SoS Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I would be fine with some strategic tarriffs. Just not Trump's ridiculous plan to tarriff everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I would be fine with some strategic tarriffs. Just not Trump's ridiculous plan to tarriff everything. Even the globalists do "strategic tariffs" now and then when absolutely necessary to keep the facade going, you supporting them means all of zero. How do you "strategically" get companies in a country who are thinking of moving, and those who have left to stay/move back? Go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandorian Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I don't recall singing any praises of Obama or comparing Bush to him. The culmination of what Bush and his cronies did to the economy imploded at the end of his presidency. Obama tried to undo the sweetheart tax deals Bush made for wall street, unsuccessfully. I didn't say you did praise Obama. I simply pointed out that the man you criticized for being so bad wasn't as bad as his successor who you did not criticize. Obama did "undo" some tax deals by raising the top income tax bracket, yet income inequality is worse. Spin it any way you want, but when poverty is worse every year under Obama than any year under Bush, less percentage of Americans employed and debt much higher than it was before he took office...Obama and his "cronies" have been worse than the evil Darth Bush. Speaking of Wall Street, that's been the primary benefactor of the Obama Presidency. So yeah...Wall Street has been better under Obama than Bush. 1 Quote Elder and Minister of Finance for The Coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I didn't say you did praise Obama. I simply pointed out that the man you criticized for being so bad wasn't as bad as his successor who you did not criticize. Obama did "undo" some tax deals by raising the top income tax bracket, yet income inequality is worse. Spin it any way you want, but when poverty is worse every year under Obama than any year under Bush, less percentage of Americans employed and debt much higher than it was before he took office...Obama and his "cronies" have been worse than the evil Darth Bush. Speaking of Wall Street, that's been the primary benefactor of the Obama Presidency. So yeah...Wall Street has been better under Obama than Bush. Yeah...but, I was comparing Trump to Bush. Obama, whatever his faults, can't be compared to Trump or Bush. Obama has an adult vocabulary and command of the English language. Obama has tact and dignity. Obama didn't cut Wall Street's tax rates. Obama didn't feed bullshit to Americans, allies, etc. in order to spend trillions and kill people to benefit his/their oil holdings. Obama didn't preside over the actions/events leading to one of the greatest economic disasters ever. Trump and Bush are comparable in these qualities that Obama is the opposite of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Even the globalists do "strategic tariffs" now and then when absolutely necessary to keep the facade going, you supporting them means all of zero. How do you "strategically" get companies in a country who are thinking of moving, and those who have left to stay/move back? Go on. There's lots of options that carry benefit without the massive downside of placing tarriffs on everything. Targeted tarriffs (you dismissed - as you dismiss everything that contradicts your narrow agenda. But, I'm far too apathetic to bother with your fallacies) is the most obvious. But no, Trump would even place tarriffs on items that can't be produced in the US. All on a gamble that industry will return. And, we'll maintain a fraction of our standard of living. Which just doesn't seem remotely economically possible. If Trump wasn't talking out of his ass he might have sought some advice or wiki basic macroeconomics, or just have some common knowledge and common sense - he might have realized that. But, he deals in walls and universal tarriffs and Damning 2 billion people for the actions of a few. You do realize these are propaganda, not solutions to complex problems? Of course you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Yeah...but, I was comparing Trump to Bush. Obama, whatever his faults, can't be compared to Trump or Bush. Obama has an adult vocabulary and command of the English language. Obama has tact and dignity. Obama didn't cut Wall Street's tax rates. Obama didn't feed bullshit to Americans, allies, etc. in order to spend trillions and kill people to benefit his/their oil holdings. Obama didn't preside over the actions/events leading to one of the greatest economic disasters ever. Trump and Bush are comparable in these qualities that Obama is the opposite of. Tact and dignity to the point he basically came to Britain and read a speech prepared by Cameron and threatened the British people that America would put them at the back of the queue (not what Obama thinks matters considering he won't be President much longer) if they left the EU. Obama can come across better than he is that much is true, but your championing of him is odd considering he has continued on Bush's work. Wrecked Libya (yes I know, he let France and Britain "take the lead") and would have wrecked Syria too if Putin didn't call his bluff. There's lots of options that carry benefit without the massive downside of placing tarriffs on everything. Targeted tarriffs (you dismissed - as you dismiss everything that contradicts your narrow agenda. But, I'm far too apathetic to bother with your fallacies) is the most obvious. But no, Trump would even place tarriffs on items that can't be produced in the US. All on a gamble that industry will return. And, we'll maintain a fraction of our standard of living. Which just doesn't seem remotely economically possible. If Trump wasn't talking out of his ass he might have sought some advice or wiki basic macroeconomics, or just have some common knowledge and common sense - he might have realized that. But, he deals in walls and universal tarriffs and Damning 2 billion people for the actions of a few. You do realize these are propaganda, not solutions to complex problems? Of course you don't. The irony with it being you speaking. Lets see. I ask what exactly will these targeted tariffs be and how exactly that will have the effect of keeping businesses to stay/come back. Response: I can't be bothered to tell you but Trump is wrong, "targeted tariffs" that will have little effect are superior to tariffs Trump wants because... the globalists told me so and they know business. You have some evidence to support that? Tariffs on companies outsourcing is well known, but tariffs on something like say... fruits not produced in country not so much. In fact I went to check Trump's positions now and while the tariffs on manufacturing that has gone overseas is there, where is what you mention? Your source of information is the globalists you (allegedly) revile. You know many slave owners said slavery was pretty dandy. Many fanatics said burning people was pretty dandy. You could find many today who'll tell you stoning is pretty dandy. Ever think perhaps these globalists who have to stoop to removing context and rigging statistics are not the most honest of folk? I don't doubt when they say it'll be just terrible, for them no doubt, but as a whole? I've seen talk by experts also who say Trump's plan is correct, why don't you listen to them instead of the globalists exactly? Damning 2 billion people? *Yawn* A temporary shutdown, one done many times in the past == Hitler, yeah you're a bit behind if you think thats fresh. Propaganda? Am I reading this right? The fellow who is (allegedly) against globalism but believes everything the globalists say and then supports them is telling me I'm taken in by propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Mmm, coffee for one. REEs for another. I'll let you Google and reply to that before going any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandorian Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) Yeah...but, I was comparing Trump to Bush. Obama, whatever his faults, can't be compared to Trump or Bush. Obama has an adult vocabulary and command of the English language. Obama has tact and dignity. Obama didn't cut Wall Street's tax rates. Obama didn't feed bullshit to Americans, allies, etc. in order to spend trillions and kill people to benefit his/their oil holdings. Obama didn't preside over the actions/events leading to one of the greatest economic disasters ever. Trump and Bush are comparable in these qualities that Obama is the opposite of. The President's vocabulary and command of the English language is about as important as his physical appearance when it comes to actual governing. It has nothing to do with the important issues I listed above- poverty, income inequality, jobs and debt. All of which have been worse under Obama. Ignoring important facts on important issues by deflecting to "command of the English language" is simply rhetoric. Dignity is subjective and I'll disagree there too. Obama raised the top income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% and raised investment income rates, yet income inequality...increased. Again...the economic numbers from percentage of american's employed, poverty, debt...they are all worse, but yes...Wall Street has thrived more during Obama's years in office than Bush's. Just look at the numbers. Deflecting about Bush going to war for his "oil holdings" is just, well....non-existent. I don't like debating by going off topic, which was the Obama economy has been worse than the Bush economy. Neither were good, but since you brought up Bush's war for oil....Here are direct quotes from leading democrats such as President and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore etc about why we needed to go to war in Iraq. By no means does this validate that is was the right thing to do, but it refutes the folly narrative that we went to war for Bush's "oil holdings". "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8 Edited May 10, 2016 by Gandorian 1 Quote Elder and Minister of Finance for The Coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Mmm, coffee for one. REEs for another. I'll let you Google and reply to that before going any further. A tariff on coffee and rare earth elements will stop companies with manufacturing going overseas? What? Coffee being tariffed will stop a car company moving their factory... uh... what??? I will admit if you actually believe such things then it beats even the stupidity at the beginning that someone who wants to do protectionist measures is a "whore of globalism". I get you're trying to play the "Smarter than you" guy , but considering your mistakes thus far please stop. Anyway I'm not going to do what you seem to want here by doing your work for you. Explain what was in the first sentence, something you should have done with to begin with instead of putting the weak excuse of "google it yourself", something even weaker because googling "REEs" won't get you anything easy to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 why don't we go with trump? before the muzzies turn us into Islamic State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 A tariff on coffee and rare earth elements will stop companies with manufacturing going overseas? What? Coffee being tariffed will stop a car company moving their factory... uh... what??? I will admit if you actually believe such things then it beats even the stupidity at the beginning that someone who wants to do protectionist measures is a "whore of globalism". I get you're trying to play the "Smarter than you" guy , but considering your mistakes thus far please stop. Anyway I'm not going to do what you seem to want here by doing your work for you. Explain what was in the first sentence, something you should have done with to begin with instead of putting the weak excuse of "google it yourself", something even weaker because googling "REEs" won't get you anything easy to find. Coffee and REEs was my reply to your assertion that we would have nothing to lose but a few fruits. I'm not playing "smarter than". I don't expect most people to just know the statistics on coffee and REEs. My point is these are just two crucially important imports that we cannot make (domestic capacity is a fraction of 1%) in the USA. "Well, Trump won't tarriff that stuff". Right? Well, what makes him think he can screw trade partners on one hand and not have them screw you back on the other hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Coffee and REEs was my reply to your assertion that we would have nothing to lose but a few fruits. I'm not playing "smarter than". I don't expect most people to just know the statistics on coffee and REEs. My point is these are just two crucially important imports that we cannot make (domestic capacity is a fraction of 1%) in the USA. "Well, Trump won't tarriff that stuff". Right? Well, what makes him think he can screw trade partners on one hand and not have them screw you back on the other hand? You're playing word games here, trying to tie things together. I asked you what "strategic tariffs" you'd do to stop companies moving, the fruit statement was me saying that yes there are some things you got to get from elsewhere. Being dishonest you are I'd say, still not given me those "strategic tariffs". ??? So you claimed he was going to do a blanket tariff on everything because he's a dum-dum. I asked for evidence. You have none. So now your story has switched again. This time to it not being Trump, but foreign countries who will do it. That one at least ain't based on a lie but... do you really think the likes of Mexico can win a trade war with America? Well I did hear a fellow not too long say Mexico had a better economy and was all round a better country (why everyone is moving to Mexico apparently), so it'd not surprise me if you thought Mexico could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) There's nothing dishonest about replying to one of your statements and not replying to others. You do it constantly. Strategic tarriffs should be limited to industries we have the capacity to increase domestic production. Hell, I'd support tarriffs to bolster all US industry - if it was done in stages, over decades. Because it would be impossible to replace global supply of everything in the short term. I'd expect a businessman to be aware of that basic fact. I am admitting I might be wrong on the blanket tarriffs. I'd rather argue the facts than whatever misconception about Trump's platform I may have had. If the truth is he never planned to tarriff everything then fine I was wrong let's move on to what is factual. What exactly does he propose to tarriff? I was looking for something concise on his tarriff plan, and stumbled on this: Embrace globalization and international markets The important thing to consider is that more and more there is an interdependence of world economies. No one can afford to be isolationist any more. Keep your focus global. Globalization has torn down the barriers that have formerly separated the national from the international markets. Source: Never Give Up, by Donald Trump, p.158 , Jan 18, 2008 The closest thing I could find to a specific tarriff plan was 20% tarriffs on all goods. But, that was in 2011 and apparently he says a lot of stuff that contradicts later. Edited May 10, 2016 by SoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vahak Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 A tariff is a tax on anyone that buys just about anything. Pretty sure that's sales tax. Quote the paradise of north korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 There's nothing dishonest about replying to one of your statements and not replying to others. You do it constantly. Strategic tarriffs should be limited to industries we have the capacity to increase domestic production. Hell, I'd support tarriffs to bolster all US industry - if it was done in stages, over decades. Because it would be impossible to replace global supply of everything in the short term. I'd expect a businessman to be aware of that basic fact. I am admitting I might be wrong on the blanket tarriffs. I'd rather argue the facts than whatever misconception about Trump's platform I may have had. If the truth is he never planned to tarriff everything then fine I was wrong let's move on to what is factual. What exactly does he propose to tarriff? That so? Examples? Additionally that wasn't even what I said you did. You tried to link two separate things, not so much you didn't answer though you did that too of course that wasn't what I said was dishonest. A non answer is the best you got, thought as much. "We'll look at measures to fix the system" is what that is on the level of, one of those typical politician answers. Trump has 8 years to change things to the point the republicans won't then field a cuckold who'll want to reverse things (we know the Democrats are cuckold supremes). I'm not on the spot here. You're the one who said he'd tariff everything because he's a "dum-dum". So your answer please. I was looking for something concise on his tarriff plan, and stumbled on this: The closest thing I could find to a specific tarriff plan was 20% tarriffs on all goods. But, that was in 2011 and apparently he says a lot of stuff that contradicts later. As Trump has said many times he likes free trade, but it must be fair. NAFTA was something he has been recorded as being against before it's inception for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moreau Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) Lol, what happens when other countries start putting tariffs on goods imported from America? America's economy tanks... that's what. Unless America heavily invests in R&D that allows them to replace vast amounts of factory workers with robots: It will always have a big trade deficit, as American's are not & never will be prepared to do slave labour (or cut back on imports) and hence won't be able to compete with the likes of China in terms of manufacturing. Edited May 10, 2016 by Moreau III Quote Signed by Sultan Moreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Sanders all the way. I refuse to support other candidates who support TTIP and TPP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guinevere Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Bernie Sanders is cool I guess, but he's not gonna win the primaries. Clinton has that shit on lock and Bernie's promises are empty promises, because what he says he will do won't ever make it past congress and he'll basically just be another Barrack Obama. That's not to say that Clinton is really a better option, but I'd rather Clinton than Donald Trump, because if Donald Trump is president, the US will get nuked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 That so? Examples? Additionally that wasn't even what I said you did. You tried to link two separate things, not so much you didn't answer though you did that too of course that wasn't what I said was dishonest. A non answer is the best you got, thought as much. "We'll look at measures to fix the system" is what that is on the level of, one of those typical politician answers. Trump has 8 years to change things to the point the republicans won't then field a cuckold who'll want to reverse things (we know the Democrats are cuckold supremes). I'm not on the spot here. You're the one who said he'd tariff everything because he's a "dum-dum". So your answer please. As Trump has said many times he likes free trade, but it must be fair. NAFTA was something he has been recorded as being against before it's inception for example. The only information I can find directly from Trump's mouth is the tariffs are no more than a threat to get violators like China to stop manipulating their currency and adhere to some environmental standards. So, I guess he is a globalist. He just wants China to play by the same rules as us. Makes sense, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Pretty sure that's sales tax. And a tariff is not a tax? The gov charges a percentage on a good, the person buying the good ultimately pays the charge which the gov takes. Sounds a lot like sales tax to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moreau Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) Tariffs don't work as intended for the most part. >.> Once you start encouraging that shit it catches like the plague among other countries who tend to take their lead from the US or are rivals and soon you won't be able to export anything yourself. Edited May 10, 2016 by Moreau III Quote Signed by Sultan Moreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Lol, what happens when other countries start putting tariffs on goods imported from America? America's economy tanks... that's what. Unless America heavily invests in R&D that allows them to replace vast amounts of factory workers with robots: It will always have a big trade deficit, as American's are not & never will be prepared to do slave labour (or cut back on imports) and hence won't be able to compete with the likes of China in terms of manufacturing. Another believer in Mexico beating America in a trade war I see. China won't be a problem, believe me. Sanders all the way. I refuse to support other candidates who support TTIP and TPP. Love it when people say this type of comment. You know who else is against TTIP and TPP? Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders is cool I guess, but he's not gonna win the primaries. Clinton has that shit on lock and Bernie's promises are empty promises, because what he says he will do won't ever make it past congress and he'll basically just be another Barrack Obama. That's not to say that Clinton is really a better option, but I'd rather Clinton than Donald Trump, because if Donald Trump is president, the US will get nuked. ??? Donald Trump putting tariffs on some goods will get the country nuked... is this how far the globalists have got their claws in people? To the point there are actually people will believe going against globalist trade policies will result in nuclear Armageddon. Or... perhaps you think he'll go on big wars and such. Actually he wants to be a very good friend to Putin, don't worry. The only information I can find directly from Trump's mouth is the tariffs are no more than a threat to get violators like China to stop manipulating their currency and adhere to some environmental standards. So, I guess he is a globalist. He just wants China to play by the same rules as us. Makes sense, I guess. There you go again. Look, you're a follower of globalism whatever you say considering you support every piece of garbage they put out. Stop using globalist as a slur if you know, you don't actually see it as a negative. Secondly enough with the insane troll logic please. Globalists say they have fair free trade. Trump wants to do protectionism so there can be fair free trade so Trump is a globalist. Tariffs don't work as intended for the most part. >.> Once you start encouraging that shit it catches like the plague among other countries who tend to take their lead from the US or are rivals and soon you won't be able to export anything yourself. Comments like those really must set off the Chinese with laughter. They are protectionist themselves but the west has been convinced totally that they should be as free as possible making China they big winner. They win with protectionism and at the same time no one fights back with their own (well outside "strategic tariffs", also known as an irrelevance). Likewise it's America, if you think someone will be beating them in a trade war like little Mexico then you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moreau Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) Or... perhaps you think he'll go on big wars and such. Actually he wants to be a very good friend to Putin, don't worry. First of all you are taking Trump at his word when we all know how that turned out with Obama. Secondly, you are not taking other nuclear armed states like North Korea and China into considerations. Lastly the guy literally said he want's to give nukes to Saudi Arabia/Entire Gulf, Japan, South Korea, (probably Eastern Europe too though he hasn't said it) etc.... Just so that "America doesn't have to defend them". Edited May 10, 2016 by Moreau III Quote Signed by Sultan Moreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 First of all you are taking Trump at his word when we all know how that turned out with Obama. Secondly, you are not taking other nuclear armed states like North Korea and China into considerations. Lastly the guy literally said he want's to give nukes to Saudi Arabia/Entire Gulf, Japan, South Korea, (probably Eastern Europe too though he hasn't said it) etc.... Just so that "America doesn't have to defend them". Obama is one of those Liberal cucks, while Trump isn't. Key difference. North Korea is a joke, an irrelevance. China isn't going to go nuclear, no one is. America and China are already flexing against each other. Trump will likely invigorate the defnese spending of European countries, make friends with Russia, and then "surround" China, note the quotations I don't mean it literally. Regardless no side can afford to actually fight seriously beyond proxy wars. In regards to Saudi Arabia he said he didn't want them to have them when asked again, though stated it seems inevitable (some say they have them already). All in all... why would anyone in the west be scared of Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons anyway? They've got a very good reputation these days and are valuable allies who are also on China's doorstep. Them having nukes would give China pause certainly and perhaps change some of their behaviour. His main point was America isn't paid enough basically and nations should spend money in protecting themselves too instead of simply relying on America (the norm is to reduce defense spending year and year in a lot of places it seems, something Trump may well reverse). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moreau Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) China isn't going to go nuclear, no one is. America and China are already flexing against each other. LOL. China already HAS 250 NUKES! Their ICBM that can strike every city in America. Edited May 10, 2016 by Moreau III Quote Signed by Sultan Moreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.