Jump to content

Featured Replies

30 minutes ago, TEW said:

Here’s an article from supreme Trump supporters WaPo and Bloomberg to give you an idea of how we have them in a strangle hold. We’ve just got to keep starving them of dollars to win this Cold War, but it’s basically guaranteed that Biden and crew will bail them out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-dollar-squeeze-is-coming-for-chinainc/2020/03/24/4b2cdbc0-6e23-11ea-a156-0048b62cdb51_story.html

TrUmP iS sTaRvInG cHiNa oF doLLaRs!

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

8 hours ago, Gannan said:

You can’t possibly be this stupid.

He's demonstrated multiple times now that he is. 

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

TrUmP iS sTaRvInG cHiNa oF doLLaRs!

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

If you could do basic math you might notice two straight years of 100 billion dollar declines. This as China spends its dollars to prop up its own currency.

You people really have no idea what you’re talking about.

35 minutes ago, TEW said:

If you could do basic math you might notice two straight years of 100 billion dollar declines. This as China spends its dollars to prop up its own currency.

You people really have no idea what you’re talking about.

:roll: You're so easily refuted it's hilarious. This year is still ongoing and these declines were from two straight years of all-time highs due to a pointless trade war, you knuckle-dragging moron. Here's a simplified breakdown for your feeble mind to more easily digest...

2008: -268B

2009: -227B (reduction of annual deficit by 42B)

2010: -273B (increase of annual deficit by 46B)

2011: -295B (increase of annual deficit by 22B)

2012: -315B (increase of annual deficit by 20B)

2013: -318B (increase of annual deficit by 3B)

2014: -345B (increase of annual deficit by 27B)

2015: -367B (increase of annual deficit by 22B)

2016: -347B (reduction of annual deficit by 20B)

2017: -375B (increase of annual deficit by 28B)

2018: -419B (increase of annual deficit by 44B)

2019: -345B (reduction of annual deficit by 74B)

2020: -223B through Sept, projected to be ~310B (reduction of annual deficit by 35B)

Average deficit from 2009-2016: -311B

Average deficit from 2017-2020: -362B

 

There will be a day where making you look like the asbolute F'ing idiot that you are begins to get old and unamusing, but today is not that day.

 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

:roll: You're so easily refuted it's hilarious. This year is still ongoing and these declines were from two straight years of all-time highs due to a pointless trade war, you knuckle-dragging moron. Here's a simplified breakdown for your feeble mind to more easily digest...

2008: -268B

2009: -227B (reduction of annual deficit by 42B)

2010: -273B (increase of annual deficit by 46B)

2011: -295B (increase of annual deficit by 22B)

2012: -315B (increase of annual deficit by 20B)

2013: -318B (increase of annual deficit by 3B)

2014: -345B (increase of annual deficit by 27B)

2015: -367B (increase of annual deficit by 22B)

2016: -347B (reduction of annual deficit by 20B)

2017: -375B (increase of annual deficit by 28B)

2018: -419B (increase of annual deficit by 44B)

2019: -345B (reduction of annual deficit by 74B)

2020: -223B through Sept, projected to be ~310B (reduction of annual deficit by 35B)

Average deficit from 2009-2016: -311B

Average deficit from 2017-2020: -362B

 

There will be a day where making you look like the asbolute F'ing idiot that you are begins to get old and unamusing, but today is not that day.

 

:roll: 

Yes, ish for brains, the declines were from all time highs in 2018. That’s precisely the point — that’s when the tariffs were imposed. Good economy = high consumption. Tariffs on China = lower trade with China. Hence the shrinking trade deficit after the tariffs.

The fact that you think you refuted me is hilarious. :lol: 

10 minutes ago, TEW said:

:roll: 

Yes, ish for brains, the declines were from all time highs in 2018. That’s precisely the point — that’s when the tariffs were imposed. Good economy = high consumption. Tariffs on China = lower trade with China. Hence the shrinking trade deficit after the tariffs.

The fact that you think you refuted me is hilarious. :lol: 

So your definition of "starving" is merely getting us back to the same level we were at when Trump took office.

We'Re WiNniNg tHe CoLd WaR!

:roll: :roll: :roll: 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

So your definition of "starving" is merely getting us back to the same level we were at when Trump took office.

We'Re WiNniNg tHe CoLd WaR!

:roll: :roll: :roll: 

With a larger economy... I know things like ratios are too complex for you to comprehend, but they’re kind of important.

Combine that with their need to prop up their currency by selling, and service USD denominated debt, and YES, we absolutely have them in a choke hold.

30 minutes ago, TEW said:

With a larger economy... I know things like ratios are too complex for you to comprehend, but they’re kind of important.

Combine that with their need to prop up their currency by selling, and service USD denominated debt, and YES, we absolutely have them in a choke hold.

tenor.gif?itemid=12540386

So after I've proved we haven't been starving them of dollars, now it's time to break out some vague references of a larger economy with complex ratios :lol: 

We know, sport. Anything to avoid admitting you've been wrong after four years of gagging on that old man's wrinkly sack.

6 hours ago, TEW said:

With a larger economy... I know things like ratios are too complex for you to comprehend, but they’re kind of important.

Combine that with their need to prop up their currency by selling, and service USD denominated debt, and YES, we absolutely have them in a choke hold.

We always did.  At least according to you.

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

49 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Not sure if I like this. I’d prefer something more high profile for Pete, in anticipation of a 2024 run. 

  • Author
13 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

 

What's with alabama senators becoming AG?

 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Doesn't he speak decent French? Why not send him to an ally and mend fences?

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Doesn't he speak decent French? Why not send him to an ally and mend fences?

Profile I'd imagine. They want to up his exposure and give him an HW Bush-esque route to the white house. Just a guess though. 

On 11/25/2020 at 8:43 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

You're dealing with a foe who doesn't care if they hurt their people. There is a limit to the lengths they will go that damages their economy, but China has a population more than willing to suffer for their government, and pay a privilege for doing so.

It's pure hubris to believe that America has more tolerance for pain than China. If you go into negotiations thinking that your leverage is they need us more than we need them, you've already lost.

If the Chinese could tolerate pain to the extent you believe the nationalists would still be in power. 

On 11/25/2020 at 9:17 AM, TEW said:

China's #1 concern is social stability because they fear a revolution. This idea that the Chinese population will just suffer in silence is completely detached from reality. 
 

And yes, China needs us FAR more than we need them. Global manufacturing and supply chains can move. It’s already started, in actuality. But Dollar access must come from the US, and without the dollar, China can’t pay off debts, can’t prop up its currency, and can’t buy commodities like oil.

Pretty much this. 

less mug shots. 

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/15/xinjiang-china-more-than-half-a-million-forced-to-pick-cotton-report-finds

what was that about the Chinese government not being able to get its people to eat way more ish than Americans?

So trying to be more communist than China might not be such a smart plan after all? Darn.

 

 

And she said Mitch McConnell is terrible.

image.gif.0df1a0b6efd755b019f2ee1b530eccbf.gif

On 12/15/2020 at 2:30 PM, VanHammersly said:

 

 

Huh...I'm kinda torn here.  On one hand I don't know if transportation is a great avenue to the presidency and I like Petey Pants.  On the other hand I think Infrastructure is kind of a big thing we ignore too much cause it's boring AF and I like that we have a big name there.  

What will a Biden administration look like?

Answer: like Minority Bingo

I love identity politics!  Martin Luther King is so proud!

On 12/17/2020 at 2:58 PM, Mike31mt said:

What will a Biden administration look like?

Answer: like Minority Bingo

I love identity politics!  Martin Luther King is so proud!

Do you have any comment on the individuals being discussed for specific positions in the administration or are you just angry that they’re not all the same race?

9 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Do you have any comment on the individuals being discussed for specific positions in the administration or are you just angry that they’re not all the same race?

I wouldn't take Mike seriously. He has the same response when he sees two black people at a white person's wedding. 

Like America. 

Create an account or sign in to comment