Trump Administration - Printable Version +- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com) +-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html) +--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html) +---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html) +----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html) +------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html) +------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html) Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 |
RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-16-2020 11:39 AM (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 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? RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 01-16-2020 03:10 PM (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 RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 01-16-2020 04:46 PM 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. RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-16-2020 05:29 PM 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." RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 01-16-2020 06:05 PM RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 01-16-2020 08:18 PM (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. 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. RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-16-2020 11:36 PM (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. RE: Trump Administration - Foff - 01-17-2020 12:38 AM "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-statements/remarks-president-trump-iran/ "Iran rocket attack on Iraqi military base injured 11 US service members, official reveals" - https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-rocket-attack-on-iraqi-military-base-injured-11-us-service-members-official-reveals RE: Trump Administration - Foff - 01-17-2020 12:53 AM "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/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160 "never mind im full of **** like always" - paraphrasing donny response to iran MISSILE strike on 1/8/2020 thank God!!!! RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-17-2020 01:54 PM 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. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/white-house-considers-changes-to-law-banning-overseas-bribes RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-17-2020 06:12 PM (01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Trump really does care about fighting corruption. 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. RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-18-2020 12:57 AM (01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Trump really does care about fighting corruption. A+ effort on the deflection. So, you believe Trump really cares about corruption? RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 01-18-2020 08:01 AM (01-18-2020 12:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(01-17-2020 06:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:A+ effort on the deflection.(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Trump really does care about fighting corruption.Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense. Yep. FYI, I care about corruption--a lot--and I think the FCPA way overreaches. RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-18-2020 09:53 AM (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:A+ effort on the deflection.(01-17-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Trump really does care about fighting corruption.Bloomberg? isn't he running for Trump's job? I thought digging up dirt on future opponents was an impeachable offense. In what ways does it overreach? RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-18-2020 10:53 AM (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. 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. RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-18-2020 10:59 AM (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. 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. RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-18-2020 11:03 AM 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. RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-18-2020 11:10 AM (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. 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. RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-18-2020 01:20 PM (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. 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? RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-18-2020 01:25 PM (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. \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? |