have been treated the same during their first two years in office. But of course you're more than welcome to show the forum here just how both parties, and the media, treated Obama with the same level of hatred that they have treated Trump.....the forum eagerly awaits you evidence...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #24)

Thu May 16, 2019, 02:42 PM

35. Uh the United States of America is a REPUBLIC

That means federal government selected by elected representatives of the people. Americans who care enough to vote decide who represents them and in 2018 53% of voters selected a Democratic representative in elections for the House of Representatives. Those votes moved the minority leader to the Speaker’s chair.

Who said anything about how presidents were treated by the media? Not me. I’m talking about the way the congressional majority of the elected representatives of the People dealt with the chief executive of the opposition party.
By the way, how was Obama treated by the number one cable news channel, Fox News Channel, or Fox Business Channel, The Drudge Report, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, breitbart.com, the National Review, and the rest of talk radio...on and on I could go with conservative media outlets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #35)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:21 PM

40. Thats because Obama could fuck up a wet dream

In spite of that, the mainstream media was in LOVE with Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #35)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:25 PM

43. Uh, the SOTH is nominated and voted on by all members of the House of Representatives...

"35. Uh the United States of America is a REPUBLIC....That means federal government selected by elected representatives of the people. Americans who care enough to vote decide who represents them and in 2018 53% of voters selected a Democratic representative in elections for the House of Representatives. Those votes moved the minority leader to the Speaker’s chair."

...just where the f*ck did you get the idea that the minority leader automatically becomes SOTH when their party regains the majority in the house????????????????????????????????



And here's a link to my source...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:09 AM

29. Why does the rightist insist on starting a trade war or any war for that matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #29)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:44 AM

30. Which ''rightist'' gave China permanent most favored nation trade status??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #30)

Thu May 16, 2019, 11:53 AM

31. Bush 1, I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #31)

Thu May 16, 2019, 12:38 PM

33. Lol @ the NPC for not knowing it was Clinton that have China MFN status

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #33)

Thu May 16, 2019, 03:42 PM

36. This type of thing is why Adopt-A-Liberal Week is so important.

We have so much to teach them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Reply #36)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:15 PM

37. They are teachable Fred, if they were they would not support the democRAT party today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #33)

Thu May 16, 2019, 07:43 PM

39. I understand. In your world of revisionist history,Clinton and all Dems are to blame for everything.

But here are the facts:

Carter gave China MFN status in 1980.

George Bush Sr. renewed it.

Bill Clinton renewed it.

GW Bush made it permanent in 2001.


NPC indeed.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #39)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:26 PM

41. lol @ the racist npc for not understanding how politics work

BTW NPC, you claimed it was Bush that gave it I pointed out it was Clinton knowing you would do a google search to try and find someone to take the heat off your criminal Clinton. And in doing so you prove my point that it was the democRATs that gave the MFN status to China OR is it in your programmer's opinion that Carter was not a DemocRAT?

lol @ NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #41)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:19 PM

42. I understand how somebody who is either lying or has no idea what they are talking about works.

What a pathetic load of babble to try and defend your RW programming. At least I said "I believed" it was Bush 1 who first started it, leaving room for error before I actually looked up the facts. You on the other hand are still blaming Clinton and Democrats when Republican POTUS's renewed MFN status for China equally.

BTW, GW Bush actually made it PERMAMENT.



Keep on pretending that you are some kind of oracle to cover your refusal to accept the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #39)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:43 PM

45. ''GW Bush made it permanent in 2001''...gotta link to your source to prove that???

Here, maybe this will help you............

"In the last year of his presidency, Bill Clinton called on Congress to help him change China’s normal trade relations status with the U.S. to permanent. This would amend the Trade Act of 1974 which had the trade status of China annually reviewed to determine the best course of action. The piece of legislation was introduced to the house as H.R. number 4444 on May 15, 2000 by William Reynolds Archer, a Republican Representative from Texas (he had three cosponsors). Introduce to the house the legislation referred to the Ways and Means committee in the House of Representatives to be amended and written up. The legislation was introduced by saying that the bill was a top priority for the rest of the year and it was vital to the U.S. agriculture market to have access to a market that accounts for one-fifth of the world’s population.

The other crucial point made was the involvement the U.S. needed to help the workers of the People’s Republic of China to lead better lives. Congress added some important points into the legislation to make sure that when China entered the World Trade Organization it could be reprimanded for crimes against the workers of the country, and certain markets would be mutually exclusive between the two countries. The People’s Republic of China’s businesses had to abide by human rights for their workers as stated in the internationally recognized worker rights. To monitor the workers’ rights Congress established the Congressional–Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China. The commission was to monitor acts of China which reflect compliance or violation, compile lists of persons believed to be imprisoned, detained, or tortured due to pursuit of their human rights, monitor the development of the rule of law in China, and encourage the development of programs and activities of the U.S. government and private organizations with a goal of increasing the interchange of people and ideas. The committee formed, along with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the International Trade Commission (ITC) was to give an annual report to the President.

Congress believed that they needed to pass a bill that would help the economy stay stimulated if not have a higher growth than at the time. The most productive and trouble-free way to keep the economy growing strong was to outsource and trade more with China. China was to help provide America with superior markets in industry, agriculture, and technology. Congress as whole thought that without these things America would fall behind economically and technologically to some enemies of America. If China did not get support from America they could go to another country that would not be so strict on their treatment of people, and they could use that country to gain access to the WTO. The down side to this was that no markets could provide and receive China’s goods like the United States markets could.

The International Trade Commission’s report was the determination of China’s impacts on United States market, and how those certain disruptions can be remedied or expanded. The ITC was to find what domestic industries were being hurt by the trade and to present how the repair could be made. This was the most important part of the bill for most of the country. The bill breaks down to depending on how the different markets in the U.S. economy are doing it can use China’s markets as a catalyst to help stabilize when need be.

The bill created a stir among Congress and the American people when presented because people did not believe that America could actually do anything to help regulate China’s treatment of workers. Aside from people’s rights activists many business men believed in the bill to help flourish the different areas of industry. The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on May 24, 2000 and by the Senate on September 19, 2000. Members of the senate wanted to add in amendments on treating their workers even better than stated in previous legislation, and to make the punishment for breaking the rules greater. Congress was up for re-election that year so due to time constraints all twenty four amendments were rejected. The President signed on Oct 10, 2000 and that day it became Public Law No: 106-286.

US imports from China more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2015, increasing the decline of US manufacturing jobs. Since the passing of the bill there have been three attempts to repeal the PNTR with China. The strongest attempt was in 2005 when House Rep. Bernie Sanders and 61 co-sponsors introduced a legislation that would repeal the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Rep. Sanders said to the house, "anyone who takes an objective look at our trade policy with China must conclude that is an absolute failure and needs to be fundamentally overhauled". The Representative goes into numbers of the trade deficit increased and the number of American jobs being lost to our overseas competitors. One point that Sanders did not make due to time constraints and the legislation being passed so quickly was that nothing in the way China treats its workers has changed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #45)

Fri May 17, 2019, 09:24 AM

46. GW Bush signed it into law.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011227-2.html

You are wrong. Going to try another 6 paragraph cut and paste to try and keep you and specs from looking so ignorant of the facts?



If you really want to get into it, it was Nixon's 1972 trip to China to kiss Mao's ass that started the whole thing.

Nixon, the legendary Commie hater cuddling up with a Red Communist. Typical Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #46)

Fri May 17, 2019, 12:47 PM

49. ''GW Bush signed it into law''...uh, you source says ''Today the President signed a proclamation''..

...you do understand the difference, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #49)

Fri May 17, 2019, 01:43 PM

69. You do understand it granted China permanent MFN status, right?

Keep dancing and wiggling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #69)

Fri May 17, 2019, 04:51 PM

70. ''Keep dancing and wiggling''...says the poster who believes a proclamation equals law....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #31)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:37 PM

44. Nope, try googling Public Law No: 106-286 and see who signed it into law................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2019, 09:42 AM

47. Because the reason for our trade imbalance

goes directly to the leftist ideology that the US has to take it on the chin when trading as an apology for success. If we have trade deals that are equal then we aren't doing our duty to redistribute some of our wealth to others. Plus that might make them upset and they might do bad things to us. So we have to keep apologizing to the world for our lone super power status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #47)

Fri May 17, 2019, 11:08 AM

48. That is exactly it. Well stated, Valishin.*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #47)

Fri May 17, 2019, 01:01 PM

50. Yep, lefties love bowing (aka grabbing their ankles) to the rest of the world...

...must be their white guilt issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #50)


Response to quad489 (Reply #50)


Response to quad489 (Reply #50)


Response to quad489 (Reply #50)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)


Response to Fred Sanford (Original post)

Politicspolitics