But we are getting creamed and it ends now. Sure we will, or we will reduce their access to our markets to the match of our access to their markets. Easy for you to say, you didn't pay the cost to develop it and then have China steal it. We do, and we are going to ensure that other nations open their markets to our goods to the same extent that we open our markets to their goods.
President Trump's FART joke Pull my finger, Grandpa Trump said. Axios said, OK, and pulled. "Axios has obtained a leaked draft of a Trump administration bill — ordered by the president himself — that would declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules," Axios blindly reported. Wow, that is a blockbuster story. Um, what's this new law going to be called? "The bill, titled the 'United States Fair And Reciprocal Tariff Act,' would give Trump unilateral power to ignore the two most basic principles of the WTO and negotiate one-on-one with any country," Axios reported. The Fair And Reciprocal Tariff Act? The Fair And Reciprocal Tariff Act? The FART Act? The administration has denied it plans to leave the WTO. Remember, the leaks are real; the news is fake. And the jokes are a gas. http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/07/president-trumps-fart-joke.html#more
Our "Allies" will pay their fair share, we Americans have had enough of the free loaders. Trump Fires Stern Letters To NATO Allies On Their Defense Spending . President Trump has written sharp individual letters to NATO allies in advance of next weeks alliance summit in Brussels about their unwillingness to increase defense spending as promised. The 25 countries that have yet to meet their two percent of GDP defense spending promises of 2015 are freeloaders, unfairly taking advantage of the United States. Last year only four members — the U.S., Britain, Greece and Estonia — met the two percent spending goal. “The United States,” Trump wrote German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to the NY Times, “continues to devote more resources to the defense of Europe when the Continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us.” The U.S. commander-in-chief may be planning a dramatic troop reduction in response to the slow spending increases of nations that have their own economic and political goals other than Defense.
Our trading partners rip us off to the tune of $817 billion a year on manufacturing. They impose tariffs and use regulations to protect their industries -- while demanding we not do that. Bullshit. Sauce meet Gander.
Our participation in NATO is a bargain. We need it to continue for the USA. It's fine to push for the nations that aren't meeting their spending goals to meet those goals, but woofing about our withdrawal is just plain stupid. Plus, Trump's approach is just plain insulting and causes an anti-American popular response that makes it harder, not easier for the leaders of these countries to lobby their legislatures for more spending.
Tax Payer funded scam. If you are in NATO, you use American weapons, made by Americans. Via the US taxpayer, we "loan" them the money to buy our weapons. France withdrew and then rejoined, why can't we?
So, Trump is so cozy with Russia that he meets with Putin in private even after it's verified once again that Russia attacked US democracy! He sent Republican congressmen to RUSSIA to smooth things over, actually stating that we take no offense against recent Russian activities!!! And, now he shows concern about eastern Europe??? Why would Trump be worried about having to go to war against his dear friends in Russia? Why is he more concerned about eastern Europe than he is about defending US democracy?
We shouldn't want to leave. When we address issues it's in our favor to have NATO behind us. Besides the financial benefit (such the US paying only a fraction of the cost of action in Libya and benefitting from NATO in Afghanistan) NATO operations have the political advantage that it is harder for opposition to claim the action is the unjustified and self serving act of one nation.
I agree there is a problem with intellectual property rights and China. The problem is that the current approach is self defeating. We need trade allies to force change in China. Instead, we're punishing our allies and abandoning our partnerships - WTO, NAFTA, Pacific Trade Pact, etc. Plus, we're forcing the rest of the world to form trade pacts that exclude the US. This is self defeating. We're reducing our own standard of living (by cutting ourselves off from trade by raising tariffs). And, that is hurting the US at least as much if not more than it hurts others.
Why not? Why? We had no business in Libya, all NATO did was provide us a pathway around Congressional Authorization. If the US Congress doesn't support the adventure why should we embark on it?
Yes. We're the largest arms exporter in the world by FAR. It'a HUGE US business. US arms manufacturers are making out like bandits! For the most part, we make nations pay for these arms. In cases where we donate arms (such as Israel) we do so to further US objectives.
The existing approach was ineffective. We don't need to force China to do anything. We are simply going to trade with them to the same extent they chose to trade with us. By asking them to treat us the same way we treat them? If treating them the same way they treat us is "punishing them" them why the hell are they treating us this way? Why should we carry the defense for first world countries capable of carrying their own? Are they interesting in carrying ours for us? If someone wants to voluntarily exclude us from trade, that's their right, we are free to return the favor. We are? If running a trade deficit raises our living standards, is it fair for us to rip off our allies by allowing them to run surpluses, which by your logic is reducing their living standards? Do you want to reduce the living standards of your "allies"?
I agree that Libya was a bad idea. But, it WAS what the USA backed. You can't blame NATO for that decision. And, the UK alone paid as much as we did for that operation - with the rest of NATO picking up a significant chunk. We got Libya for FAR FAR less than it would have cost us, and at the cost of no casualties. If you want to change how the US makes war decisions, go ahead and propose THAT. But, that is certainly NOT the topic here.
Hillary and Obama. It was a NATO led operation. Real? Who is this guy? You were the one bragging about how little Libya cost us. Who are these guys?
No, we need real change on intellectual property. That's a domain that is becoming of increasing importance to America. Our trade advantage has to move toward high tech, information sciences, automation, clean energy, etc. We can't win in these domains if China gets to have our trade secrets. The existing approach HAS gained us with past problems such as fair labor practices and some progress on copyrights. The Pacific Trade Pact was the central mechanism for our pressure on intellectual property - by Trump just surrendered!! Yes - we need to push toward a level playing field. That's going to require an organized approach. They did in Afghanistan and Libya. They put their lives on the line in wars we wanted. Trump is making it harder for us to buy the goods we want, and is raising the cost of US products abroad. Yes, Trump's direction causes others to lose, too. I'm more concerned about America. Why aren't you???
It was led by the USA at the outset. I have told you that before. Plus, that isn't even the issue. The point here is that NATO support in dollars, lives and leadership was significant in an operation that the USA wanted. And, it wasn't the only one. Remember Afghanistan.
And yet, only Trump made it an issue, and now suddenly all the folks who weren't worried about it, are telling the only guy doing anything about it, that he should be going about it differently, when their record is doing mostly nothing. Libya was a friken disaster. America never called for intervention in Libya. That was a Hillary/Barack disaster that they described as "casualty free" apparently these guys died of the flu. We never wanted a war in Libya, that was Barack/Hillary and NATO"s grand adventure. We have goods shortages? What are we short on? Love the passive voice, those prices just raided theirselves? Causing Democrats and other America Haters to lose, like that Canadian Clown with the fake eyebrows. Some Lefties are calling for a recession to bring down Trump's poll numbers. I don't support allowing other countries to free-load off of us. I think they should grow up and fend for themselves, like we do.
FALSE. The issue of intellectual property right was one significant reason for the Pacific Trad alliance - an alliance that would add power to our continuing demands for movement by China on this issue. Trump is the guy who SURRENDERED and has NO plan for continuing effort on this issue.
Again, that there were those who didn't want the war in Libya is absolutely irrelevant. The only relevant point here is that NATO backed what the USA wanted in TWO recent wars. Again, if you want to change the way we make war decisions, START A THREAD. I may agree with you on THAT topic. Our methods for getting congress involved tend to be slow compared to the rate at which our military can move today. It took 6 months for congress to be allowed a significant say in that war. And, by then it was all over. Do you think I like that??? But, our process for making war is a different topic than how we work together with allies.
I don't give a damn what you claimed, it was not authorized by the American People. Then stop bringing it up. We didn't want it. We didn't ask for it. Did Turkey want it? Isn't Turkey in NATO? Does NATO hold a vote before they sack a country and murder their leader so Hillary can cackle with glee after he is sodomized with a knife? What was the NATO vote? What countries voted for it, and what countries voted against it? How many folks has Iceland committed to the Afghanistan effort? In fact, how large is Iceland's entire military?
