General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Killed The Cat
CNN
comments

Comments by "Killed The Cat" (@killedthecat1034) on "Trump tariffs taking toll on trucking industry" video.

Lupe Benavidez and don't forget all those Wall Street executives that Trump said he would clear out because they were the swamp
2
@franksmith7419 yes! How dare CNN point out how Trump stupid ass strongman tactics are screwing over average Americans in a variety of ways. Those bastards! 🙄
2
@mrlopez5009 Its funny how the people who only seem to be sacrificing with Trump are the lower and middle class. While he's just made friends with all those swamp monsters he promised to bounce out.
1
@ericmartin2470 Well... I don't need to hear I'm right. But thanks. I was simply pointing out an obvious flaw in stratagy, given all the pieces on the board. Unfortunately I have to disagree with the rest of what you said. To be clear, the issue was not instituting tariffs at all. The issue was the amount of tariffs there instituting. That is where they broke the rules. Here is what I would have done if I was him. I would have instituted the tariffs that are capable under the current rules in the deal with WTO. I would have used the clause in that same deal and at the same time to renegotiate the deal and the amount of tariffs that are allowed to be put on China. I would have a good argument with that as well. Because the WTO was written back in the 70s when China was a less developed state. So the argument that they use to get the Tariff limitations that they have is that if they go higher than a certain amount it could bankrupt their economy. That argument is no longer valid and therefore the terrorist should be increased. If he had done that, then he would have been able to sanction the smaller amount of tariffs and increase them when the rules were changed. He would have also had all those countries that are standing against him right now, standing with him. That Global pressure alone would have put America in an amazing negotiating stamps when it came to trade Wars. Sometimes it's just better to use the carrot than it is the stick. " instead the US should leave the WTO, break all ties to China and impose sanctions. The US would no longer do any kind of business with China and countries that do business with China." Sorry but that's a massive overreaction that would end up screwing us so hard. First... China owns most of our debt. II WTO is where we do all of our trade. 3rd China is also one of the largest markets for trade and therefore no other country would be willing to sacrifice China for us especially if China called in there debt on us. Here's the trouble. China has done a damn fine job setting themselves up for being unexpendable. You have to acknowledge that to get anywhere good. It doesn't mean they're untouchable. It does mean you have to be just as smart when trying to put them back in their place.
1
@ericmartin2470 No... It's not that we have been letting it go.... We have done it. We do it. That's why we don't call it out. We are right there with them. Have been all along. With everything from trade, to wars and even Nukes. Why do you think the world scoffs in discussed every time we decide to tell another country they can't have nuclear weapons. Where is literally the only country in the world who is ever dropped them on a civilian population. We have more of them then almost everybody. But we get to decide what countries get them in what countries don't. Don't fool yourself. We play the game all around with everybody else.
1
@mrlopez5009 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I mean... Really Sad Boy. The best you can do is misquoting me? Thats all you got as a defense of your Dear Leader? You can't come up with substance. Then again, if that attempt is really all you can come up with then maybe your just so stupid that you can't understans basic sentence structure. But just for posterity.... " and how long exactly do you think those are going to last with his infrastructure temper tantrum? He walked out of a meeting, like a child, and then 📌went right out on the front lawn to video cameras to basically try and blackmail the Democrats into not investigating him anymore or he won't do the infrastructure deal.📌 That right there is obstruction of justice by itself. Now since I know you're slow I highlighted the portions of that very small paragraph that you should have paid attention to. Its the words that are in between the red tacks. Now... For defining obstruction of justice. Though I'm a little concerned that some of these words might be a little to big for you. " the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming or impeding a witness, potential witness, jury, or judicial or legal officer or by Furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process."
1
@mrlopez5009 Oh... That was just me getting down to your level there sugar tits. Which I don't mind doing. By the way, is you're going to go about criticizing people for getting down to your level a discourse then maybe you shouldn't have gone down there in the first place. "We already know is weak" Aww! Are all the people in your head weighing in as well? Will tell them b**** I said hey! Lol
1
@mrlopez5009 and while you're at it ask them to qualify your dumbass statement about how, " You might find the country is doing just fine under the leadership of President Trump."
1
@ericmartin2470 Well... To start... The tariffs themselves violate the agreement. Trump Proclamation imposes a 25% ad valorem tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum articles as of March 23rd The measure is inconsistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the WTO agreement on safeguards. It does so in part by not taking into consideration National Security. The new tariffs exceed the bound REITs the US has committed to under the WTO rules. China isn't the only one that thinks so either. Many countries have gone so far as to contest the action and are taking measures to stop it. Including in those are Japan, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand, turkey, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Pakistan, Norway, Australia, India, El Salvador, Switzerland, Paraguay, Guatemala and Kazakhstan.
1
@ericmartin2470 not to mention the irony of breaking the WTO rules in order to punish another country for breaking the WTO rules.
1
@ericmartin2470 "Sadly, there are a lot of ignorant people that have access to a microphone." - Diego Luna
1
@mrlopez5009 why have we been running a trade deficit for longer than I was born? Which by the way was 1984. Why should we get to change the rules when we're running a trade deficit because of our actions? I mean there was a point in time when China was where we are now and they climb their way out of it without having to change those rules. Why should we get to change those rules because we are in a trade deficit? We're not in Congress in this isn't the filibuster we're talkin about here.
1
@ericmartin2470 I would start by not acting like I'm the world's police and following the tariffs rules that were actually set in place for such an occasion. Because all those countries argument isn't that they shouldn't percent tariffs to China. Their argument is the tariffs they are presenting are going way overboard and outside the lines and rules in the WTO.
1
@mrlopez5009 alright... Calm down there spanky. Was just giving you the acurate number sense you mentioned it and so you could be accurate. I was not contesting it. Lol That's not a bad argument. Where the argument goes off the rails however is there are ways to adjust these rules. What Trump is doing now is not that. He is essentially breaking those rules in order to punish someone for breaking those rules. Which makes China absolutely correct when they say we're being hypocrite. Which gives them a platform to argue from upon which all these other countries could very rightfully jump in and did. In short there is negotiating new rules for a new era or thinking it's totally cool to break those rules because someone else is. this isn't the third grade it's world government.
1
@mrlopez5009 as I said that's not a bad point but the way Trump is going about it is stupid. It's just not smart. It does not put us in a good negotiating standpoint for actually changing these rules. It pivots half the world of the WTO against him. Now if you want to go about changing these rules there are mechanisms to allow for that. He's not doing that and he's hurting to the position he would have in those arguments with what he is doing. Now all they have to say well it's cool if he breaks the rules or why can't the rest of us.
1
@ericmartin2470 Except Mark didn't say anything about not knowing anything about tariffs. But nice try on setting up that paper tiger though.
1
@ericmartin2470 you know.... like is Luke doing right now. While you call him out and have him ask me things. He's actually arguing the point, like an adult. We are doing... What ppl call in the adult world... Having a healthy debate. Where I'm acknowledging his points and he's acknowledging mine and then we present counterpoint's to each other. You're really just supposed to learn this in high school debate but now I'm kind of wondering if you ever got that far.
1
@mrlopez5009 okay.... A few questions. Like, I'm not trying to trick you or anything. I'm just confused about a few points and need some clarification before I reply further. If you got my point then how is his tactic unorthodox and not just down right not good? How does China holding the largest amount of US debt give them less wiggle room and not more? I asked that because that is essentially giving them the American nuke button. If things got really bad, all they would have to do is call in the debt ( and yes I know full well it's more complicated than that but for argument's sake ) bankrupt us... And sure they would take a big hit but they have been preparing for this for a long time now. That is why they started making those moves with trade. They basically knew they could get away with it. It's more complicated than that obvy but... Anyways... That the first question. Okay but she didn't get a deal with North Korea and we also work trying to go to war with North Korea before he really brought it up. Yeah Kim Jong crazy pants would fire off some Rockets every once in awhile and wave his dick around but we weren't worried about it. It's just not that serious of a threat and he's asked elated in other wars were in and now talking about sending more troops to the Middle East. As far as a trade War he's actions are going to get us in a trade war with two different countries right now. And the ones that we import the most from. Okay another question... Why do you value a living wage through economic growth and not Minimum Wage Enforcement? Also I really don't get the thing on how Trump is doing good things for the environment. I mean just the deregulations alone then he is enacted, is in the middle of enacting and have plans to enact in the future is crazy bad for the environment. I can give you a list if you want. He won't even let people talk about climate change. At least on his people. Well I'm bisexual and I'm very offended on a regular basis about what he says about my transgender friends. Trying to kick them out of military. Don't even get me started on the bathroom stuff. And again not trying to be rude but you would be wrong about it being a mental illness. That was the consensus back in the day but today and through years and years of studying and multiple doctors points of view and a million other things... Thats just simply not the conscience the medical professionals have come to anymore. Also.... Why shouldn't transgender be in the military? That puberty blockers thing for young children is just a scare tactic. Most medical professionals wouldn't even entertain the idea and most liberals don't believe that. They do believe when they get older and they're ready to transition they should be allowed to. I'm going to have to look up the pharmaceutical thing because I don't know enough about it and this is the first time I've heard it. But I will The Last Vegas thing isn't best anecdotal sweetheart. I live in Louisiana and that is just not the case here but I don't bring that up because it's just one spot you know? So you're not going to hear an argument from me about then focusing way too much on Russia and not enough on policy. I don't agree with you on a lot of what you think he's doing and so my tactic would be to attack him on those policies. The Russia thing it's not unimportant but it's not the whole ballgame and if that's what they run on next time then they're going to lose. Because at the end of the day Russia doesn't make every Americans day today better or worse. I will disagree with you on the racist thing and if you like I will give you mounds of proof about that and explain to you why that is important. Anyways if you want to answer those two questions and kind of hash that out that would be great. it's nice talking to you
1
@ericmartin2470 well if you see it is a cop out then it must be true, right.... Why don't you answer me a few questions. How can America hold the rest of the world to the rules and deals that it makes with them if it does not have hold them itself? Why do you think the better idea is to break the deal that you made instead of renegotiating it, on the guys of punishing somebody else for breaking the deal? How does that put America in a strong negotiating stance when it comes to renegotiating the terms of the deal? Keeping your word with other world leaders is not doing nothing. Using diplomacy instead of strongman bullying tactics that put you in a worse position then you would have been originally is not doing nothing. Holding yourself to the same standard you intend the hold the rest of the world when you're a world superpower is not doing nothing. Sanctioning them per the deal and the regulations of it is not doing nothing. They are all doing things. So is my answer. There is a difference between nothing and what you think they should do. I don't know if your mother ever told you this but the world doesn't revolve around you sweetheart.
1
@ericmartin2470 and you are making things up by assuming that not doing what you think they should do is doing nothing. That is factually inaccurate. So here's another question for you. Why do you think we have the right or authority to act as the world's policeman? And let's say it was totally cool to act like the world's policeman. Being that, why would you think it would be a good idea to then be the world's policeman and not follow the rules and regulations that we try and enforce?
1
@mrlopez5009 I will see you then!! Have a good night yourself 😉
1
@ericmartin2470 Hey! Guy! You rememeber that whole thing where ya got all self-righteous before and told me I "didn't answer the question". Well now, you are infact not answering the question. " rules like not annexing other country territory by force? Or an agreement such as IP theft or currency manipulation? Could you name some instances of the US doing this?" You not only didn't answer the question. You completely ignored the subject matter and asked 3 questions of your own. So why dont you answer the question.... Unless you want to explain how those 3 questions you asked instead of answering my question was actually answeing the question? How can America hold the rest of the world to the rules and deals that it makes with them if it does not hold them itself?
1
@ericmartin2470 in the mean time I'll answer yours. " Rules like holding other countries territories by force?" That question doesn't make any Sense in the context you put it in... Which is why its not a good idea to answer a question with a question. First bc they are 2 different countries your talking about. Second bc that didn't have anything to do with any kind of deal. Third because I'm not aware of any deal the u.s. had with anyone about Russia not annexing Crimea. This goes back to that whole world police thing dude. We're not Crimea. We're not Russia.
1
@ericmartin2470 ... And Wow! Really? You don't know the details of the WTO issue that we have been talking about all along? Seriously? The tariffs dude! The tariffs are not with in agreement with the WTO. Trump, as usual is going overbored. The US tariff measure is inconsistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the WTO agreement on safeguards. The presidential Proclamation imposes a 25% ad valorem tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum. It exceeds the bound rate the US committed to under the WTO rules. Trump is trying to say that This falls under some kind of National Security WTO exemption rule. Except it doesn't. Which is why a ton of other countries are backing China right now. It's also why China can stand up and call us hypocrites. Japan, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand, turkey, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Pakistan, Norway, Australia, India, El Salvador, Switzerland, Paraguay, Guatemala and Kazakhstan. He is literally breaking the rules of the WTO in order to punish somebody else for breaking the rules of the WTO.
1
@ericmartin2470 "Or an agreement such as IP theft or currency manipulation?" That one actually kinda makes sense in the context this time.... Thanks god.... Even though it still isnt answering the question. Your answer is.... You sanction them. You give them tariffs. Tariffs that are within the rules of the WTO, mind you, but yes give them tariffs. If you feel like those tariffs are not enough then there is recompense within the WTO deal to go through the process of upping the tariffs and changing the rules. The messed up part is he would have a good argument for that if he had bothered making it. The WTO was made back in the seventies when China was more of an impoverished country and therefore they said they could only tariff them to a small degree because their government and economy could not handle any more than that. Those times have changed. So if he came at it from that angle he'd be sitting in a damn strong position but he's not. He's putting America in a weaker position and aligning all these countries against us because of how he is going about it and because he doesn't feel like he has to honor the deal that he's trying to punish somebody else for not honoring.
1
@ericmartin2470 there are a few problems with you continuing to quote Edmund Burke to me. Not counting the argument that these are complex matters and should be. So there for its not generally a good idea to make rash decisions with peoples lives based off of a quote that your taking out of context. One, of your referring to Trump.... He is not a good man. With mountians of evidence to back it up. But if your referring to Russia annexing Crimea.... It was messed up but not unlike what Trump is doing now with the GTO. In the sense that they both are using the wrong tactic, and therefore weakened their argument by doing the wrong thing and breaking the rules to get something done which, had they gone about it in a different way, would have probably worked out in there favor. Russia and Vladimir Putin actually had a good argument for reclaiming Crimea. For a lot of reasons. Not the least of which was the people of Crimea wanted to be Russian citizens instead of Ukrainian citizens. Also Crimea was originally Russian territory. Had he come about it the right way, he would have probably ended up in the same position he's in now except with a stronger stance on the issue and the rest of the world in recognition. Now, we are back to your "doing nothing" thing. America and the other nations did not do nothing. They did a bunch of things actually and within the bounds of laws and rules. Ukraine and many other world leaders condemn the annexation and considered it to be a violation of international law and Russian signed agreements safeguarding the territorial Integrity of Ukraine. This leg to the other members Aldi Dan G8 suspending Russia from the group, then introducing the first round of sanctions against the country. The United Nations General Assembly also rejected the vote and annexation, adopting a non-binding resolution affirming the territorial Integrity of Ukraine within its International recognized borders. The UN resolution also underscores that the referendum having no validity, can't form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea and calls upon all states and international organizations not to recognize or to imply the recognition of Russia's annexation. The assembly reaffirmed non-recognition of the annexation and condemned the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine. In the end, even though Russia's ill-advised strongman tactics was not the best way to get it done, it hurt no one and it is what the people of Crimea wanted. That being the case I would argue that your quote really does not apply to the situation.
1
@ericmartin2470 That is because I wasn't talking about Trump. That was nowhere in the question. So I will rephrase and ask again... In general, should we uphold the rules and regulation that are set forth in the agreements that we make with other countries, if we expect them to do the same?
1
@ericmartin2470 So I quoted you by saying " rules like holding other countries territories by force" Your original quote was this word for word. " rules like not annexing other countries territory by force " Considering we know the topic and they are both essentially saying the exact same thing, your implication that I'm trying to misquote you for some mischievous reason is stupid and a distraction tactic. Unless you would like to explain to me how considering the context, those two phrases aren't saying the same damn thing? It is litterally the difference between the word "holding" and "annexing". So how am I again trying to desperately misquote you? And I understand sarcasm but oddly enough I wouldn't have had a problem with the sarcastic if it answered the damn question.
1
@ericmartin2470 no you're not agreeing with me you're setting up a different narrative than the one that I presented. You wanted your example so damn bad. Your example is in the very thing we've been talking about this entire time and I explained that in detail. Which you should have already known before speaking on the subject by the way. Now you're trying to set up a false premise and in a way that indicates that you still don't understand what is going on in this situation. On top of which you're trying to somehow put the statement of inaccuracy on to me for it. Which is just nonsense. It's also really starting to look like you can't argue your premise so you keep trying to set up paper tigers, change the narrative and just generally seem to be avoiding facts all together that doesn't fit your preconceived notion. But here's the thing, it's not necessary to set up another scenario. The very situation has your example in it. China is screwing around with World economics and has been for a long time. No one's denying that. The argument and premise is trying to punish other countries for breaking the deals we make with them by breaking the deals we make with them... Which is at best I'll advised. It also has consequences. Like we're not the only people in the world and we're eventually going to have to work with the other countries. You know like the ones that are lining up behind China right now because Trump decided to do what he did. Those countries who can no longer trust us to hold up our end of things, but then have to deal with the fact that we expect them to hold up theirs. It also has consequences like it's going to be rejected by the UN. Because you can't punish another country for breaking the rules by breaking the rules yourself. You don't need to set up another scenario or premise. All the details are in the one that we've been talking about all along. No one saying there shouldn't be sanctions or tariffs. All those countries are saying that those need to fall under the rules and regulations of the WTO which America and all these other countries agreed to and signed. Also I'm getting a little tired of not getting actual answers to my questions but then you proceed to keep asking me yours. All I get is deflection tactics and sarcasm.
1
@ericmartin2470 " only if it's a treaty that was approved by the House and Senate per the Constitution of the United States, otherwise it's up to each new Administration." Seriously dude? 😂 Now you're arguing that Trump doesn't have to uphold the WTO treaty that you've been arguing the whole time that China is breaking and there for their wrong? Well then why the hell should China? You're basically arguing we can do whatever the hell we want to do but they have to follow the rules otherwise they get punished. Which doesn't make sense and therefore cancels out your entire argument. Lol
1
@ericmartin2470 well first off, you ain't my daddy. So you can ask me to quote you word-for-word directly but you can't tell me to do so. At least not with the results you want. Second off you knew exactly what I meant and your comment was completely irrelevant to the subject at hand and a distraction tactic so you're lucky I entertained it for as long as I did. Lol
1
@ericmartin2470 okay so now you're going to tell me what the narrative was that we were just talking about. Which by the way originally was not brought up By Me but by you, when you asked me about what I would do to China. You cannot then completely disregard the subject matter just because you can no longer argue your point with it. You brought up the subject of the tariffs and what I would do. Then you argued how what I was doing was nothing. Then after explaining to you that not only what I was doing wasn't nothing ...I explained to you that if you don't like it... There was recourse within the deal (of the WTO) to change that... and that he was not doing that... but doing something else that was stupid and put America in a worse negotiating standpoint.... And so on and so forth. You can not, now that the conversation isn't working out the way you thought it would, completely disregard the entirety of all of that... and then say no we're talkin about this. That's a cop out. A thing that you accused me of before. Me on the other hand, I'm not working backwards. You talking yourself into a corner isn't my problem. So would you like to explain why it's totally cool for America the break the rules but not for China? And let me preface this, I don't like Trump for a variety of reasons but let's just say someone else was president. Let's say it was my very best friend in the world, Sally. If Sally was trying to punish somebody else for breaking the rules by breaking the rules herself, I would still tell her that was a stupid idea. I would explain to her that it puts her in a bad position when it comes to negotiating a damn thing in the future, because noone can trust you to honor your agreement. So in this.... My dear friend... Me, joe, bob, Anne and the rest of the class are going to have to stand up for Sarah and against you because even though we dont like what Sarah is doing either... We don't think you should be the one punishing her given your CHOOSING to do the same thing your punishing her for, in order to punish her. You have lost perspective dear friend and should step back or choose a different tactic. And you know why Sally? Because the only thing necessary for the Triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Sally = America / president Sarah = China Me and all the others being the other countries.
1
@ericmartin2470 that is not at all what we were talking about and now you're changing the subject because you can't argue your point anymore. A point that you brought up to begin with. It's also why you're trying to dip out. But that's cool! I think we all got it now! 😉
1
@ericmartin2470 I don't see the relevance of you quoting me that. Did we or did we not have a whole conversation about that after that quote? Of course we did. Did you or did you not ask me after that about what I would do to china? Of course you did. In which you're accusing me of cop out answers but in reality, I'm answering questions but you don't like the answers and so you call them nothing. Then you proceed to be sarcastic, move the goalposts and generally try dip out of a conversation as soon as you can't answer questions yourself. Now you're trying to change the subject again because you have yet again talked yourself into a corner. Like right now you're trying to do so by trying to bait me into another baseless accusation you have. Which I tell you what sweetheart, I will be happy to talk about as soon as we finish talking about what we were. As soon as you actually answer one of my questions. Specifically, why do you think it is okay for America to break the rules but not for China? And just so you don't get hung up on that whole example thing again, The GTO, china and america are all the example you need. Which I've already explained in great detail. Detail you have already admitted to not even knowing.
1
@ericmartin2470 BUT... If you don't want to answer that question... You could try this one... Why are you forming an opinion on a subject at all that you obviously did not know all the IMPORTANT details about, while at the same time getting all self-righteous about CNN leaving s*** out?
1
@ericmartin2470 oh so I didn't completely clarify that at any point huh? And I haven't said a couple of thousand times now that you don't need a hypothetical or a scenario, you use the actual situation with China America and the WTO? And then you didn't ask me to give you an example of when that happened because you didn't know the details of the subject you've been talking about this whole time? That didn't happen? None of that happened? You don't want to maybe glance up above you? Well here then! I will copy and paste all those details you didn't know about the subject again. Then you can answer the question with out it being a " hypothetical" "Rabbit Hole" kind of situation.
1
@ericmartin2470 here! This is the comment from above that explains the details of the deal that you were ignorant of, yet choose to have an opinion on anyways. Word for word... Sense I know you like that. 😁 "@Eric Martin ... And Wow! Really? You don't know the details of the WTO issue that we have been talking about all along? Seriously? The tariffs dude! The tariffs are not with in agreement with the WTO. Trump, as usual is going overbored. The US tariff measure is inconsistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the WTO agreement on safeguards. The presidential Proclamation imposes a 25% ad valorem tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum. It exceeds the bound rate the US committed to under the WTO rules. Trump is trying to say that This falls under some kind of National Security WTO exemption rule. Except it doesn't. Which is why a ton of other countries are backing China right now. It's also why China can stand up and call us hypocrites. Japan, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand, turkey, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Pakistan, Norway, Australia, India, El Salvador, Switzerland, Paraguay, Guatemala and Kazakhstan. He is literally breaking the rules of the WTO in order to punish somebody else for breaking the rules of the WTO."
1
@ericmartin2470 and I find it really funny how you're now claiming it's a hypothetical that I came up with when you actually argued against those details afterwards in your comment where you said... Word for word.... " only if it's treaty that was approved by the House and Senate per the Constitution of the United States, otherwise it's up to each new administration." So how can I be a hypothetical when not only did I provide specific and realize details to a situation that is going on right now but then you also presented an argument against those details?
1
@ericmartin2470 you should probably just stop using words and phrases that you don't understand or forming opinion on things that you don't have all the details to. ..
1
@ericmartin2470 you know what's funny watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to get out of answering the question. Please quote to me where I said "that the tariffs imposed this year justifies the past 30 years or so"? You keep setting up a scenario, that is either intentionally disturbingly unintentionally has you missing the point. So that you can avoid the question. Your scenario is the equivalent of... well the guy who only kicked 2 puppies should definitely decide how the guy who kick 20 puppy should be punished for it . And the way he decided to punish the guy who kick 20 puppies is to go to that guy's house and kick his puppy. My question was not, comparatively who's been worse?. My question was, Why do you think it's okay for us to break the rules but not china? Because that is essentially what you're arguing. Well they did it worse so we can do it too. Except this is world government and not a child's playground. You need to stop setting up Paper Tigers to tear them down. I think the current tariffs are exactly what I said the current tariffs were. Which I got from the White House press release. So if you think those are something else you should talk to them and not me. I don't feel a damn thing about any of those countries. I watch them step out onto the UN floor and say as much. My feelings do not enter into that equation. I wonder what your next excuse or diversion tactic is going to be.
1
@ericmartin2470 I mean seriously dude.... Is it really gonna kill ya to admit the way he is going about this is not a good way? What is going to happen? Will the world cave in at the thought of Donald J. Trump making a mistake? Or because you actually saying he could handle 1 situation a little better? My Nana use to tell me, "you can be right or you can get shit done". Being qrong is how we learn. All of us. This convo would have moved on ages ago if you had given me the same respect I had originally given you by answering your question. I mean... A blind man can see that doesn't make sense.
1
Turdy that's funny cuz I could have sworn there was all that factual data in the video you're commenting on that shows how stupid that comment actually was
1
@ericmartin2470 Well.... I would do what I said before. "To be clear, the issue was not instituting tariffs at all. The issue was the amount of tariffs there instituting. That is where they broke the rules. Here is what I would have done if I was him. I would have instituted the tariffs that are capable under the current rules in the deal with WTO. I would have used the clause in that same deal and at the same time to renegotiate the deal and the amount of tariffs that are allowed to be put on China. I would have a good argument with that as well. Because the WTO was written back in the 70s when China was a less developed state. So the argument that they use to get the Tariff limitations that they have is that if they go higher than a certain amount it could bankrupt their economy. That argument is no longer valid and therefore the terrorist should be increased. If he had done that, then he would have been able to sanction the smaller amount of tariffs and increase them when the rules were changed. He would have also had all those countries that are standing against him right now, standing with him. That Global pressure alone would have put America in an amazing negotiating stamps when it came to trade Wars. Sometimes it's just better to use the carrot than it is the stick." But that would be just to start. You would have to wait for there move after that. It would be a long game for sure. China would make sure of that. They are good at the long game.... But using the WTO rules to raise the tariffs and getting all those countries on our side with the rules and valid argument would be a good start.... But just a start.
1
@ericmartin2470 The US is not forced to do anything. The US can not force China to do anything on its own. They own most of our debt. To go against China, they need the other countries. At least a good amount of them. You don't get that by breaking the WTO rules that everyone else is upholding. You do it by using the rules to your favor. Appealing to raise tariffs on China due to their growth and gaining the favor of the other countries... And the ones in WTO that are still not on your side, at the very least, can't go out and argue for China and against you because your within the agreement and have a valid argument. Plus no coming out against you and saying you are being unreasonable. Carrot!
1
@ericmartin2470 you don't need a court you just used to WTO rules
1
@ericmartin2470 well the numbers I'm getting say China owns 1.123 trillion dollars of our debt since Dec, 2018. Which you are right. Is not most. Used the wrong term. They hold the majority of it. With Japan coming in second with 1.042 trillion. My point about the debt still stands however. Except the stick screws us over more than it does China. You're not looking at all the pieces. They have a bigger stick. You cannot take them on alone and that's exactly what he would be doing by alienating all the other countries and Not only would he be alienating them they are on China side. The stick gives China all the power. As demonstrated by all the other countries that are aligning with China right now. " the US has exhausted all diplomatic channels and reassurances from the Chinese," Thats not true. I just told you what they should do. Where do you get the information from that " the majority of Americans agree with what Trump is doing"? History is all well and good but you also need to understand the details of the issues at hand, that are happening right now. Why do you think all those other presidents, the Bush's included, didn't go after China like this? It was for good reason. It's because you can't win that way. It's also trumps only play. That play may work on people like Ken Jeong Hoon but it's not going to work on China. They're not simpleton strong men over there. They spent the last thirty years sharing their self up and playing the long game. Which is why they now have a stronger position that was handed to them by Trump strongman tactic. They are no longer now standing alone against us. They have a ton of other countries standing with them and do you see any other country raising their hand back in the house right now?
1
Is there seriously anything else to say other than WTF!
1
@mrlopez5009 and how long exactly do you think those are going to last with his infrastructure temper tantrum? He walked out of a meeting like a child and then went right out on the front lawn to video cameras to basically try and blackmail the Democrats into not investigating him anymore or he won't do the infrastructure deal. That right there is obstruction of justice by itself
1
@mrlopez5009 What in the world do you think that means?
1
@Neil-wu4dt there are people in this world that believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real thing. Doesn't mean it's going to amount to a God damn thing.
1
texas thunder when did they declare war on America? Could you maybe Linkus because I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that might want to know that. Also why is Mexico cartel country? It wouldn't have anything to do with the CIA and the American Drug War, would it?
1
texas thunder exactly how long did you think we could just keep f**** up other countries and then insisting that it's their job to clean up our mess?
1
@ericmartin2470 You can make shit up all you want dude. I gave your answer. Though if you would like to quote my "double talk" feel free. Or is this just you're not so clever way of not having to acknowledge the answer or have a Counterpoint to it. I mean I guess if you want to live your life that way you want. You can be lazy and dismissive... Or you can grow a pair and actually make a Counterpoint. That's entirely up to you.
1