Yeah everybody who signed the paris or copenhagen treaties should have their tariffs doubled. I guess that will happen about when the terrorist state of israel signs the nuclear non proliferation treaty or the US stops giving them billions of dollars every year in direct violation of said treaty.

>>2015
>>2027

Tariffs don't work when the opposing counties are evenly matched, neither do sanctions.

I think the Trumptarded contingent is holding on to the cargo cult of American supremacy in world politics.

We lost that position, a long time ago. Mostly because of Dubya, believe it or not, and then the last scrap of authority we had was thrown in a bin next to Trump's desk like an old post-it note whose purpose he'd forgotten.

The counties the US wishes it could use tarrifs and sanctions to control are laughing at us.

We're way past charging our own people taxes on imports or forbidding the sale of certain goods to them. Our people *will pay those taxes* and their countries *don't need our goods*.

Evolve or die. Come up with a strategy that works.

>>2028
>misspelling countries twice
>we
>us
>our
STFU, stupid commie retard. Nobody cares about the opinion of a retarded commie.

>>2028
>oh no they're laughing at us
well oy fuckin vey

>>2029
I take no responsibility for SwiftKey's opinion of what I intended to type.

Opinions are how people feel about things.

China beating the United States in a global economic and diplomatic game of chess is a matter of fact, happening right now, in front of your big stupid face.

>>2030
Indeed, and while you crack antisemitic jokes they just exterminated many more troublesome minority members with a great deal more efficiency than all your decades of racism has achieved in the United States.

>China beating the United States in a global economic and diplomatic game of chess is a matter of fact, happening right now

Too funny. I don't think state-sponsored propaganda counts as a reliable source of fact. Their economy is based entirely on made up figures, and their currency is essentially worthless.

Now it seems to be coming to a head due to their president being the stupidest commie of all.

The whole point of a single ruling party is totalitarianism through obscurity so that no individual leader can be held accountable to critics. But, Winnie the Pooh had to make himself president for life, unleash a synthetic virus on the world, and now he can't step down and has nobody to pin it on.

>>2037
Are you just going to keep your head up your ass until the day they force us to sell them California?

You don't need their figures, or statements, or propaganda to see what's happening.

Hong Kong is lost to the west.

They're building bases in the Philipines' economic zone unchecked.

The Belt and Road initiative is buying out whole economies from the Asian pacific to the Mediterranean and every African country worth having.

Trump pulled our diplomatic mission out of most of those places, pulled our troops out of allied nations for failing to fellate his ego, and made a mockery of US leadership with a failed Trade War that nearly bankrupted the US and had no impact on China.

Biden asked the G7 to back his plans to curb their expansion and the European Union sided with China.

They censor the NBA, they censor the BBC, they bully Disney into drawing their nine-dash line and they own stakes in all our major companies.

You still think your smug superior attitude will save us?

Oh, go right ahead covering your ears, shutting your eyes and screaming AMERICA FIRST! over and over again.

It won't change anything but I guess you'll feel better.

>>2041
>Are you just going to keep your head up your ass until the day they force us to sell them California?
>force
They have no blue-water navy and they wouldn't know what to do with it if they did.

>You don't need their figures, or statements, or propaganda to see what's happening. 
Lol

>Hong Kong is lost to the west.
Whatever will we do without Hong Kong.

>They're building bases in the Philipines' economic zone unchecked.
Do you think they'll turn out better than their escalators?

>The Belt and Road initiative is buying out whole economies from the Asian pacific to the Mediterranean and every African country worth having.
I wonder how those investments will fare come regime change.

We built China and they have been such a disappointment. Why must all our good intentions turn into problems?

>>2042
>They have no blue-water navy

They have every piece of technology we have because they manufacture all of our technology. Their military has always had more personnel than any in the world. What they don't have today, they could literally make tomorrow, but they don't need to beat us with military force.

>will we do without Hong Kong
Watch the international finance market implode, probably, not that you are intelligent enough to understand how that's bad for you personally.

>turn out better than their escalators
Since they can just keep repairing and rebuilding them indefinitely, yeah.

>how those investments will fare come regime change
Regime change in the countries they own? As if they'd allow an unfriendly regime to take hold. They learned every lesson the CIA had to teach, and now they are the ones playing games with poor countries.

Regime change in China? Will never happen. You need to understand the depth of propaganda that now three or four generations have been raised in there: they believe in their country just as much as we believe in ours. They are as absolutely content that their government is in the right as we are.

>We built China
China built China. We just paid for it, and foolishly handed over our intellectual property, and pretended that our intense frowns of diapproval would stop them from genociding dissidents or claiming other countries territory.

Wake up and smell the fermented eggs, China's taking charge and if we don't step up our game there's no hope for us.

>>2043
>They have every piece of technology we have because they manufacture all of our technology.
>all
No. We let them take it. Have you ever considered the profits made in an arms race? We keep the good stuff for ourselves as always.

>Watch the international finance market implode, probably, not that you are intelligent enough to understand how that's bad for you personally.
Short term, yes, but it's been a long time coming.

>Since they can just keep repairing and rebuilding them indefinitely, yeah.
Too many dog eaters far away from home makes CCP nervous.

>As if they'd allow an unfriendly regime to take hold. They learned every lesson the CIA had to teach, and now they are the ones playing games with poor countries. 
>allow
Didn't learn that lesson, I guess, or the one about doing infrastructure work in Africa.

>You need to understand the depth of propaganda that now three or four generations have been raised in there:
Cultural Revolution

>They are as absolutely content that their government is in the right
It's not a government anymore. It's one guand he's making mistakes. Now he's in a corner and has nowhere to go but war.

>China built China.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>they don't need to beat us with military force.
The thing is they do.

>>2044
>We keep the good stuff for ourselves as always.

China has had nuclear weapons since the 1950s.They have ICBMs, drones, stealth jets, and *they manufacture nearly every semiconductor component used in ours*. Our supply line is totally compromised; we kept nothing for ourselves. What do you even think "the good stuff" is? Weapons don't have to be high tech to be successful.

China's making plenty of profits on their weapons. Believe it or not, the United States does not have a monopoly on the international arms trade either.

>Too many dog eaters far away from home makes CCP nervous.
As if you aren't disgustingly overweight with half a dozen serious, preventable medical conditions from all those hamburgers you eat. Again, you underestimate their propaganda machine: they don't lose people anymore. They send out their best and brightest fully equipped to see the west as decadent and stupid and nothing they see changes their minds.

>It's not a government anymore. It's one guand he's making mistakes.
LOL, as if he were the first. This is how their government works, yo. One guy, one party: he rules until he shows weakness or incompetence enough that his allies in the party vote him out without fear of imprisonment. He won't be the last. This will never end.

>The thing is they do.
Oh really? Are we shooting at them? Who do you expect to fire first? They've been playing this game the longest every awful thing they do, nobody goes to war with the PRC. We didn't blockade them for Tianamen Square, we haven't sunk any of their fishing fleets, we don't bomb the islands they build, we don't shoot down their planes in Taiwanese air space, and on and on. Every time we do anything less than open fire on their incursion, they take it as a concession. Sanctions mean nothing to them, embargoes mean nothing to them, they know we can't boycott them, and they will wait for us to let it go because we always do. Why bother with a war when they can just take whatever they want?

>>2046
>China guns still go pew pew, stupid American
Please stick to subjects that you're knowledgeable about.

>They send out their best and brightest fully equipped to see the west as decadent and stupid and nothing they see changes their minds.
I'm glad you feel confident enough to speak on behalf of all Chinese citizens, past and future. Does your dirty commie chink gf tell you these things?

>as if he were the first. This is how their government works, yo.
That's how it used to work before that idiot made himself supreme and limited party power. That's what I was saying.

>They've been playing this game the longest every awful thing they do
What on Earth has ever given you the impression that we care about awful things?

>Why bother with a war when they can just take whatever they want?
We will see.

>>2047
This argument is concluded.

You have lost.

I will allow you indefinite time to come to this realization yourself.

I do hope idiots as dumb as you do not make up as much of the electorate as I think they do.

>>2048
Oh, stfu, you cheeb. You've lived among the bugs to long. It's made you simple like them.

>>2046
Are you saying the US should start a war with China?

>>2050
No, I'm saying we should call their bluff.

I don't think China has any interest in a shooting conflict, and I am willing to take the bet that if we use even a little force to stop one of their non-military incursions they will not respond with military force.

There are lots of things we could try:

-Impound one of their fishing fleets illegally entering some country's economic zone. Board the ships, arrest the crews, hand the cargo and the ships over to whatever country's waters they are in and ship the crews back to China on one of our carriers.

-Enforce the Philipines' economic zone, dismantling (with bombs if necessary) any unauthorized constructions (including the artificial islands themselves) inside their border with due warning to evacuate all personnel to avoid any human casualties.

-Get authorization from Japan to build a US base on Senkaku. Even a tiny listening post with a helipad would do. The point is to assert Japan's claim to the island by backing it with a US military presence.

-Officially recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, disavow the the "One China" policy, and at least threaten to fire on PRC military aircraft incurring into Taiwan's airspace, or military ships in their economic zone (we can fire from the sea, from Korea, or from Japan).

At the same time, we ramp up our "hearts and minds" campaign worldwide. We have lost so much ground in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and even Europe. We need people to see the United States as the good guys again. The cost in dollars is far less significant that the gain in influence we could reap by out-doing China in infrastructure projects, diplomatic outreach, and economic cooperation.

>We have lost so much ground in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and even Europe. We need people to see the United States as the good guys again.

Why? It doesn't seem to do us any good. We are farther from world peace than ever.

>The cost in dollars is far less significant that the gain in influence we could reap by out-doing China in infrastructure projects, diplomatic outreach, and economic cooperation.

Didn't we just build all of Iraq's infrastructure just for ISIS to show up and destroy everything/kill their heart's and mind's?

>>2051
>here are some things we can try
Alright that's not a brainless list, but it sounds like some half-baked polisci student giving a bad power point presentation about how to apply pressure because her professor made up a class about how to apply pressure.

What's wrong with China? Start from there and then you can develop practical solutions.

>>2053
Not him, but belittling others' ideas without your own idea is sad. Criticism should be constructive or at least less douchey.

>>2051
And if China doesn't back down?

>>2054
Thanks for belittling my ideas like a douche without presenting anything constructive.

>>2052
>Why? It doesn't seem to do us any good. We are farther from world peace than ever.

How do you loop right around logic like that without having a stroke? I'm telling you the reason that is that we backed out of our diplomatic mission. You're saying diplomacy, which we aren't doing anymore doesn't work based on the results of not doing diplomacy. Your poor, withered brain..

>build all of Iraq's infrastructure
No, we didn't. We have not done any major infrastructure projects in Iraq. Pointing guns at people trying to buy gas isn't infrastructure. We did nothing for them, which made it very, very easy for ISIS to recruit all the young men whose fathers and uncles died fighting Americans for Saddam back when they had a country, and a home, and the street it was on wasn't rubble.

Please, do not vote. Ever. Your mind is not qualified to
participate in making decisions that may affect other people.

>>2053
What do you expect as an answer to "What's wrong with China?" Shit's wrong with every country on the earth, Cuker Tarlson. Are you looking for weaknesses? China isn't the loosely-aligned tribal warlord states you see in old Kung-fu movies, not anymore. Communism with a touch of free market is a powerful thing, despite what Faux Nuuz has to say about it. China has the tech, the manpower, and the finances to take on the world and they are already doing that while we twiddle our thumbs about how to secure our semiconductor supply chain.

>>2054
Despite their improved stance, and their rhetoric, they will back down. If we make a show of consequences, they will change their strategy. Wars cost money and lives. Life may be cheap in China, but not worthless: they have much more use for living laborers than dead soldiers and they can make much more money investing in other countries' markets than their own military-industrial-complex. A shooting war isn't in their interest politically or financially.

>>2057
>based on the results of not doing diplomacy
We've diplomatic before though, yes? NmYet still not a soul outside of the United States has any codified personal liberties ensured.

>>2058
>not a soul outside of the United States has any codified personal liberties ensured

Spoken like someone who has never been outside the United States.

You'd be surprised to find out just how much more freedom people have out there in the world.

The United States is remarkably oppressive for a "first world" nation.

>>2059
Then, why can't they say so in writing?

>>2060
As screwed up as the US's system of jurisdiction is, theirs are even more of a clusterfuck to the point where writing something down doesn't even cross the mind with an expectation of adherence. They confuse freedom with anarchy, which, in all honesty, is easy to do when neither one really lives up to its name in practice.

>>2063
Sounds like a cop out.

>>2064
It's pretty simple decision about whether you think you have more freedom under something approximating the rule of law, or whether you think you have more freedom under something approximating anarchy. They're both valid arguments, but both systems tend toward the formation of gangs or other forms of organized crime, and I personally would rather that the government be one of those gangs so that at least there's a codified objective and something more like a balance of powers.

>>2065
Why is it such a big deal to put down in stone that no government, of any kind, may make any laws regarding speech, the press, or religion?

They believe it, so why not just say so?

>>2067
It's not that big a deal. You could carve the constitution in stone if you wanted, but they'd still reconstrue it as meaning that communism is mandatory and scary-looking guns are illegal.

>>2068
Not necessarily a whole constitution. Just some written statements ensuring a few individual liberties.

They would have to have it in writing first, in order for it to be misconstrued. Yet, they still can't do it. Do people not want to be free?

>>2073
I doubt most people really think about it as long as nobody bothers them too much. Just consider how far the literacy rate has fallen. Ever notice how everything has been trending toward inscrutable symbols and flashing lights instead of just being labeled in English like it used to be?

Take away language and you take away symbolic reasoning in general.

>>2074
>Just consider how far the literacy rate has fallen.
The literacy rate is higher than ever.

>Take away language and you take away symbolic reasoning in general.
Symbols existed before language.

>>2077
Shh, you're disturbing his racism

>>2077
>Symbols existed before language

That's more of a chicken or egg problem: if there were symbols, representing something, those were language. Of course there were languages that were never written in with symbols, but I would argue that spoken language is another kind of symbolism. You can't really have language without symbols (at least in your mind) and you can't really have symbols that don't constitute language.

btw, I am not that guy; just a bystander who is interested in psycholinguistics, language acquisition, and cognitive development.

>>2080
If you'd seen a deer before and I drew a picture of a deer, would you need to know any words to know what the drawing represented?

>>2082
Depends on how well you draw.

Seriously though, not just vocabulary. Cave dwellers drew pictures of animals like that, but often in some context such as being hunted, running, etc. I think such drawings constituted a form of storytelling, likely including some vocal attribute lost to time. The pictures weren't just of deer for the sake of communicating "deer", but of deer at some particular time and place, either in actual or legendary history.

>>2083
>I think such drawings constituted a form of storytelling, likely including some vocal attribute lost to time. The pictures weren't just of deer for the sake of communicating "deer", but of deer at some particular time and place, either in actual or legendary history.

Ah, soft sciences. So, we're drawing non-falsifiable conclusions from pure speculation now?
Cool.

You want to hear the first story ever told?

>Times were better before. Now, it's different. You don't know.

tariffs don't work, you guys

>>2089
Like a lot of other observable, proven facts, I have tried desperately to convince the people who don't believe this of it.

It will never work. The only hope for the US is to put the whole Trump cult on a barge, float them out to international waters, and nuke it.

No society will survive such people. This is how empires collapse: short-sighted, complacent, idiocy taking control.

>>2092
You going to offer your reasoning for that stance, retard?

>>2101
Of course he doesn't have any reasoning. He only understands global communism and the destruction of the nation-state.

>>2103
>communism
It's so cute that you use that word without understanding what it means

>>2107
It's an oxymoron. It means a system of social equality.

>>2108
No it's not. Its a system of authoritarian control by the central party. The US as it was originally conceived is about as close to social equality as mankind has gotten. Even anarchy devolves into gangs and warlords once there are enough people for social anything.

Importing anything is fucking stupid IMO. If you can't make it yourself, importing would make sense... America is fucking big enough to make whatever we want. Why the fuck are we buying our furniture from China?

Not even quality shit, useless fucking garbage we import. So we can rip off our own customers, so they hate our shitty Chinese products. China is actually #1 and super based, but importing is gay niggers.

File 163979905229.png - (41.83KB , 600x362 , socialism for the rich capitalism for the rest.png )

>>2165
It's because Sam Walton died and his kids are amoral monsters who only care about lining their pockets.

That's how Walmart became the single worst employer in the nation.

That's why Walmart strongarmed manufacturers to move production to China, because only they could produce things so cheaply that Walmart could tack on a 5000% markup without their drunken hillbilly customers noticing.

Everyone else followed suit because otherwise they'd be out of business right now. But Sam Walton's kids? They're a pieces of shit who drove it and keep driving it.

Meanwhile each of them get money out of Walmart and Sam Walton's trust in such a convoluted financial vehicle that they essentially get all their money tax-free. Because they're amoral monsters.

>>2015
Wow, could you be any more stupid? Bye Done and all his other demo-commie cronies are doing just that and gas just shot up to over 5.50 a gallon in less than two months. Welcome to the world of not being able to afford to eat, faggot!

>>2191
Quite the opposite. He immediately shut down domestic production, just as promised on the campaign trail.

When this thread started, gas was 3$ a gallon

Feel old yet?

>>2200
Nah gas used to be less than $1/gal when I was a new driver. I had to learn about banking and inflation on my own, of course, because obviously they can't let children learn anything useful in the public fool system.