(01-16-2020 11:05 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 06:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 01:43 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  China deal

Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?

Which one will CNN cover more?

Well according to the trusted BBC, Trump and Xi Jingping are winners. The losers? American companies, American consumers, American manufacturers, and American farmers.

I think we should hold off judging the effects of impeachment until the process is at least completed. Hard to speculate with so many unknowns.

What unknowns? If you want to bet on removal, I will take that bet. Or are you referring to the future impeachments for things to be named later?

I am not referring to future impeachments. I am not referring to removal because I can't imagine the situation that would result in that many Republicans voting to remove.

I am referring to whether any new live witnesses are called, whether any Republicans vote to remove, whether there are any clashes between the senate Republicans and Chief Justice Roberts, and whether additional information comes out specifically on the Ukraine issue after the Senate does not remove Trump from office that is damning. And probably other stuff I'm too unimaginative to imagine. If Bolton and Mulvaney end up testifying and additional documents are produced, who knows what would happen or how impeachment would effect the 2020 election.

My guess is that if Bolton and Mulvaney testify, Democrats will wish they had never called for them.

You seriously think this agreement with China is a bad thing? Would no agreement be better?

(01-16-2020 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seriously think this agreement with China is a bad thing? Would no agreement be better?

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in trade policy. We had a number of Parliamentarians from both sides of the political ideological spectrum agree that BBC news was a pretty neutral source that could be accepted as such. So when you asked about the Trump-China trade deal, I looked for the BBC article on it to see what they said, figuring they have a reporter who would understand such things better than me and wanting a neutral, fair analysis of the deal. BBC article said US manufacturers, consumers, companies, and farmers were all losers in the deal. So that's what I posted. Feel free to disagree with the BBC article if you want, just realize you are disagreeing with the BBC, not me.

As for me, I read some other articles in addition to the BBC article and most of them seem to suggest the same thing. The deal is better than keeping the trade war, but it is worse than things were before the trade war and doesn't help the US recover from the damage that was done to segments of the economy during the trade war. So we are worse off than before Trump started this off

Just because the BBC is generally neutral, doesn't mean that there won't be articles with questionable conclusions and opinions.

According to the article, the deal is bad for all Americans except Donald Trump... and they mean politically, not personally. That makes zero sense logically unless we're saying that undecided/swing voters are morons. It also doesn't even try and address the purposes of the trade war which was the theft of intellectual property.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article... I'm merely pointing out what appear to me to be some pretty flawed conclusions, beginning with the idea that a relatively neutral news source can't have some awful and incorrect conclusions. Neutral in these terms generally means not slanted towards the left or right... and this seems to be pretty heavily slanted against trade wars generally. It says Americans are losers because the 'deal' doesn't address EVERYTHING.

I was reacting to the designation "trusted BBC". I do not trust any paper or network. I have no experience with the BBC to determine if I trust them more than anybody else. So for me, the words "trusted BBC" meant I should accept whatever they said...and I do not.

the reporter who wrote the article is Natalie Sherman

"BBC News reporter by way of @BaltimoreSun, New Bedford Standard-Times and @BostonHerald."

(01-16-2020 03:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seriously think this agreement with China is a bad thing? Would no agreement be better?

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in trade policy. We had a number of Parliamentarians from both sides of the political ideological spectrum agree that BBC news was a pretty neutral source that could be accepted as such. So when you asked about the Trump-China trade deal, I looked for the BBC article on it to see what they said, figuring they have a reporter who would understand such things better than me and wanting a neutral, fair analysis of the deal. BBC article said US manufacturers, consumers, companies, and farmers were all losers in the deal. So that's what I posted. Feel free to disagree with the BBC article if you want, just realize you are disagreeing with the BBC, not me.
As for me, I read some other articles in addition to the BBC article and most of them seem to suggest the same thing. The deal is better than keeping the trade war, but it is worse than things were before the trade war and doesn't help the US recover from the damage that was done to segments of the economy during the trade war. So we are worse off than before Trump started this off

I wouldn't call BBC neutral. They lean pretty hard left. I find them more warchable/listenable than ABC/CNN/CBS/MSNBC/NBC because they aren't so eaten up with Orange Man Bad that they lose their ability to focus upon anything else. I also like their international perspective. Big things happen all the time in India and Africa and all over, but if you rely on US media you know nothing about them.

As far as the trade war with China, I think I'm pretty much on the record as favoring attacking the trade imbalance with a consumption tax rather than tariffs. It's not just China that we have a trade deficit with, and a consumption tax levels the playing field with everybody, because everybody else has one.

(01-16-2020 08:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't call BBC neutral. They lean pretty hard left.

Got enough hard left news sources already.

"The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases."
- donny, 1/8/2020 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...rump-iran/

"Iran rocket attack on Iraqi military base injured 11 US service members, official reveals"
- https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-rocke...al-reveals

"These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!"
- donny 1/5/2020
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTru...0574812160


"never mind im full of **** like always"
- paraphrasing donny response to iran MISSILE strike on 1/8/2020

thank God!!!!

Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote: President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.

“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote: President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.

“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.

Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey

Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote: President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.

“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.

Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey

Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.

So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote:
President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.
“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...
“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.
Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey
Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.
So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Yep.

FYI, I care about corruption--a lot--and I think the FCPA way overreaches.

(01-18-2020 08:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote:
President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.
“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...
“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.
Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey
Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.
So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Yep.

FYI, I care about corruption--a lot--and I think the FCPA way overreaches.

In what ways does it overreach?

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote: President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.

“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.

Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey

Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.

So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Deflect? Hard enough to get you guys to talk about anything that makes sense, if it reflects even a tiny bit well on Trump, like the economy or China or USMCA. Nope, always return to Orange Man Bad.

(01-18-2020 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.

Quote: President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.

“We are looking at it,” White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said at the White House on Friday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to an passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.

Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey

Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.

So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Deflect? Hard enough to get you guys to talk about anything that makes sense, if it reflects even a tiny bit well on Trump, like the economy or China or USMCA. Nope, always return to Orange Man Bad.

Gimme a "D", gimme an "E", gimme a...

Get where I'm going?

I ask about whether you think Trump cares about corruption after posting an article that discusses changing US policy that is meant to fight foreign corruption, and how do you respond? Two responses that don't actually answer the question.

In my dealing in Mexico, I often had to bribe somebody, either directly or indirectly. It is a part of their system. Have you ever heard the saying, "When in Rome..."?

Lots of jobs in Mexico pay next to nothing, but are bought(yes, bought) with the expectation that that they can make a decent living off the bribes. Much like here, where waiters are expected to make most of their money from tips. Bribe, tip, what's the difference?

I don't know what this Act says, but it sounds like another effort to spread our morals to the rest of the world. A little bit of moral imperialism.

Frankly, I don't care if one of our companies outbribes a Chinese company to get a contract. Sometimes you have t play the game the way everybody else is playing, not the way your mama says to play.

(01-18-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump really does care about fighting corruption.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...eas-bribes

Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.

Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey

Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.

So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Deflect? Hard enough to get you guys to talk about anything that makes sense, if it reflects even a tiny bit well on Trump, like the economy or China or USMCA. Nope, always return to Orange Man Bad.

Gimme a "D", gimme an "E", gimme a...

Get where I'm going?

I ask about whether you think Trump cares about corruption after posting an article that discusses changing US policy that is meant to fight foreign corruption, and how do you respond? Two responses that don't actually answer the question.

Just SO quick to to C, O, N, D, E, M, ...get where I am going with this.

I didn't care about the little tempest in teapot and the loaded question about a topic of which I know nothing, but I did have something I wanted to post and was not sure which thread was best.

Deflection implies I was uncomfortable with the topic and wanted to change it. Not the case, sweetheart.

But I did go ahead and respond as best I could, while you were so quickly pulling the trigger on me. (can I say trigger?)

Good morning to you, too.

(01-18-2020 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense.

Tangentially related, but mainly just FYI: Comey

Never considered it before, but it looks as though Comey was going to be fired no matter who won in 2016.

A+ effort on the deflection.

So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Deflect? Hard enough to get you guys to talk about anything that makes sense, if it reflects even a tiny bit well on Trump, like the economy or China or USMCA. Nope, always return to Orange Man Bad.

Gimme a "D", gimme an "E", gimme a...

Get where I'm going?

I ask about whether you think Trump cares about corruption after posting an article that discusses changing US policy that is meant to fight foreign corruption, and how do you respond? Two responses that don't actually answer the question.

Just SO quick to to C, O, N, D, E, M, ...get where I am going with this.

I didn't care about the little tempest in teapot and the loaded question about a topic of which I know nothing, but I did have something I wanted to post and was not sure which thread was best.

Deflection implies I was uncomfortable with the topic and wanted to change it. Not the case, sweetheart.

But I did go ahead and respond as best I could, while you were so quickly pulling the trigger on me. (can I say trigger?)

Good morning to you, too.

Asking whether or not you think Trump cares about corruption is NOT a loaded question. My goodness.

If you had wanted to not deflect from my statement, just submit your post as a new post and not a response. But you did deflect by only talking about the reporting source (Bloomberg) and not the subject (FCSA).

Sweetheart, you did not respond at all to my post about Trump and his admin either not liking the the FCSA or wanting to modify it.

So again, do you think Trump cares about corruption based on this reporting?

Edit: just saw your earlier response. So you at least made it clear you don’t personally care about corruption in foreign countries. So why are you concerned with Hunter Biden if you think US firms using bribes in foreign countries isn’t an issue?

(01-18-2020 01:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A+ effort on the deflection.

So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption?

Deflect? Hard enough to get you guys to talk about anything that makes sense, if it reflects even a tiny bit well on Trump, like the economy or China or USMCA. Nope, always return to Orange Man Bad.

Gimme a "D", gimme an "E", gimme a...

Get where I'm going?

I ask about whether you think Trump cares about corruption after posting an article that discusses changing US policy that is meant to fight foreign corruption, and how do you respond? Two responses that don't actually answer the question.

Just SO quick to to C, O, N, D, E, M, ...get where I am going with this.

I didn't care about the little tempest in teapot and the loaded question about a topic of which I know nothing, but I did have something I wanted to post and was not sure which thread was best.

Deflection implies I was uncomfortable with the topic and wanted to change it. Not the case, sweetheart.

But I did go ahead and respond as best I could, while you were so quickly pulling the trigger on me. (can I say trigger?)

Good morning to you, too.

Asking whether or not you think Trump cares about corruption is NOT a loaded question. My goodness.

If you had wanted to not deflect from my statement, just submit your post as a new post and not a response. But you did deflect by only talking about the reporting source (Bloomberg) and not the subject (FCSA).

Sweetheart, you did not respond at all to my post about Trump and his admin either not liking the the FCSA or wanting to modify it.

So again, do you think Trump cares about corruption based on this reporting?

\Post 10557

edit; after posting, I realized that you would only be satisfied with a yes or no answer.

Yes.
Now I have answered your question, your turn.

based on the reported actions of Joe and Hunter Biden in and about the Ukraine, do you think he cares about corruption?