The Hillary Thread II

[pErvinalia]

The unemployment rate is not a good indicator of employment. I'm pretty sure you'll find the underemployed rate has risen under Obama.

[Forty Two]

He's already damaged China-US and Mexico-US relations.

Has he? Evidence?

[Forty Two]

if he follows suit to his campaign promises, he WILL ruin the country, reducing the tax base while spending like it was going out of fashion...

Absurd. He's planning on increasing the tax base through improving the business climate and bringing millions back into the work force.

How long is this going to take, and in the meantime he'll be taxing the poor more and/or borrowing more to 'stimulate' business profits right?

No, that hasn't been the policy he's advocated. It has been what his detractors have accused him of. Let's see if he does raise taxes on the poor and borrow more. How much more can he borrow than we've seen over the last 8 years? If he borrows more than $10 trillion, we'll definitely be in deep shit, so hopefully he won't.

[Forty Two]

"Bringing millions back into the workforce" is an interesting turn if phrase also - kinda ignores the fact that the unemployed rate has halved under Obama while making some unidentified foreign force responsible for unemployment over the structure and operation of the domestic economy.

Well, the unemployment rate is only a percentage of people who want to work and are trying to work, but can't find a job. In other words, as the labor participation rate drops, so does the unemployment rate. The labor participation rate has gone way up under Obama, so a lot of the drop in unemployment rate is because there are now almost 100,000,000 job-age Americans who are out of the labor force.

[pErvinalia]

He's already damaged China-US and Mexico-US relations.

Has he? Evidence?

That's right, I forgot that news doesn't reach the rock you live under. Although, while you may not have heard of the "One China policy", I'm pretty sure you've heard about him telling Mexico that they can pay for his faux wall (while calling them rapists etc). So, not sure what's going wrong under your rock today...

[Tero]

"Bringing millions back into the workforce" is an interesting turn if phrase also - kinda ignores the fact that the unemployed rate has halved under Obama while making some unidentified foreign force responsible for unemployment over the structure and operation of the domestic economy.

Well, the unemployment rate is only a percentage of people who want to work and are trying to work, but can't find a job. In other words, as the labor participation rate drops, so does the unemployment rate. The labor participation rate has gone way up under Obama, so a lot of the drop in unemployment rate is because there are now almost 100,000,000 job-age Americans who are out of the labor force.

what about this reckless spending of...somebody's money to build a wall? How many jobs?

[pErvinalia]

He'll probably employ Mexicans under the table to build it..

[Forty Two]

He's already damaged China-US and Mexico-US relations.

Has he? Evidence?

That's right, I forgot that news doesn't reach the rock you live under.

Maybe, maybe not. Evidence for your proposition? You claimed "he's already damaged china-US relations and Mexico-US relations. When you say the relations have been damaged, how so? Has the US lost something? Has China or Mexico gained something? Vice versa? What do you mean by "damaged?" What injury has been suffered by whom?

Although, while you may not have heard of the "One China policy", I'm pretty sure you've heard about him telling Mexico that they can pay for his faux wall. So, not sure what's going wrong under your rock today...

Oh, I've heard about the One China policy, but your claim was that Trump has already damaged US-China relations. All I'm asking is for you to back up your claim with evidence. If you choose, instead, to simply accuse me of not having heard of One China Policy, then that's your call. But, whether I've heard of that policy or not doesn't relate to your claim.

I've heard of him telling Mexico they can pay for the wall. How has that damaged US-Mexico relations? Are they not dealing with us diplomatically? Have they retaliated? What have we lost and they gained, or vice versa?

So far, you have made a claim that the relations have been damaged, already, by Trump. The sum total of your basis for that claim amounts to "oh, come on, you must live under a rock." Brilliant as always, pErvin.

Queue more insults from pErvin in 3....2.....1....

[Forty Two]

"Bringing millions back into the workforce" is an interesting turn if phrase also - kinda ignores the fact that the unemployed rate has halved under Obama while making some unidentified foreign force responsible for unemployment over the structure and operation of the domestic economy.

Well, the unemployment rate is only a percentage of people who want to work and are trying to work, but can't find a job. In other words, as the labor participation rate drops, so does the unemployment rate. The labor participation rate has gone way up under Obama, so a lot of the drop in unemployment rate is because there are now almost 100,000,000 job-age Americans who are out of the labor force.

what about this reckless spending of...somebody's money to build a wall? How many jobs?

What are you on about? Reckless spending on what? A wall that has been in process for over 15 years, and which has been continued to be constructed in parts under the Obama administration? That wall?

And, he's not President yet. So, he hasn't spent any money, but he has suggested that Mexico will pay for it. What would be wrong with that?

[pErvinalia]

He's already damaged China-US and Mexico-US relations.

Has he? Evidence?

That's right, I forgot that news doesn't reach the rock you live under.

Maybe, maybe not. Evidence for your proposition? You claimed "he's already damaged china-US relations and Mexico-US relations. When you say the relations have been damaged, how so? Has the US lost something? Has China or Mexico gained something? Vice versa? What do you mean by "damaged?" What injury has been suffered by whom?

Although, while you may not have heard of the "One China policy", I'm pretty sure you've heard about him telling Mexico that they can pay for his faux wall. So, not sure what's going wrong under your rock today...

Oh, I've heard about the One China policy, but your claim was that Trump has already damaged US-China relations. All I'm asking is for you to back up your claim with evidence. If you choose, instead, to simply accuse me of not having heard of One China Policy, then that's your call. But, whether I've heard of that policy or not doesn't relate to your claim.

If you had heard of it you would realise it's the most important domestic policy in China. And you would have also heard about Donald Trump's reversal of the US's long-standing support for the One China policy. Via 3am tweet from the shitter, no less.
"Trump’s comments drew an angry riposte from Beijing. Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, told reporters that bilateral ties and “the sound and steady growth of China-US relations” would be “out of the question” were Trump to turn away from the “One China” policy.

“We urge the incoming US administration and its leaders to fully recognise the sensitivity of the Taiwan question … [and] to properly deal with Taiwan-related matters in a prudent manner so as not to disrupt or damage the overall interests of the bilateral relationship,” Geng said, describing the “One China” principle as the “political bedrock” of ties between the two countries.

The question of Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a breakaway province that should one day be reunified with the mainland, was one of China’s “core interests”, the spokesman pointed out.

In a separate statement, the ministry cited Foreign Minister Wang Yi as warning during a trip to Switzerland against moves to damage the “one China” principle, having been asked by a reporter about Trump’s call with Tsai.

“China is paying close attention to developments,” Wang said. “I can clearly say that no matter whether the Tsai Ing-wen authority, any other person in the world, or any other force, if they try and damage the one China principle and harm China’s core interests, in the end they are lifting a rock only to drop it on their feet.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ina-policy

I've heard of him telling Mexico they can pay for the wall. How has that damaged US-Mexico relations? Are they not dealing with us diplomatically? Have they retaliated?

Why would they retaliate when Trump isn't president yet? And why is "retaliation" necessary for diplomatic relations to be damaged?

So far, you have made a claim that the relations have been damaged, already, by Trump. The sum total of your basis for that claim amounts to "oh, come on, you must live under a rock." Brilliant as always, pErvin.

The thing is, it's a pertinent point. You seem to not be aware of the same things as the rest of the educated world is. Stuff we consider straightforward is hard and difficult, if not totally foreign, to you.

[Tero]

he has suggested that Mexico will pay for it. What would be wrong with that?

Are Mexicans stupid? No, just poor.

[Forty Two]

If you had heard of it you would realise it's the most important domestic policy in China. And you would have also heard about Donald Trump's reversal of the US's long-standing support for the One China policy. Via 3am tweet from the shitter, no less.

Look, none of that suggests that international relations with China have been "damaged." Being nice-nice is not the same as undamaged international relations.

You're not understanding the reality of the China, Taiwan, US relationship anyway. China says Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan says it isn't. The US established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, and "cut" ties with Taipei. However, the reality is that the US still had unofficial relations with Taiwan, and it is the US that has armed Taiwan and kept Taiwan under American protection such that China could not in actual fact take Taiwan and in reality make it part of China.

Trump rumbling about bolstering relations in Taiwan is not what China would prefer, but international relations doesn't mean you just give every other country what they want. The US and China aren't allies and we're in a constant tug-of-war with the Chinese.

"Trump’s comments drew an angry riposte from Beijing. Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, told reporters that bilateral ties and “the sound and steady growth of China-US relations” would be “out of the question” were Trump to turn away from the “One China” policy.

Oh, an angry riposte. In order not to damage international relations, we must make sure that we don't do or say anything which generates an "angry riposte." You mean, the not-yet President said something which alluded to questioning why we would have to strictly adhere to a One China policy? And China didn't like it? Oh, my god! US-China relations have been damaged!!!

Come on, pErvin. You're better than this. Well, maybe not, but you should be.

“We urge the incoming US administration and its leaders to fully recognise the sensitivity of the Taiwan question … [and] to properly deal with Taiwan-related matters in a prudent manner so as not to disrupt or damage the overall interests of the bilateral relationship,” Geng said, describing the “One China” principle as the “political bedrock” of ties between the two countries.

Given how important that is to China, won't it be an issue at the negotiating table?

The question of Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a breakaway province that should one day be reunified with the mainland, was one of China’s “core interests”, the spokesman pointed out.

The US is the reason Taiwan is not yet "reunified" with mainland China.

In a separate statement, the ministry cited Foreign Minister Wang Yi as warning during a trip to Switzerland against moves to damage the “one China” principle, having been asked by a reporter about Trump’s call with Tsai.

“China is paying close attention to developments,” Wang said. “I can clearly say that no matter whether the Tsai Ing-wen authority, any other person in the world, or any other force, if they try and damage the one China principle and harm China’s core interests, in the end they are lifting a rock only to drop it on their feet.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ina-policy

So, your evidence that Trump has already damaged US-China relations is that China is "paying close attention to developments" and suggesting that the one china policy is very important them.

I've heard of him telling Mexico they can pay for the wall. How has that damaged US-Mexico relations? Are they not dealing with us diplomatically? Have they retaliated?

Why would they retaliate when Trump isn't president yet? And why is "retaliation" necessary for diplomatic relations to be damaged?

It's not "necessary", but it would be one form of "damage." Given your reticence to actually set forth any actual, real world "damage" that has "already" occurred, I was asking a question.

What's the damage? Mexico doesn't like it? That's the damage? If not that, what?

So far, you have made a claim that the relations have been damaged, already, by Trump. The sum total of your basis for that claim amounts to "oh, come on, you must live under a rock." Brilliant as always, pErvin.

The thing is, it's a pertinent point. You seem to not be aware of the same things as the rest of the educated world is. Stuff we consider straightforward is hard and difficult, if not totally foreign, to you.

No, you SAY I'm not aware of it. And, you said it in response to my simple question. You made an assertion, that Trump had already damaged US China and US Mexico relations. I said, "He has? Evidence?" And, then you ignore the question, fail to provide any evidence, and simply accuse me of not knowing what the one-china policy is.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your evidence that Trump has already damaged relations.

Saying Trump questioned the need to strictly adhere to a one-China policy, and that rattled someone in China who said "we're watching developments closely and we'll be really pissed off if the one China policy goes away" is not "damage to US China relations."

[pErvinalia]

I've provided the evidence. That it doesn't meet your personal definition of what should constitute damage so as to maintain your biased view of the world isn't my problem. Back under your rock.

[Forty Two]

You've not provided any evidence of "damage."

Maybe you can just say what the damage is. Is the damage that China is "watching the developments closely?" Is the damage that China is peeved at the idea of a move away from the old policy?

Shit man, that's international relations. Countries get peeved. Do you think Hillary Clinton "damaged relations with Russia" with her comments?

It's not about my "personal definition." It's about YOU being clear about your definition, and then connecting that definition up with evidence to support it.

What's the damage? What's the proof that Trumps comments did that damage?

[pErvinalia]

You've not provided any evidence of "damage."

Maybe you can just say what the damage is. Is the damage that China is "watching the developments closely?" Is the damage that China is peeved at the idea of a move away from the old policy?

Shit man, that's international relations. Countries get peeved. Do you think Hillary Clinton "damaged relations with Russia" with her comments?

Lol, here comes the tu quoque by proxy again.

As you say, it's international relations. Damage doesn't need to constitute war. International relations has its own language and protocols. China is clearly invoking that language now. And it's no surprise as this is the most sensitive issue to China. It's not surprising that an idiot like Trump, and his cheerleader here, don't quite grasp the magnitude of what's going on.