Why would we expect that? We’re rapidly moving in THEIR direction.Pwns wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:47 pm https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- ... -us-chinas
I'm sure all we need now is for fatcat political donors to be able to make more money with the Commie Chinese and they'll modernize their human rights and become a more conscientious military and economic power. It's worked great so far.
Thanks, Biden voters.
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.We need to strike a middle course – one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based, regional order,” Sullivan said. “This will require care and prudence and strategic foresight, and maybe even more basically it will require sustained attention. It may not have escaped your notice that these are not in ample supply in Washington right now.”
What’s horrible is that idiots like you would believe there’s ANYTHING altruistic about China’s rise, anything FAIR about their rise, anything “rules based” about their efforts. You have gone full retard, John, and frankly I’m embarrassed FOR you.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:40 pm Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.We need to strike a middle course – one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based, regional order,” Sullivan said. “This will require care and prudence and strategic foresight, and maybe even more basically it will require sustained attention. It may not have escaped your notice that these are not in ample supply in Washington right now.”
Your conversion is complete.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:40 pm Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.We need to strike a middle course – one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based, regional order,” Sullivan said. “This will require care and prudence and strategic foresight, and maybe even more basically it will require sustained attention. It may not have escaped your notice that these are not in ample supply in Washington right now.”
AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:33 pmWhat’s horrible is that idiots like you would believe there’s ANYTHING altruistic about China’s rise, anything FAIR about their rise, anything “rules based” about their efforts. You have gone full retard, John, and frankly I’m embarrassed FOR you.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:40 pm Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.
"Rules-based regional order" should not be used in the same sentence as China. They don't play by the rules.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:40 pm Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.We need to strike a middle course – one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based, regional order,” Sullivan said. “This will require care and prudence and strategic foresight, and maybe even more basically it will require sustained attention. It may not have escaped your notice that these are not in ample supply in Washington right now.”
As is the conversion of conk free traders to protectionists. Ganny knows...89Hen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:42 pmYour conversion is complete.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:40 pm Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.
Free trade is a two-way street. China doesn't practice free trade and we would be foolish to give them open access to our markets when they don't do the same for us. China and the rest of the world take access to US markets for granted and then get upset when we ask for equal access to their markets. Post WWII, greater access to US markets was important for rebuilding countries and for world peace. It's no longer necessary and it's time to reset expectations. I want truly free trade and we might need to be perceived as protectionist in order to get other countries to give us the same access to their markets.
Well said, 88.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:41 amFree trade is a two-way street. China doesn't practice free trade and we would be foolish to give them open access to our markets when they don't do the same for us. China and the rest of the world take access to US markets for granted and then get upset when we ask for equal access to their markets. Post WWII, greater access to US markets was important for rebuilding countries and for world peace. It's no longer necessary and it's time to reset expectations. I want truly free trade and we might need to be perceived as protectionist in order to get other countries to give us the same access to their markets.
Ahhh...now you’re just sounding like Bernie...UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:41 amFree trade is a two-way street. China doesn't practice free trade and we would be foolish to give them open access to our markets when they don't do the same for us. China and the rest of the world take access to US markets for granted and then get upset when we ask for equal access to their markets. Post WWII, greater access to US markets was important for rebuilding countries and for world peace. It's no longer necessary and it's time to reset expectations. I want truly free trade and we might need to be perceived as protectionist in order to get other countries to give us the same access to their markets.
That's a low blow you meanie!kalm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:36 pmAhhh...now you’re just sounding like Bernie...UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:41 am
Free trade is a two-way street. China doesn't practice free trade and we would be foolish to give them open access to our markets when they don't do the same for us. China and the rest of the world take access to US markets for granted and then get upset when we ask for equal access to their markets. Post WWII, greater access to US markets was important for rebuilding countries and for world peace. It's no longer necessary and it's time to reset expectations. I want truly free trade and we might need to be perceived as protectionist in order to get other countries to give us the same access to their markets.
Given that he doesn’t realize that that ship sailed around 1995 and it is now too late to compel that kind of behavior from China.. yeah - not just horrible but ignorant as wellJohnStOnge wrote:Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.We need to strike a middle course – one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based, regional order,” Sullivan said. “This will require care and prudence and strategic foresight, and maybe even more basically it will require sustained attention. It may not have escaped your notice that these are not in ample supply in Washington right now.”
Well hello, stranger!CID1990 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:55 pmGiven that he doesn’t realize that that ship sailed around 1995 and it is now too late to compel that kind of behavior from China.. yeah - not just horrible but ignorant as wellJohnStOnge wrote:Details of what he said from the article:
Oh yeah, that is HORRIBLE.
Like Joe Kennedy and Henry Ford .... ignorant, or compliant?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don’t get used to it.AZGrizFan wrote:Well hello, stranger!CID1990 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:55 pm Given that he doesn’t realize that that ship sailed around 1995 and it is now too late to compel that kind of behavior from China.. yeah - not just horrible but ignorant as well
Like Joe Kennedy and Henry Ford .... ignorant, or compliant?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, he’s set several up on tees while you’ve been gone.