quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Haha

Do you actually believe Trump is getting "played" by that kid???

Seriously?

If this deal goes south Trump will back out unlike previous presidents staying in bad deals for our country. That's what's different between a businessman and a politician running your country!

And KimUn will have missed a great opportunity for his country to have become wealthy

Read Art of Deal if you don't want business lesson

---

You already gave Trump a Nobel for reuniting North and South Korea. Keep telling others how smart you are.

---

No I haven't

That's up to Kim

Trump will make him pay consequences if Kim doesn't follow through on obligations

We're in good hands with Trump if you're for the US?

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

I'm not seeing that, at least not on this board. Where are you seeing it?

---

^ Bubba, now that's a clueless statement there buddy

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

I'm not seeing that, at least not on this board. Where are you seeing it?

---

Stop trying to play me like a biatch.

---

Rather than disputing your statement out of hand, I was asking you to point me to your evidence. Serves me right, I guess, for trying to have an actual discussion.

Pointing out that Trump is falsely claiming that there is no longer a threat from North Korea and we have peace in our time (sound like anyone you've read about, say, circa 1938) is hardly the same as expressing a desire that the whole enterprise fail.

I see a lot of the former. I'm not seeing the latter. Maybe it's there. If you've seen it, I'd simply like to see it, too, so I can form my own opinion about the evidence you've seen.

---

You missed the point of my statement. Two or three posts above mine was the critical analysis of Trump being "played like a biatch". So I guess your response is some what of an answer to the question you asked me. You don't make those types of statements unless you know or hope someone is or has failed at something.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

TxS May mean a world market outside of the USA like Africa, Siutheast Asia, Iran, Turkey, possibly India.
There's a world than us that can dominate

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

I'm not seeing that, at least not on this board. Where are you seeing it?

---

Stop trying to play me like a biatch.

---

Rather than disputing your statement out of hand, I was asking you to point me to your evidence. Serves me right, I guess, for trying to have an actual discussion.

Pointing out that Trump is falsely claiming that there is no longer a threat from North Korea and we have peace in our time (sound like anyone you've read about, say, circa 1938) is hardly the same as expressing a desire that the whole enterprise fail.

I see a lot of the former. I'm not seeing the latter. Maybe it's there. If you've seen it, I'd simply like to see it, too, so I can form my own opinion about the evidence you've seen.

---

You missed the point of my statement. Two or three posts above mine was the critical analysis of Trump being "played like a biatch". So I guess your response is some what of an answer to the question you asked me. You don't make those types of statements unless you know or hope someone is or has failed at something.

---

Knowing is not hoping, not even close.

What else you got?

TexasScientist said:

---

If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

China is a power house.

Russia's GDP is less than California, Texas and New York

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

China is a power house.

Russia's GDP is less than California, Texas and New York

---

Yes, but Russia has and will continue to ally with China.

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

China is a power house.

Russia's GDP is less than California, Texas and New York

---

Yes, but Russia has and will continue to ally with China.

---

I'm not so sure, especially as Chinese people and influence gain more sway in the lightly populated Russian Far East. Russia's most defining characteristic is nationalism, and China will continue to infringe on that.

They do share a common interest in promoting non-democratic models of government to oppose Western democracies. But they also have plenty of reasons to be adversaries or at least rivals.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

I'm not seeing that, at least not on this board. Where are you seeing it?

---

Stop trying to play me like a biatch.

---

Rather than disputing your statement out of hand, I was asking you to point me to your evidence. Serves me right, I guess, for trying to have an actual discussion.

Pointing out that Trump is falsely claiming that there is no longer a threat from North Korea and we have peace in our time (sound like anyone you've read about, say, circa 1938) is hardly the same as expressing a desire that the whole enterprise fail.

I see a lot of the former. I'm not seeing the latter. Maybe it's there. If you've seen it, I'd simply like to see it, too, so I can form my own opinion about the evidence you've seen.

---

You missed the point of my statement. Two or three posts above mine was the critical analysis of Trump being "played like a biatch". So I guess your response is some what of an answer to the question you asked me. You don't make those types of statements unless you know or hope someone is or has failed at something.

---

Knowing is not hoping, not even close.

What else you got?

---

Kniwing what? What Knowledge do you or the other poster have that Trump or the US is getting "played like a biatch"? If

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

I'm not seeing that, at least not on this board. Where are you seeing it?

---

Stop trying to play me like a biatch.

---

Rather than disputing your statement out of hand, I was asking you to point me to your evidence. Serves me right, I guess, for trying to have an actual discussion.

Pointing out that Trump is falsely claiming that there is no longer a threat from North Korea and we have peace in our time (sound like anyone you've read about, say, circa 1938) is hardly the same as expressing a desire that the whole enterprise fail.

I see a lot of the former. I'm not seeing the latter. Maybe it's there. If you've seen it, I'd simply like to see it, too, so I can form my own opinion about the evidence you've seen.

---

You missed the point of my statement. Two or three posts above mine was the critical analysis of Trump being "played like a biatch". So I guess your response is some what of an answer to the question you asked me. You don't make those types of statements unless you know or hope someone is or has failed at something.

---

Knowing is not hoping, not even close.

What else you got?

---

Kniwing what? What Knowledge do you or the other poster have that Trump or the US is getting "played like a biatch"? If

---

Not talking just about NK, you used "failed" broadly.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

This would be a good time to reinstate the cancelled excercises if that's how NK want to play, otherwise they really did get that concession for nothing.

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

---

China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Name 2 wars it has fought outside it own borders.

DaveyBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

---

China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Name 2 wars it has fought outside it own borders.

---

Korean, Sino-Tibet.

Japan?

Waco1947 said:

---

Japan?

---

Think it was all fought in China.

DaveyBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

---

China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Name 2 wars it has fought outside it own borders.

---

Burma, India, Vietnam (not against us but against the Vietnamese), brief fight against the USSR, Korea, Mongolia, and many many others. If you go all the way back to the first dynasty of China the area known as China was not as large as it is today.... it only got that way through conquest and wars.

Thanks cowboy. I forgot my history.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

---

The point is China will never be a dominant global power until the people become more empowered. Subsidies and central planning is untenable long term, as is domestic repression the more the citizens gain economic freedom (that's in terms of economic purchase power). That's why of all areas of governance, the Chinese have been the most progressive on the economic side, opening up the opportunity for some free market principles to operate within its borders, but protecting it through tariffs and currency manipulation. This has aided in their rise to economic strength, but also has domestic pressures that lie just under the surface.

As far as military deployment, since the Chinese revolution, outside of the Korean War (which fits somewhat in what I'll mention next), China has been about securing it's perimeter influence along it's borders and containing their own people. Most conflicts have involved either border or close proximity access to regional areas. Even their island building in the South China sea is as much about protecting trade routes and Taiwanese influence as anything. They are just now branching into international bases (their first) in Djibouti in East Africa. Mind you the US has bases all around them in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea and I'd throw Guam in there as well, not to mention the ones we have in the Middle East that are very close to their Western border.

It isn't that I take China lightly, or deny that they're building up, or at least trying to keep up, militarily from a modern perspective, but they are not at the point of meddling or confronting the world the way the US or even several European nations do. China's foreign policy outside of making sure they maintain their perimeter and proximity influence, is a libertarian's dream. They'll sell tanks and weaponry to anyone regardless of concern over the player (see Omar al Bashir in the Sudan as one example) in exchange for economic interest. Bottomline, I don't take them lightly, but I also know they aren't the boogeyman many like to use to justify wrong headed policy, and play fear mongering politics with.

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

---

The point is China will never be a dominant global power until the people become more empowered. Subsidies and central planning is untenable long term, as is domestic repression the more the citizens gain economic freedom (that's in terms of economic purchase power). That's why of all areas of governance, the Chinese have been the most progressive on the economic side, opening up the opportunity for some free market principles to operate within its borders, but protecting it through tariffs and currency manipulation. This has aided in their rise to economic strength, but also has domestic pressures that lie just under the surface.

As far as military deployment, since the Chinese revolution, outside of the Korean War (which fits somewhat in what I'll mention next), China has been about securing it's perimeter influence along it's borders and containing their own people. Most conflicts have involved either border or close proximity access to regional areas. Even their island building in the South China sea is as much about protecting trade routes and Taiwanese influence as anything. They are just now branching into international bases (their first) in Djibouti in East Africa. Mind you the US has bases all around them in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea and I'd throw Guam in there as well, not to mention the ones we have in the Middle East that are very close to their Western border.

It isn't that I take China lightly, or deny that they're building up, or at least trying to keep up, militarily from a modern perspective, but they are not at the point of meddling or confronting the world the way the US or even several European nations do. China's foreign policy outside of making sure they maintain their perimeter and proximity influence, is a libertarian's dream. They'll sell tanks and weaponry to anyone regardless of concern over the player (see Omar al Bashir in the Sudan as one example) in exchange for economic interest. Bottomline, I don't take them lightly, but I also know they aren't the boogeyman many like to use to justify wrong headed policy, and play fear mongering politics with.

---

You underestimate the potential of their present form of governance and economic system. It gives them a lot the economic advantages of free enterprise, yet retains the advantages to make and implement timely critical decisions characteristic of an authoritarian government. I've been to China. Their people are doing well and their cities are very modern. Their major cities are in many ways architecturally newer than ours. They are in many ways the "sleeping giant" we were in 1940.
Trump better have a well thought out plan, or he will have his hat handed to him.

HuMcK said:

---

---

Riiiiiiigggghht.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is going to take some time to accomplish. Some like to spike the football to early, while others are leaving the stadium in the first quarter.

The most disturbing part is the apparent desire for failure over success in something all would agree is a positive.

---

Do you agree with the President that, but for him, we'd be at war with NK? (Ignore, as he did, that we've been at war over 60 years.)

---

Success has a 1,000 fathers but failure is an orphan. Trump isn't the orphan of success in this, but who cares what bombast he puts out there? It's political theater and dancing bear sideshows that people want to obsess over. Reality is, as an outsider he took a chance on meeting directly with Kim, despite decades of bureaucrats all advising prior admins (and him) not to do. We'll see if it pays off. As I've said before, this is going to be slow. Getting NK into the world community is the first step. There will be lots of trade offs in the process, and the vast majority of them don't involve nuclear facilities or weapons.

Many people thought Nixon was crazy for meeting with Mao. It took decades before China was fully part of the world community. It will be the same for NK if they so choose.

---

Except China came into the world community as a nuclear power. I don't fault him for meeting with Kim. I fault his pompous declarations that it is all resolved when it clearly is not. Are there serious discussions going on after his grand standing proclamations? Does Trump think Kim is hypnotized by his personal magnetism? It appears NK, China and Russia all think they can take advantage of Trump. If Trump is not careful, China and Russia will emerge from Trump's presidency as the world's dominant economic and political powers. China is already well on its way with tentacles that extend around the world.

---

Don't come at me with the China/Russia stuff. Many on the right said it during Obama and I disagreed, and now the left is saying it about the Trump admin. Both are wrong. China is overly dependent upon the US and we'll always hold sway with them until that changes. Our advantage in a trade war comes from the US ability to take price increases compared to the Chinese, and a natural resource imbalance that we own by a mile. Russia is a blip on the economic market comparatively speaking, and we're our own worst enemy in our attempts to build them up as some "red scare" boogeyman.

---

China has a goal to be the dominant world power. Check on who owns most of the worlds rare earth elements now. You'll find China does. Check on who has made deals to build infrastructure in third world countries in return for a presence and for natural resources in those countries. China. They're not expanding their military capabilities just for fun.The Chinese population will withstand and tolerate harsh economic times much better than the U.S. population.

---

Most of the Chinese population already live in harsh conditions, and are still very susceptible to starvation and disease. China has certainly been bolstering its military for a long time, but have shown little to no willingness to deploy it. Ultimately, China will be restrained from economic world domination by its system of government and repression of its people. Show me a more liberated China, and then I'll be concerned.

---

Do you really think that the Chinese people can successfully rise up and revolt against their government? They're not starving in China. There economy is still centrally controlled, and government subsidized, and their officials are not subject to recurring elections. Internal public opinion influence is minimal compared to a liberated more liberated China. That's an advantage to their government is a trade war. They have always had expectations focused on long term objectives for their country. They have a culture of individual sacrifice for the good of all. Ours is short term, with expectations of immediate results and gratification. They will fare much better than the U.S. in an ill thought out protracted tit for tat trade war. I'm afraid, to be successful, our country is in for a rude awakening that will require sacrifice and costs we haven't been willing to accept, in order to prevail in this type of fight.

Has China really been unwilling to deploy its military? Think about it. China has been expanding its military presence in the China sea by building air an naval bases in international waters and claiming it for China. That in my books is a use of its military. They've been building military bases around the world. We don't really know the extent of their nuclear submarine program, because their pens are underground with underwater entrances. The intimidation factor alone of their military is far greater than you think. China has the ability to make long term plans and goals and to adhere to them politically. Ours are subject to change with each election cycle. China is formidable and should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

---

The point is China will never be a dominant global power until the people become more empowered. Subsidies and central planning is untenable long term, as is domestic repression the more the citizens gain economic freedom (that's in terms of economic purchase power). That's why of all areas of governance, the Chinese have been the most progressive on the economic side, opening up the opportunity for some free market principles to operate within its borders, but protecting it through tariffs and currency manipulation. This has aided in their rise to economic strength, but also has domestic pressures that lie just under the surface.

As far as military deployment, since the Chinese revolution, outside of the Korean War (which fits somewhat in what I'll mention next), China has been about securing it's perimeter influence along it's borders and containing their own people. Most conflicts have involved either border or close proximity access to regional areas. Even their island building in the South China sea is as much about protecting trade routes and Taiwanese influence as anything. They are just now branching into international bases (their first) in Djibouti in East Africa. Mind you the US has bases all around them in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea and I'd throw Guam in there as well, not to mention the ones we have in the Middle East that are very close to their Western border.

It isn't that I take China lightly, or deny that they're building up, or at least trying to keep up, militarily from a modern perspective, but they are not at the point of meddling or confronting the world the way the US or even several European nations do. China's foreign policy outside of making sure they maintain their perimeter and proximity influence, is a libertarian's dream. They'll sell tanks and weaponry to anyone regardless of concern over the player (see Omar al Bashir in the Sudan as one example) in exchange for economic interest. Bottomline, I don't take them lightly, but I also know they aren't the boogeyman many like to use to justify wrong headed policy, and play fear mongering politics with.

---

You underestimate the potential of their present form of governance and economic system. It gives them a lot the economic advantages of free enterprise, yet retains the advantages to make and implement timely critical decisions characteristic of an authoritarian government. I've been to China. Their people are doing well and their cities are very modern. Their major cities are in many ways architecturally newer than ours. They are in many ways the "sleeping giant" we were in 1940.
Trump better have a well thought out plan, or he will have his hat handed to him.

---

I go to China regularly. What's happening is you're overestimating the positive impact of their system. Right now they're caught in a catch 22 around their currency and economy. They're in a weakening economic period, and having to go back to currency manipulation (devaluing against a strong US dollar) to stem the decline. Throw in a trade war with their largest partner, and it's not a good situation. Now I'm no tariff fan, but the point is China is much more vulnerable than you seem to acknowledge. The reason they can't be paralleled to the US "sleeping giant" is that the gains are as much through unnatural market forces (government subsidy, currency manipulation, etc.) as traditional growth. You also need to understand that the perceived "strength" of the Chinese economy is also very much manipulated by what the government provides in data and how the central bank is managed/influenced by those same factors. Credit and credit growth has been a huge factor in China's growth, and it is a very leveraged economy.

At the end of the day, I don't know what Trump will do. I'm hopeful that the tariffs are just bargaining chips to get Chinese tariffs and other trade blocks reduced. Regardless of what Trump does, China is an up and comer and formidable, but nowhere near the Super Power they're trying to portray.

ATL Bear said:

---

Regardless of what Trump does, China is an up and comer and formidable, but nowhere near the Super Power they're trying to portray.

---

I agree with the gist of this assessment.

We have a long tendency to overrate economic/military threats in the US. On the economic side, there was a time not so long ago when everyone feared we'd wind up speaking Japanese. We feared Russia's military threat, even though they had nowhere near our capability to project power around the world. Now we do some of the same, on both the economic and military fronts, with China.

And China has plenty of problems of its own. You mention the economic ones. They're also sitting on a demographic time bomb that will go off when they feel the long-term effects of their one-child policy (not to mention the imbalance between men and women that is being created).

However, there are still a lot of serious reasons to worry about China.

The economic power outpaces their military power, and they are throwing their economic weight around. They're a huge force to be reckoned with here, even if their military is not there yet.

Up-and-comers tend to feel their oats and behave more aggressively toward neighbors. We went through that period ourselves from the 1840s to about 1900. China's aggressive behavior calls for a coordinated and calculated response, and we're not seeing one. Instead, this administration seems much more interested in isolating allies in the region like Japan and Australia.

Even more, we're withdrawing from world economic alliances, leaving a vacuum that China is happy to fill (which also means that more of the world will play by Chinese rules and values, or lack thereof.

American withdrawal from leadership at a time when China is growing and asserting its power is not a good combination of events for US interests. In and of itself, China may not be the global superpower we fear, but their power gets magnified when we take an isolationist response to them.

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Regardless of what Trump does, China is an up and comer and formidable, but nowhere near the Super Power they're trying to portray.

---

I agree with the gist of this assessment.

We have a long tendency to overrate economic/military threats in the US. On the economic side, there was a time not so long ago when everyone feared we'd wind up speaking Japanese. We feared Russia's military threat, even though they had nowhere near our capability to project power around the world. Now we do some of the same, on both the economic and military fronts, with China.

And China has plenty of problems of its own. You mention the economic ones. They're also sitting on a demographic time bomb that will go off when they feel the long-term effects of their one-child policy (not to mention the imbalance between men and women that is being created).

However, there are still a lot of serious reasons to worry about China.

The economic power outpaces their military power, and they are throwing their economic weight around. They're a huge force to be reckoned with here, even if their military is not there yet.

Up-and-comers tend to feel their oats and behave more aggressively toward neighbors. We went through that period ourselves from the 1840s to about 1900. China's aggressive behavior calls for a coordinated and calculated response, and we're not seeing one. Instead, this administration seems much more interested in isolating allies in the region like Japan and Australia.

Even more, we're withdrawing from world economic alliances, leaving a vacuum that China is happy to fill (which also means that more of the world will play by Chinese rules and values, or lack thereof.

American withdrawal from leadership at a time when China is growing and asserting its power is not a good combination of events for US interests. In and of itself, China may not be the global superpower we fear, but their power gets magnified when we take an isolationist response to them.

---

I pretty much agree with your assessment except for one thing. I'm not against alliances, but I think it's unrealistic to believe China is a nation that can step into these economic alliance "vacuums" and fill a role similar to the US. They just can't for the following reasons. First, they're not a fair trading partner, and the world already knows it. They stay competitive by keeping their prices low even with the tariffs they (European countries for example) apply to Chinese goods through subsidies and currency manipulation. Second, they simply don't have the trade breadth to be that attractive because they are protectionist themselves. All nations have significant trade relationships with the US because, well, we buy a lot of stuff from other countries, and have the capital and purchasing power to do so. China is playing a one sided game, which has worked at one level, but longer term will require them to give up more to get more. The only real trade they conduct on traditional terms are in commodities like oil, etc., as they have a natural resource deficiency, again, something the US does not have to deal with. Finally, their regulatory and legal structure within the country is still very shaky and inconsistent. This additional risk puts major trade players on guard and prevents significant expansion.

I see at a macro level what Trump is attempting to do, and that is incentivize domestic investment and increase our exports, as well as level some bad trading fields (and despite the harsh rhetoric, there are a number of them, even with our long time allies). Trump's problem here to many is the style of approach, not the approach itself. And he lets his ego get in the way of constructive dialogue, and plays the public twitter game, and all the dumb things I don't like about him.

I bet you'd get a hard-on if Pearl Harbor happened again as long as it was under Trump.

GolemIII said:

---

I bet you'd get a hard-on if Pearl Harbor happened again as long as it was under Trump.

---

They're praying and hoping for war. You know, I know it, we all know it.

They want chaos to make him look bad. The ends justify the means for them.

GolemIII said:

---

I bet you'd get a hard-on if Pearl Harbor happened again as long as it was under Trump.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the people who denigrated the Iran Deal and celebrated our unilateral withdrawal from it ( I wonder if that little stunt made a deal with NK more or less likely?). Your projection may be showing a little bit, because all I did was post a news link without commentary or opinion. I did warn y'all how this was probably gonna go, but y'all were too busy dreaming of a Nobel Peace Prize getting awarded to Trump to hear it...

HuMcK said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

I bet you'd get a hard-on if Pearl Harbor happened again as long as it was under Trump.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the people who denigrated the Iran Deal and celebrated our unilateral withdrawal from it ( I wonder if that little stunt made a deal with NK more or less likely?). Your projection may be showing a little bit, because all I did was post a news link without commentary or opinion. I did warn y'all how this was probably gonna go, but y'all were too busy dreaming of a Nobel Peace Prize getting awarded to Trump to hear it...

---

How many hundreds of billions did Trump give Kim?

GolemIII said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

I bet you'd get a hard-on if Pearl Harbor happened again as long as it was under Trump.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the people who denigrated the Iran Deal and celebrated our unilateral withdrawal from it ( I wonder if that little stunt made a deal with NK more or less likely?). Your projection may be showing a little bit, because all I did was post a news link without commentary or opinion. I did warn y'all how this was probably gonna go, but y'all were too busy dreaming of a Nobel Peace Prize getting awarded to Trump to hear it...

---

How many hundreds of billions did Trump give Kim?

---

What is the value of NK assets frozen in the US financial system? Because the return of those assets would be a given if any deal were reached. I really don't know why you continue cite that weak-ass line at all anyway, since giving a country back their own money in exchange for exporting 95+% of their enriched uranium/centrifuges and allowing inspections is a deal I'd take every day of the week (Republicans would too if one of their own negotiated it...). Trump did get suckered into giving Kim the cancellation of joint military exercises, upon Daddy Putin's suggestion of course, and a regime-legitimizing face to face meeting for what amounts to nothing though, so that's nice...