Cooked Crack Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: We changed our trade policy with respect to China with the idea that increased trade would bring about liberalization and democratization. That's failed. All we've done is made a totalitarian, non-democratic, communist, expansionist government more wealthy. Admitting it and as part of that adjusting our trade policies with respect to China makes a lot of sense. I doubt that will happen any time soon because of what it would mean to US companies that use China as a supplier (and so make more profits for themselves even if it is really costing us money/security) and US companies trying to enter the Chinese economy. Those companies aren't going to want us to trade our policies with respect to China. Doesn't making China dependent on that sweet, sweet moola that we provide (and our dependence on stuff) go at least some of the way towards preventing altercations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 14 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: At least he's not claiming to have been treated worse than Jesus, again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 Well, if Trump wants the Lincoln treatment; America can oblige. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, The 12th Commandment said: Doesn't making China dependent on that sweet, sweet moola that we provide (and our dependence on stuff) go at least some of the way towards preventing altercations? That isn't really a knowable thing. But the idea that trade somehow stymies wars isn't a very well supported thing. Germany's #1 trade partner before both world wars was France. Didn't stop them from invading France in either one. And then we essentially had minimal trade with the Soviets and there was never a serious altercation. We opened up trade with Russia. The research goes back and forth in terms of the effect of trade an altercations. e.g. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/does-trade-integration-contribute-peace https://ehb.ucsd.edu/pdfs/wt.pdf I suspect in the case of China where they've wanted to claim Taiwan before we changed our policy what we've mostly done is enable them where they've been able to build up their military to the point that successfully invading Taiwan at least seem reasonably possible. When I was in high school, nobody thought China could invade Taiwan because they didn't have the capability. That's no longer the case. And that's largely because of changes in our policy and first granting the MFN status and then entry into the WTO. (Over turning their MFN status would actually be a reasonable first step (requires a law from Congress) of changing the status quo.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said: Well, if Trump wants the Lincoln treatment; America can oblige. It'd be like throwing a match on all of us covered in gasoline, though, some of us seem to hate each other right now and looking for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, The 12th Commandment said: Doesn't making China dependent on that sweet, sweet moola that we provide (and our dependence on stuff) go at least some of the way towards preventing altercations? Are they dependent on that, or are they biding their time and building themselves up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 minute ago, PokerPacker said: Are they dependent on that, or are they biding their time and building themselves up? Their economy isn't in good shape. They're bleeding badly over real estate. Unemployment is high. Manufacturing for trade has to be something that would be very painful for them to give up. If it makes them think twice, along with all the other reasons to think twice, about acting belligerently that's good. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball Security Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 That’s the tone he needs to take. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Only thing I don't like was how he talks about them all going to the polls on the same day. Oh - why is he saying the Dems aren't for the working people? The GOP is for the working people? I knew he was going to both sides some part of this. Let's ignore the unspoken we can't call it racism part. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, Fergasun said: Only thing I don't like was how he talks about them all going to the polls on the same day. Even if everyone went outside after voting and flashed their tits?... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 What’s the population of Brazil vs us? Also, each state and each locality runs their election in different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, 88Comrade2000 said: What’s the population of Brazil vs us? 215 million vs 330 million. 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 How many zeroes in a Brazilian? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 He then talks about all the legal cases that have failed or been dropped. Omg... I can't believe simping for this guy. He literally has exposed our politicians as just simps. (MY paraphrase) "I blindly love Donald Trump and I will follow him to the end because my political career depends on it.... because this is the only way I can support my billionaire donors... because we don't need decency and respect." 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 4 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said: Also, each state and each locality runs their election in different ways. Yeah, he said that in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 13 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said: Yeah, he said that in the video. Yes. But the qualification is a Constitutional qualification. So maybe a state, I will throw out Texas could allow the GOP to nominate GW Bush again, even if he is ineligible to serve. But another state like Maine or Colorado has a ballot requirement eligibility to hold office. So the political parties have to follow that rule. I think Minnesota has that rule for their election. It could very well end up that SCOTUS upholds these challenges and says, "we will detemine eligibility post election". What if Kamala Harris says, "I can't certify Trump due to 14th Amendment"? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 40 minutes ago, Fergasun said: What if Kamala Harris says, "I can't certify Trump due to 14th Amendment"? I'm no oracle, but I don't think white supremacists take too kindly to black women invoking the 14th amendment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 16 hours ago, Fergasun said: Only thing I don't like was how he talks about them all going to the polls on the same day. Oh - why is he saying the Dems aren't for the working people? The GOP is for the working people? I knew he was going to both sides some part of this. Let's ignore the unspoken we can't call it racism part. It isn't just that. One side is running somebody that is a son of wealthy real estate owner in NYC (who came by his money from his parents), went to a private prep school, then onto UPENN, upon graduating from college went to work for daddy's company, and then eventually started is own NYC real estate company with a "loan" from daddy, and doesn't appear to have ever done anything to help anybody that didn't benefit him. And it is the other side that is elitist. And being elitist is so bad that it is an excuse to vote for Trump. Once upon I took Maher some what seriously. Any more he seems to be just as much part of the problem as he is the solution and just spews nonsense to collect a pay check. Edited January 29 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 @PeterMP It really ticked me off, because I was writing s comment to be like - "Wow! He fully jugulared the GOP!" and then he turns and knifed the democrats. Yeah, a populist party led by the fakiest populists ever! How is wanting a functioning American government "elitist?" The GOP has been the "burn it all down to hell" party since Obama. "Make America Great Again?!" What the hell was so great about the 70s and 80s (is that even what they are talking about?). You are no longer proud to be American? And Biden's background? The leader of the elites. Public university for undergraduate and law school, son who served in the military (to he fair that is the son's choice), fairly middle-left politician but well-known Democratic Senator, not afraid to speech his mind and advocate (for his moderate positions), commuting to DC via Amtrack. But his son is a drug addict and went off the rails after he lost his brother to cancer and we all know this because his laptop was publically and likely illegally leaked (which I know there's a civil trial on). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabbyrwock Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 40 minutes ago, Fergasun said: What the hell was so great about the 70s and 80s Mostly the hair 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Fergasun said: "Make America Great Again?!" What the hell was so great about the 70s and 80s (is that even what they are talking about?). It's the 1950s Jim Crow South they want to return to. 😉 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now