RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump’s tax law cuts income for the poorest 10% by $1,200 per year, per CBO

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 27, 2025

---

Not sure I understand this. I don't believe the lowest ten percent are paying taxes now. How are they getting a tax cut? Or are people that previously paid $-0- taxes now paying an average of $1,200 per year? The X post is a little confusing.

Maybe one of you Accounting or Tax folks can explain it.

---

It's a reduction of income, not income tax due to cuts in benefits like SNAP, etc. I think the confusion comes from them referring to it as "Trump's tax law" and not the BBB.

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I don't know why he spends time getting tangled up in some of these petty battles...

---

he is a 12 year old girl trapped in an old man's body..

---

Yes, and apparently the mind in that body continues to digress. The problem is that too many of us don't realize what it going to cost us by sitting on our butts and waiting for it all to get better. It's not.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on Intel boss: "He walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States. We do a lot of deals like that. I'll do more of them." pic.twitter.com/NZJHuFTcCt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 22, 2025

---

This is how hou know even conservatives know Trump is full of B.S. They would be going apeshut if they actually believed what Trump said.

---

there you go again, making "shut" up.

One of the many pathologies of globalism is that it taught our corporations to think of themselves as citizens of the world, with no superseding obligations to their home country. A few decades down the road, and we were in a situation where our largest, wealthiest, and in many cases most national security sensitive companies were deeply in bed with the Chinese government (via parastatals) and directly balancing and/or triangulating in order to protect equities in an irritably intolerant China (at the expense of equities of a far more tolerant USA). It even got to the point where companies were actually suppressing pro-US and/or anti-China messaging in their ads, products, and workforce.

That's why we are seeing this step with Intel. USG representation on the board will stop the corporate slide into quiet Chinese vassal-ship. We don't have to take stakes in all the companies. Just a few. The rest will see the writing on the wall and take steps to avoid the same fate. In the meantime, the asset side of the US balance sheet just got bigger. Whenever the problem abates, the shares can be sold to reduce debt.

What it is not is a slide into socialism. If Trump were intent on government ownership stakes throughout the private sector, he would not be proposing to sell Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

---

Just read what you just said. The government could take a stake in companies throughout the private sector, and as long as Trump intends to sell Fannie Mae&Freddie Mac, it's not socialism. Whew, what a load.
LOL no, the load is you making such a flimsy straw man. I said no such thing.

First, I didn't say it's socialism, I said it is bad and a precursor to nationalizing private companies we deem necessary. Guess who else did that?
I didn't say you were a socialist. I merely pointed out that taking a minority share of a single private company is not a socialist agenda.

And second, if the government actually started strong arming companies throughout the private sector into giving it shares, I'd hesitate to call it socialism; it would be closer to communism, though on its own, not outright communism.

I wonder if you see the slide in politics, you have lubed the slide up, gotten 13 fire hoses plumbed in, and you're teetering at the top, strapped to a JetSki. You are just about to endorse the nationalization of companies, because the motherland requires it.
Again, taking an 11% share of a single company is not a nationalization program.

---

I not at all a fan of the USG owning shares of private companies. But I can see what's at play here. It makes sense. We will know soon enough if Trump is intent on an outright USG takeover of the Tech industry. In the meantime, we have no reason to suspect he will. Such would be inconsistent with everything he's said and done throughout his life, to include governance in his first term. If that changes, I'll be screaming about it, more loudly than I have been screaming about big Tech being in bed with China. What I'm not going to do is continue to allow our Corporations to show equal deference to our greatest geopolitical rival. Our companies are going to be American First, or they'll face consequences.

---

Unbelievable…

---

I agree. It's unbelievable that globalists expect the USG to tolerate it's own companies showing more deference to geopolitical rivals than to the USG.

You are apparently too young to remember much history. Did we allow IBM to set up manufacturing operations using sensitive technologies in the USSR? Did we allow Soviets to move here to manage all or parts of major corporations? Of course not. It would have been insane to have done so. Makes no sense that we should tolerate such now with China. If you don't like that, Mr. CEO, move yer feckin' family and HQS to Beijing and see how that works out for you.

---

So now you're lumping in Taiwan with China. Who needs to move to China when you're making this country mimic their tactics? Unbelievable.

---

News Flash I: Beijing is in China, not Taiwan.

News Flash II: we do have a problem with our economic supply chain being enmeshed with parastatals owned by our greatest geopolitical rival, particularly the ones related to defense, national security, technology, energy, etc..... China is installing malware on electrical grid equipment, fer crissakes. ('memba that time we let the Soviets build a new Embassy for us in Moscow, or were you still in diapers at the time?) Your adversaries, most particularly the ones who know they cannot stand against you in an open field, will find a way to undermine you, weaken you, distract you....... Please explain the logic of why we would build militaries to protect critical industries, then let those industries move production abroad and/or allow adversaries to enter into partnership with those industries (here or elsewhere) for the purpose of having leverage over US policy.

News Flash III: Open borders for people, jobs, and money is not just a failed libertarian experiment....it is an extraordinary anomaly in human history. Whatever can be said about its positive effects on wealth generation, no one is more free because of it, and it is increasingly obvious that the social costs of it have outweighed the benefits of it. THAT'S WHY IT'S COLLAPSING. It no longer serves the common good. No, trade is not going away, but it is going to return to reality. Borders are going to matter again.

I say again......trade policy ALWAYS serves national security policy. Always has. Always will. What you're seeing here is merely a return to reality. The rise of AI is the new space race. We are going to win it. That will require paring back our relationships with China (who is our great rival in AI). We cannot allow our capital, financial and intellectual, to become assets of our greatest geopolitical rival.

---

Your responses are becoming more and more built around platitudes, a lack of understanding of the current economy, and invented projections. I think you're leaning a little too hard on Cold War metaphors and diaper jokes instead of the facts of how things actually work today. The U.S. doesn't just casually let China handle sensitive defense or strategic technology. We have an entire regulatory architecture designed to prevent that under ITAR and EAR. And as someone who's likely been to China many more times than you, I specifically brought Taiwan into the mix because there is sensitive semiconductor technology produced there.

The most strategic thing China has a grip on is rare earth processing. That's an item I've argued ad nauseum we should either massively overhaul environmental regs to allow it here, or establish different strategic partners in places like Africa.

And while there are certain strategic industries and materials that have national security interests, by no means does all trade or international commerce fall under that. That blanket position is revealing of your belief in giving government more control of commerce, aka micromanaging the economy the way Trump is trying to do, and ironically mirroring a similar central planning approach the very China you are worried about does.

But overall you've pivoted from decoupling from global trade to a focus on China. There are strategic reasons to do the latter that I agree with, but let's not invent boogeymen to do it, and swipe broad brush strokes encapsulating previously reliable trade allies.

How much did this cost?

BREAKING: An email shared with The Associated Press shows "Alligator Alcatraz" will likely be empty within days. https://t.co/f9yewXbgD8

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 27, 2025

.@SecKennedy: "I know what a healthy child is supposed to look like. I’m looking at kids as I walk through the airports today...and I see these kids that are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges...and I know that’s not how our children are supposed to look." pic.twitter.com/b8A2OEphav

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 27, 2025

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Howard Lutnick on CNBC indicates that the Trump administration will try to partially nationalize defense companies like Lockheed Martin pic.twitter.com/dYAbZPtcwu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 26, 2025

---

Absolutely not. For **** sake this is the stuff I can't overlook.

---

I am curious what our friend J.R. thinks about Trump making the U.S. Oil Industry government owned and controlled.

Maybe we can think of some names to call the new U.S. Oil monopoly:

Aceite del Norte
Petroleos NorteAmericano
Trump Oil


That's all I got. Feel free to add to the list.

BearFan33 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Howard Lutnick on CNBC indicates that the Trump administration will try to partially nationalize defense companies like Lockheed Martin pic.twitter.com/dYAbZPtcwu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 26, 2025

---

****ing really? Venezuela 2.0. Maybe Trump can hire Zohran Mamdani to be CEO of Lockheed Martin.

Why don't we go ahead and have a government monopoly of the oil industry like Mexico has? Seems to be working for them. This nationalization kick of private industry needs to stop!!!

---

Trump's setting the precedent so the next Democratic administration can do that with big oil. Just think how they could advance their climate agenda by doing that. This administration seems determined to kill the golden goose and principles of freedom simultaneously.

---

This is what worries me the most about taking stakes in private companies. I hadn't thought of big oil but it is probably more likely than gun manufacturers.

Here's the scenario. The octavia cortez administration makes moves that drives up the price of oil. They then declare a national emergency and acquire stakes in oil companies. Over the next 4 years they scuttle the companies from the inside. I have to buy a portable solar panel to keep my home utilities running when electricity prices soar. octavia cortez claims we saved the planet.

---

Yes, there's that.

Right now, there's this:

🚨 BREAKING: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announces FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION into Microsoft's using of Chinese Communist Party-linked engineers to work on US military and Pentagon cloud services.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS WAS HAPPENING!!

"It's OVER...we're requiring a third… pic.twitter.com/hnzezb7SzL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 27, 2025

whiterock said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Howard Lutnick on CNBC indicates that the Trump administration will try to partially nationalize defense companies like Lockheed Martin pic.twitter.com/dYAbZPtcwu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 26, 2025

---

****ing really? Venezuela 2.0. Maybe Trump can hire Zohran Mamdani to be CEO of Lockheed Martin.

Why don't we go ahead and have a government monopoly of the oil industry like Mexico has? Seems to be working for them. This nationalization kick of private industry needs to stop!!!

---

Trump's setting the precedent so the next Democratic administration can do that with big oil. Just think how they could advance their climate agenda by doing that. This administration seems determined to kill the golden goose and principles of freedom simultaneously.

---

This is what worries me the most about taking stakes in private companies. I hadn't thought of big oil but it is probably more likely than gun manufacturers.

Here's the scenario. The octavia cortez administration makes moves that drives up the price of oil. They then declare a national emergency and acquire stakes in oil companies. Over the next 4 years they scuttle the companies from the inside. I have to buy a portable solar panel to keep my home utilities running when electricity prices soar. octavia cortez claims we saved the planet.

---

Yes, there's that.

Right now, there's this:

🚨 BREAKING: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announces FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION into Microsoft's using of Chinese Communist Party-linked engineers to work on US military and Pentagon cloud services.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS WAS HAPPENING!!

"It's OVER...we're requiring a third… pic.twitter.com/hnzezb7SzL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 27, 2025

---

Whats up with that Bill?

LOL!!! I would bet Bill is scared to death. This has to be the biggest over promising and underperforming administration I have seen in my lifetime as far as battling corruption goes. All bark. No bite. They have three years to fix this. I hope they do.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

LOL!!! I would bet Bill is scared to death. This has to be the biggest over promising and underperforming administration I have seen in my lifetime as far as battling corruption goes. All bark. No bite. They have three years to fix this. I hope they do.

---

You have got to be kidding!

All he has been doing is battling corruption, the biggest and longest-running corrupt organization in American history, the Democrat Party!

Assassin said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

LOL!!! I would bet Bill is scared to death. This has to be the biggest over promising and underperforming administration I have seen in my lifetime as far as battling corruption goes. All bark. No bite. They have three years to fix this. I hope they do.

---

You have got to be kidding!

All he has been doing is battling corruption, the biggest and longest-running corrupt organization in American history, the Democrat Party!

---

Is anybody gonna be indicted? Anybody going to prison? I am not gonna hold my breath.

At this point, I would like to see even a corrupt Republican get slapped on the wrist. What a joke.

Love James Comer, but as my Grandpa used to say, " he is as useful as t!ts on a boar hog".

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

LOL!!! I would bet Bill is scared to death. This has to be the biggest over promising and underperforming administration I have seen in my lifetime as far as battling corruption goes. All bark. No bite. They have three years to fix this. I hope they do.

---

You have got to be kidding!

All he has been doing is battling corruption, the biggest and longest-running corrupt organization in American history, the Democrat Party!

---

Is anybody gonna be indicted? Anybody going to prison? I am not gonna hold my breath.

---

I will for ya. Some fur is about to fly

BREAKING: Nvidia, $NVDA, says: Any government demand for a revenue share might result in legal action.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 27, 2025

Bessent: A US stake in Nvidia, $NVDA, seems 'not on the table'… don't think Nvidia needs financial support

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 27, 2025

Let's be clear that no one should worry about corruption as long as Trump continues along his current course. Anyone who follows Trump knows the definition of corruption and how closely his actions demonstrate his innocence. Consider his actions as you review the following:

In law, corruption is generally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This often involves dishonest or fraudulent acts, such as bribery, extortion, nepotism, embezzlement, or favoritism, where an individual or organization uses their position of authority to benefit themselves or others illicitly. It represents a violation of public duty norms and a betrayal of public trust, leading to negative consequences for governance, the economy, and societal well-being.

Key Characteristics of Corruption in Law

Abuse of Power:
A person in a position of authority or trust misuses that power or position.

Private Gain:
The purpose of the abuse is to achieve a personal or private benefit for the corrupt official or their associates.

Violation of Norms/Duty:
The act violates established rules, ethics, or public duty, leading to a betrayal of public trust.
Illicit or Fraudulent Acts:
Corruption involves dishonest conduct, fraud, or illegal acts.

Common Forms of Corruption
Bribery: Offering or accepting something of value (money, favors) to influence a public official's actions or duties.

Embezzlement: Stealing or misusing state or organizational property for personal gain.

Extortion: Demanding money or favors from someone, often under threat.

Favoritism/Nepotism: Showing undue preference to friends, family, or associates in the distribution of contracts, jobs, or other resources.

Self-Dealing: Using one's public office for personal advantage, such as insider trading.

Consequences of Corruption

Undermines Institutions: It damages the reputation and efficiency of public institutions.

Hinders Economic Development: It distorts economic growth and prevents fair wealth accumulation.

Erodes Democracy: It attacks the principles of democracy and justice, leading to instability.

Breaches Public Trust: It is fundamentally a betrayal of the public's trust in those who hold positions of power.

BUDOS said:

---

Key Characteristics of Corruption in Law

Abuse of Power:
A person in a position of authority or trust misuses that power or position.

Private Gain:
The purpose of the abuse is to achieve a personal or private benefit for the corrupt official or their associates.

Violation of Norms/Duty:
The act violates established rules, ethics, or public duty, leading to a betrayal of public trust.
Illicit or Fraudulent Acts:
Corruption involves dishonest conduct, fraud, or illegal acts.

Common Forms of Corruption
Bribery: Offering or accepting something of value (money, favors) to influence a public official's actions or duties.

Embezzlement: Stealing or misusing state or organizational property for personal gain.

Extortion: Demanding money or favors from someone, often under threat.

Favoritism/Nepotism: Showing undue preference to friends, family, or associates in the distribution of contracts, jobs, or other resources.

Self-Dealing: Using one's public office for personal advantage, such as insider trading.

Consequences of Corruption

Undermines Institutions: It damages the reputation and efficiency of public institutions.

Hinders Economic Development: It distorts economic growth and prevents fair wealth accumulation.

Erodes Democracy: It attacks the principles of democracy and justice, leading to instability.

Breaches Public Trust: It is fundamentally a betrayal of the public's trust in those who hold positions of power.

---

Sounds like the Democrat Mantra.

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: Nvidia, $NVDA, says: Any government demand for a revenue share might result in legal action.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 27, 2025

Bessent: A US stake in Nvidia, $NVDA, seems 'not on the table'… don't think Nvidia needs financial support

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 27, 2025

---

Bessent's statement (as well as Hegseth's) is a hint at motivation = the intent to win the AI race against China. That means ensuring independence and survival of critical companies + ensuring a complete purge of Chinese infiltration of them.

Assassin said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Let's be clear that no one should worry about corruption as long as Trump continues along his current course. Anyone who follows Trump knows the definition of corruption and how closely his actions demonstrate his innocence. Consider his actions as you review the following:

In law, corruption is generally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This often involves dishonest or fraudulent acts, such as bribery, extortion, nepotism, embezzlement, or favoritism, where an individual or organization uses their position of authority to benefit themselves or others illicitly. It represents a violation of public duty norms and a betrayal of public trust, leading to negative consequences for governance, the economy, and societal well-being.

Key Characteristics of Corruption in Law

Abuse of Power:
A person in a position of authority or trust misuses that power or position.

Private Gain:
The purpose of the abuse is to achieve a personal or private benefit for the corrupt official or their associates.

Violation of Norms/Duty:
The act violates established rules, ethics, or public duty, leading to a betrayal of public trust.
Illicit or Fraudulent Acts:
Corruption involves dishonest conduct, fraud, or illegal acts.

Common Forms of Corruption
Bribery: Offering or accepting something of value (money, favors) to influence a public official's actions or duties.

Embezzlement: Stealing or misusing state or organizational property for personal gain.

Extortion: Demanding money or favors from someone, often under threat.

Favoritism/Nepotism: Showing undue preference to friends, family, or associates in the distribution of contracts, jobs, or other resources.

Self-Dealing: Using one's public office for personal advantage, such as insider trading.

Consequences of Corruption

Undermines Institutions: It damages the reputation and efficiency of public institutions.

Hinders Economic Development: It distorts economic growth and prevents fair wealth accumulation.

Erodes Democracy: It attacks the principles of democracy and justice, leading to instability.

Breaches Public Trust: It is fundamentally a betrayal of the public's trust in those who hold positions of power.

---

Sounds like the Democrat Mantra.

---

sounds like the Biden Administration

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Let's be clear that no one should worry about corruption as long as Trump continues along his current course. Anyone who follows Trump knows the definition of corruption and how closely his actions demonstrate his innocence. Consider his actions as you review the following:

In law, corruption is generally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This often involves dishonest or fraudulent acts, such as bribery, extortion, nepotism, embezzlement, or favoritism, where an individual or organization uses their position of authority to benefit themselves or others illicitly. It represents a violation of public duty norms and a betrayal of public trust, leading to negative consequences for governance, the economy, and societal well-being.

Key Characteristics of Corruption in Law

Abuse of Power:
A person in a position of authority or trust misuses that power or position.

Private Gain:
The purpose of the abuse is to achieve a personal or private benefit for the corrupt official or their associates.

Violation of Norms/Duty:
The act violates established rules, ethics, or public duty, leading to a betrayal of public trust.
Illicit or Fraudulent Acts:
Corruption involves dishonest conduct, fraud, or illegal acts.

Common Forms of Corruption
Bribery: Offering or accepting something of value (money, favors) to influence a public official's actions or duties.

Embezzlement: Stealing or misusing state or organizational property for personal gain.

Extortion: Demanding money or favors from someone, often under threat.

Favoritism/Nepotism: Showing undue preference to friends, family, or associates in the distribution of contracts, jobs, or other resources.

Self-Dealing: Using one's public office for personal advantage, such as insider trading.

Consequences of Corruption

Undermines Institutions: It damages the reputation and efficiency of public institutions.

Hinders Economic Development: It distorts economic growth and prevents fair wealth accumulation.

Erodes Democracy: It attacks the principles of democracy and justice, leading to instability.

Breaches Public Trust: It is fundamentally a betrayal of the public's trust in those who hold positions of power.

---

Sounds like the Democrat Mantra.

---

sounds like the Biden Administration

---

That too

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on Intel boss: "He walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States. We do a lot of deals like that. I'll do more of them." pic.twitter.com/NZJHuFTcCt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 22, 2025

---

This is how hou know even conservatives know Trump is full of B.S. They would be going apeshut if they actually believed what Trump said.

---

there you go again, making "shut" up.

One of the many pathologies of globalism is that it taught our corporations to think of themselves as citizens of the world, with no superseding obligations to their home country. A few decades down the road, and we were in a situation where our largest, wealthiest, and in many cases most national security sensitive companies were deeply in bed with the Chinese government (via parastatals) and directly balancing and/or triangulating in order to protect equities in an irritably intolerant China (at the expense of equities of a far more tolerant USA). It even got to the point where companies were actually suppressing pro-US and/or anti-China messaging in their ads, products, and workforce.

That's why we are seeing this step with Intel. USG representation on the board will stop the corporate slide into quiet Chinese vassal-ship. We don't have to take stakes in all the companies. Just a few. The rest will see the writing on the wall and take steps to avoid the same fate. In the meantime, the asset side of the US balance sheet just got bigger. Whenever the problem abates, the shares can be sold to reduce debt.

What it is not is a slide into socialism. If Trump were intent on government ownership stakes throughout the private sector, he would not be proposing to sell Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

---

Just read what you just said. The government could take a stake in companies throughout the private sector, and as long as Trump intends to sell Fannie Mae&Freddie Mac, it's not socialism. Whew, what a load.
LOL no, the load is you making such a flimsy straw man. I said no such thing.

First, I didn't say it's socialism, I said it is bad and a precursor to nationalizing private companies we deem necessary. Guess who else did that?
I didn't say you were a socialist. I merely pointed out that taking a minority share of a single private company is not a socialist agenda.

And second, if the government actually started strong arming companies throughout the private sector into giving it shares, I'd hesitate to call it socialism; it would be closer to communism, though on its own, not outright communism.

I wonder if you see the slide in politics, you have lubed the slide up, gotten 13 fire hoses plumbed in, and you're teetering at the top, strapped to a JetSki. You are just about to endorse the nationalization of companies, because the motherland requires it.
Again, taking an 11% share of a single company is not a nationalization program.

---

I not at all a fan of the USG owning shares of private companies. But I can see what's at play here. It makes sense. We will know soon enough if Trump is intent on an outright USG takeover of the Tech industry. In the meantime, we have no reason to suspect he will. Such would be inconsistent with everything he's said and done throughout his life, to include governance in his first term. If that changes, I'll be screaming about it, more loudly than I have been screaming about big Tech being in bed with China. What I'm not going to do is continue to allow our Corporations to show equal deference to our greatest geopolitical rival. Our companies are going to be American First, or they'll face consequences.

---

Unbelievable…

---

I agree. It's unbelievable that globalists expect the USG to tolerate it's own companies showing more deference to geopolitical rivals than to the USG.

You are apparently too young to remember much history. Did we allow IBM to set up manufacturing operations using sensitive technologies in the USSR? Did we allow Soviets to move here to manage all or parts of major corporations? Of course not. It would have been insane to have done so. Makes no sense that we should tolerate such now with China. If you don't like that, Mr. CEO, move yer feckin' family and HQS to Beijing and see how that works out for you.

---

So now you're lumping in Taiwan with China. Who needs to move to China when you're making this country mimic their tactics? Unbelievable.

---

News Flash I: Beijing is in China, not Taiwan.

News Flash II: we do have a problem with our economic supply chain being enmeshed with parastatals owned by our greatest geopolitical rival, particularly the ones related to defense, national security, technology, energy, etc..... China is installing malware on electrical grid equipment, fer crissakes. ('memba that time we let the Soviets build a new Embassy for us in Moscow, or were you still in diapers at the time?) Your adversaries, most particularly the ones who know they cannot stand against you in an open field, will find a way to undermine you, weaken you, distract you....... Please explain the logic of why we would build militaries to protect critical industries, then let those industries move production abroad and/or allow adversaries to enter into partnership with those industries (here or elsewhere) for the purpose of having leverage over US policy.

News Flash III: Open borders for people, jobs, and money is not just a failed libertarian experiment....it is an extraordinary anomaly in human history. Whatever can be said about its positive effects on wealth generation, no one is more free because of it, and it is increasingly obvious that the social costs of it have outweighed the benefits of it. THAT'S WHY IT'S COLLAPSING. It no longer serves the common good. No, trade is not going away, but it is going to return to reality. Borders are going to matter again.

I say again......trade policy ALWAYS serves national security policy. Always has. Always will. What you're seeing here is merely a return to reality. The rise of AI is the new space race. We are going to win it. That will require paring back our relationships with China (who is our great rival in AI). We cannot allow our capital, financial and intellectual, to become assets of our greatest geopolitical rival.

---

Your responses are becoming more and more built around platitudes, a lack of understanding of the current economy, and invented projections. I think you're leaning a little too hard on Cold War metaphors and diaper jokes instead of the facts of how things actually work today. The U.S. doesn't just casually let China handle sensitive defense or strategic technology. We have an entire regulatory architecture designed to prevent that under ITAR and EAR.
Which have manifestly failed, as Hegseth's comments posted here illustrate. Bad guys are gonna get some wins from time to time. Just the nature of the business, The problem here is that administrations of BOTH parties waited at least 15 years too late to react to plainly visible Chinese malintent. Obama quite purposely purged the the China Hawks in the Navy, to a man. Problem is, the China Hawks were right. But their warnings were quite inconvenient to the globalist business model, so.....they were cashiered at the precise moment we should have been pivoting to decouple. Thankfully, those days are past.
And as someone who's likely been to China many more times than you, I specifically brought Taiwan into the mix because there is sensitive semiconductor technology produced there.
And if you think Chinese intelligence does not have it penetrated you are naive in the extreme. HInt: Do not discuss your business with colleagues on an Air France flight unless you want DGSE interpreters to print out a transcript of your comments for French intel analysts.

The most strategic thing China has a grip on is rare earth processing. That's an item I've argued ad nauseum we should either massively overhaul environmental regs to allow it here, or establish different strategic partners in places like Africa.
And we are doing both. But it's broader than just which countries control which strategic raw materials. It's the globalism itself, the extreme libetarianism of it....corporations as citizens of the world nonsense. We simply cannot adequately defend global supply chains which run thru multiple layers of other sovereign powers with competing priorities, particularly with respect to counter-intelligence operations. Badges are a huge advantage in such things, and we can't use them outside the jurisdiction of US courts. Then there are the ebbs & flows of foreign relations. We may today have a good relationship with (insert country here) but regimes rise & fall. Policies change. And most powers will hedge to some degree. (Philippines being a good example of the ebbs & flows of changes & hedges in policies. We're in a pretty good place with them at this time...but haven't always been, and won't always be.) If it is critically important, it must be done here. Period. China is not the USSR. Latter was raw power. China is quite a bit different animal, quite a bit more enmeshed with the world economy than the USSR ever was.

And while there are certain strategic industries and materials that have national security interests, by no means does all trade or international commerce fall under that. That blanket position is revealing of your belief in giving government more control of commerce, aka micromanaging the economy
It's not a "position." It's reality. It's the way sovereign powers operate. Commerce must have benefits beyond corporate profits. That's not a terribly high bar if we're talking about trade with 5-eye countries, but is quite difficult to justify in trade with an adversary.
the way Trump is trying to do, and ironically mirroring a similar central planning approach the very China you are worried about does.
First, Trump is a Russian stooge, now he's a modeling his policies to mirror China? Geez, dude, you have fallen into TDS. Seek help. He's doing neither. He's moving at flank speed to prepare for a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan forecasted for 2027.

But overall you've pivoted from decoupling from global trade to a focus on China.
LOL now you're sputtering. There is no pivot at all. We're not decoupling from global trade, just de-emphasizing it by attempting to bring a greater percentage of our supply chains home. We are, however, decoupling from China as quickly as we can without destabilizing our own economy.
There are strategic reasons to do the latter that I agree with, but let's not invent boogeymen to do it, and swipe broad brush strokes encapsulating previously reliable trade allies.
No boogeyman. We treated China like an ally and let them infiltrate our country in ways we would never have allowed the USSR to do in the Cold War....from Silicon Valley, to the academy, to electrical grid, etc....long atter it was patently obvious that it was unwise to do so.

---

I recruited and clandestinely handled "people" relevant to this discussion. Globalism has made you quite blind to the realities of how sovereign powers operate, incredibly one-dimensional on this subject. No responsible power will ever defer foreign policy to the whims of corporate boardrooms. Lenin was not completely in left-field when he observed "capitalism would sell us the rope used to hang itself." We didn't do that because we recognized the threat and contained it. We did the exact opposite with China, and as a result have a bewildering array of vulnerabilities throughout our institutions and private sector interests at home and abroad. Decoupling from that is going to be quite a bit harder than severing the supply chains, complicated by all the globalist extremists insisting that it is immoral to stop capitalism from selling rope to the wrong people.

whiterock said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Howard Lutnick on CNBC indicates that the Trump administration will try to partially nationalize defense companies like Lockheed Martin pic.twitter.com/dYAbZPtcwu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 26, 2025

---

****ing really? Venezuela 2.0. Maybe Trump can hire Zohran Mamdani to be CEO of Lockheed Martin.

Why don't we go ahead and have a government monopoly of the oil industry like Mexico has? Seems to be working for them. This nationalization kick of private industry needs to stop!!!

---

Trump's setting the precedent so the next Democratic administration can do that with big oil. Just think how they could advance their climate agenda by doing that. This administration seems determined to kill the golden goose and principles of freedom simultaneously.

---

This is what worries me the most about taking stakes in private companies. I hadn't thought of big oil but it is probably more likely than gun manufacturers.

Here's the scenario. The octavia cortez administration makes moves that drives up the price of oil. They then declare a national emergency and acquire stakes in oil companies. Over the next 4 years they scuttle the companies from the inside. I have to buy a portable solar panel to keep my home utilities running when electricity prices soar. octavia cortez claims we saved the planet.

---

Yes, there's that.

Right now, there's this:

🚨 BREAKING: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announces FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION into Microsoft's using of Chinese Communist Party-linked engineers to work on US military and Pentagon cloud services.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS WAS HAPPENING!!

"It's OVER...we're requiring a third… pic.twitter.com/hnzezb7SzL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 27, 2025

---

It's scary. I'd bet someone in the Biden adm. got a big kickback for that. 10% for the big guy?

nein51 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

‘IT’S LIKE CHESS’: @realDonaldTrump reveals his game plan for the high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska, outlining how his negotiations with the Russian leader will differ from those of past presidents — including Bush, Obama, and Biden. pic.twitter.com/czJ5AXwWig

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 14, 2025

---

With all the public yapping , Trump is setting himself up for failure.

Putin, a former KGB operative , is going to play Trump like a fiddle.

Little chance any peace deal is reached.

---

I saw an interview where Trump said he wants to see what Vlad wants. I think he is hoping to come away with a ceasefire in this meeting. If it is over quick, its a bad sign for peace. If they are in the room for hours, progress is happening.

---

Trump desires a peace deal, far more than Putin does.

As the Russians are slowly bleeding the Ukrainian military to death.

---

Putin will soon run roughshod all across europe

---

lol they can't even run roughshod over a rag tag army next door to them, in areas where many Russians are helping.

---

Yep, Russia will not roll through Europe. No one is under that impression anymore. Ukraine proved that. That "fear" is propagated by people looking to justify getting more resources out of their constituents. Russia may eventually take Ukraine, given enough time, but they are looking weaker than everyone imagined they'd be.

Looks like treason

Karoline Leavitt: "I saw the comments of Ms. Psaki and frankly I think they're incredibly insensitive and disrespectful to the tens of millions of Americans of faith across this country who believe in the power of prayer, who believe that prayer works." pic.twitter.com/oVL3I52MHe

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 28, 2025

Pray without ceasing.

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 28, 2025

Almost Labor Day 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/qfXYciOjLj

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 28, 2025

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Let's be clear that no one should worry about corruption as long as Trump continues along his current course. Anyone who follows Trump knows the definition of corruption and how closely his actions demonstrate his innocence. Consider his actions as you review the following:

In law, corruption is generally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This often involves dishonest or fraudulent acts, such as bribery, extortion, nepotism, embezzlement, or favoritism, where an individual or organization uses their position of authority to benefit themselves or others illicitly. It represents a violation of public duty norms and a betrayal of public trust, leading to negative consequences for governance, the economy, and societal well-being.

Key Characteristics of Corruption in Law

Abuse of Power:
A person in a position of authority or trust misuses that power or position.

Private Gain:
The purpose of the abuse is to achieve a personal or private benefit for the corrupt official or their associates.

Violation of Norms/Duty:
The act violates established rules, ethics, or public duty, leading to a betrayal of public trust.
Illicit or Fraudulent Acts:
Corruption involves dishonest conduct, fraud, or illegal acts.

Common Forms of Corruption
Bribery: Offering or accepting something of value (money, favors) to influence a public official's actions or duties.

Embezzlement: Stealing or misusing state or organizational property for personal gain.

Extortion: Demanding money or favors from someone, often under threat.

Favoritism/Nepotism: Showing undue preference to friends, family, or associates in the distribution of contracts, jobs, or other resources.

Self-Dealing: Using one's public office for personal advantage, such as insider trading.

Consequences of Corruption

Undermines Institutions: It damages the reputation and efficiency of public institutions.

Hinders Economic Development: It distorts economic growth and prevents fair wealth accumulation.

Erodes Democracy: It attacks the principles of democracy and justice, leading to instability.

Breaches Public Trust: It is fundamentally a betrayal of the public's trust in those who hold positions of power.

---

Sounds like the Democrat Mantra.

---

sounds like the Biden Administration

---

That too

---

Even if by your stretch of the imagination it did, then wouldn't you say that Trump did them even better? He definitely did them better by following the definition of corruption closer. Just think how his honesty and unselfishness is going to pay off when he controls your money via the Fed.

BUDOS said:

---

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Let's be clear that no one should worry about corruption as long as Trump continues along his current course. Anyone who follows Trump knows the definition of corruption and how closely his actions demonstrate his innocence. Consider his actions as you review the following:

In law, corruption is generally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This often involves dishonest or fraudulent acts, such as bribery, extortion, nepotism, embezzlement, or favoritism, where an individual or organization uses their position of authority to benefit themselves or others illicitly. It represents a violation of public duty norms and a betrayal of public trust, leading to negative consequences for governance, the economy, and societal well-being.

Key Characteristics of Corruption in Law

Abuse of Power:
A person in a position of authority or trust misuses that power or position.

Private Gain:
The purpose of the abuse is to achieve a personal or private benefit for the corrupt official or their associates.

Violation of Norms/Duty:
The act violates established rules, ethics, or public duty, leading to a betrayal of public trust.
Illicit or Fraudulent Acts:
Corruption involves dishonest conduct, fraud, or illegal acts.

Common Forms of Corruption
Bribery: Offering or accepting something of value (money, favors) to influence a public official's actions or duties.

Embezzlement: Stealing or misusing state or organizational property for personal gain.

Extortion: Demanding money or favors from someone, often under threat.

Favoritism/Nepotism: Showing undue preference to friends, family, or associates in the distribution of contracts, jobs, or other resources.

Self-Dealing: Using one's public office for personal advantage, such as insider trading.

Consequences of Corruption

Undermines Institutions: It damages the reputation and efficiency of public institutions.

Hinders Economic Development: It distorts economic growth and prevents fair wealth accumulation.

Erodes Democracy: It attacks the principles of democracy and justice, leading to instability.

Breaches Public Trust: It is fundamentally a betrayal of the public's trust in those who hold positions of power.

---

Sounds like the Democrat Mantra.

---

sounds like the Biden Administration

---

That too

---

Even if by your stretch of the imagination it did, then wouldn't you say that Trump did them even better? He definitely did them better by following the definition of corruption closer. Just think how his honesty and unselfishness is going to pay off when he controls your money via the Fed.

---

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Democrat Party.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

‘IT’S LIKE CHESS’: @realDonaldTrump reveals his game plan for the high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska, outlining how his negotiations with the Russian leader will differ from those of past presidents — including Bush, Obama, and Biden. pic.twitter.com/czJ5AXwWig

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 14, 2025

---

With all the public yapping , Trump is setting himself up for failure.

Putin, a former KGB operative , is going to play Trump like a fiddle.

Little chance any peace deal is reached.

---

I saw an interview where Trump said he wants to see what Vlad wants. I think he is hoping to come away with a ceasefire in this meeting. If it is over quick, its a bad sign for peace. If they are in the room for hours, progress is happening.

---

Trump desires a peace deal, far more than Putin does.

As the Russians are slowly bleeding the Ukrainian military to death.

---

Putin will soon run roughshod all across europe

---

lol they can't even run roughshod over a rag tag army next door to them, in areas where many Russians are helping.

---

Yep, Russia will not roll through Europe. No one is under that impression anymore. Ukraine proved that. That "fear" is propagated by people looking to justify getting more resources out of their constituents.

---

Yes

Always reminds us to be very cautious of people & politicians who can only offer propaganda talking points and cliche. Along with hyperbole like "Russia will conquer Poland!" nonsense.

[The aspect of Adolf Eichmann that Arendt found most troubling, and also most comical, was his inability to utter "a single sentence that was not a cliche." Whenever questioned, he "repeated word for word the same stock phrases." What Eichmann's reliance on cliche evinced was a complete inability to think. To speak only in stock phrases is to abdicate one's capacity for thought to an external force- to quite literally draw one's words, and the ideas they communicate (or lack thereof), from a pre-given well. The mind ossifies, and the phrases become rote and devoid of rational content...]

historian said:

---

---

Could easily have a Democratic president in 2028.

Our people have short memories.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

Could easily have a Democratic president in 2028.

Our people have short memories.

---

The only way that would happen would be if Republicans voted for them

If the economy tanks……Dems will regain the White House.

If we get into a ground war….Dems will regain the White House.

If another major pandemic hits the United. States…Dems will regain the White House.

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

Could easily have a Democratic president in 2028.

Our people have short memories.

---

The only way that would happen would be if Republicans voted for them

---

Or elections are rigged in the swing states. I mean we already know that the voting machines can be corrupted.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

Could easily have a Democratic president in 2028.

Our people have short memories.

---

The only way that would happen would be if Republicans voted for them

---

Or elections are rigged in the swing states. I mean we already know that the voting machines can be corrupted.

---

There is that

KaiBear said:

---

If the economy tanks……Dems will regain the White House.

If we get into a ground war….Dems will regain the White House.

If another major pandemic hits the United. States…Dems will regain the White House.

---

I'm not as cynical as that, I would hope you are wrong