Nikki Haley’s War with China

[Rebound]

I saw a Nikki Haley ad on TV today. In big letters, it said:

DEFEAT CHINA

Great! Nikki Haley wants to wage war with China.  Fair trade? Sure. Free trade? Sure. Equitable trade? You bet. 
 

Fight a Cold War? No. 
Fight a Hot War? No. 
Fight a Trade War? No thank you. 
 

Tough talk might make you feel good, but destroying our relationship with our largest trading partner, the world’s largest nation, second largest economy and Asia’s largest military power is utterly foolish and incredibly dangerous.  

Edited December 28, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

Well the problem is china isn't really a trading "partner".  They get to sell stuff to the us - but the us doesn't get to sell very much stuff to them. Thanks to protectionism  and china denying access to their markets the us buys about 382 billion MORE dollars in goods FROM china than it sells TO china. So 'partner' might not be quite right.

And the reason this was allowed was to keep china out of the economic sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. The commies were an emerging market and the US did not want to see a closer relationship there, so they agreed to buy without necessarily getting to sell.

But that was then, this is now.  And there WILL have to come a point where there's a showdown and china is required to start opening up it's markets to US goods, or the relationship will become a burden for the us.

[herbie]

You mean the woman that forgot the Civil War was about slavery?

Any idea if the GOP can run candidates that aren't crooks, liars or total fools these days?

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well the problem is china isn't really a trading "partner".  They get to sell stuff to the us - but the us doesn't get to sell very much stuff to them. Thanks to protectionism  and china denying access to their markets the us buys about 382 billion MORE dollars in goods FROM china than it sells TO china. So 'partner' might not be quite right.

And the reason this was allowed was to keep china out of the economic sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. The commies were an emerging market and the US did not want to see a closer relationship there, so they agreed to buy without necessarily getting to sell.

But that was then, this is now.  And there WILL have to come a point where there's a showdown and china is required to start opening up it's markets to US goods, or the relationship will become a burden for the us.

 Utterly false. The reason this happened is China’s ridiculously cheap labor. 
 

THINK. Instead of listening to talking heads, just think for yourself.  It happened because US manufacturers and retailers outsourced all of their manufacturing to China.  Free market.  Not war. Not even “war.”  Our companies raced to outsource, and now Haley wants to pretend it’s a some kind of war? 
 

Everybody agrees that trade policies must be mutually fair, but I doubt that will lead to a trade balance, only equity.  

[Michael Hardner]

Point of reference: the USA imports iPhones from China.  Apple profits from this arrangement.

[Rebound]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Point of reference: the USA imports iPhones from China.  Apple profits from this arrangement.

Or… practically all of Wall-Mart, Target, Amazon and Best Buy.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

You mean the woman that forgot the Civil War was about slavery?

Any idea if the GOP can run candidates that aren't crooks, liars or total fools these days?

And what did she say it was about?  If you think the war was all about slavery and that's the only answer you've gone full on woke-tarded  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Point of reference: the USA imports iPhones from China.  Apple profits from this arrangement.

And?

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And what did she say it was about?  If you think the war was all about slavery and that's the only answer you've gone full on woke-tarded  

And?

You can read the states’ articles of secession for yourself. Slavery was their reason. They said so.

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You can read the states’ articles of secession for yourself. Slavery was their reason. They said so.

I've read a hell of a lot about it - and it's painfully obvious that the problem wasn't slavery itself. Sorry kid - if it was the north would have attacked the other slave holding states and they didn't. 

This was about state vs federal control and also about money.  The 'free' states wanted to be able to set their own laws and expected the north to respect that, the north wanted far more 'federal' control and wasn't happy with the influence southern money brought (which was made possible by slavery of course).

THe south wanted it's own laws and slavery was an exmaple, but no the war wasn't fought over slavery.  IF there were no slaves the war would still have happened evenutally - since the very first day that friction between state and federal was font and center

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I've read a hell of a lot about it - and it's painfully obvious that the problem wasn't slavery itself. Sorry kid - if it was the north would have attacked the other slave holding states and they didn't. 

This was about state vs federal control and also about money.  The 'free' states wanted to be able to set their own laws and expected the north to respect that, the north wanted far more 'federal' control and wasn't happy with the influence southern money brought (which was made possible by slavery of course).

THe south wanted it's own laws and slavery was an exmaple, but no the war wasn't fought over slavery.  IF there were no slaves the war would still have happened evenutally - since the very first day that friction between state and federal was font and center

This is true. The Civil War was not about slavery...primarily...until Lincoln made it so with his emancipation proclamation. 

[Nationalist]

13 hours ago, Rebound said:

I saw a Nikki Haley ad on TV today. In big letters, it said:

DEFEAT CHINA

Great! Nikki Haley wants to wage war with China.  Fair trade? Sure. Free trade? Sure. Equitable trade? You bet. 
 

Fight a Cold War? No. 
Fight a Hot War? No. 
Fight a Trade War? No thank you. 
 

Tough talk might make you feel good, but destroying our relationship with our largest trading partner, the world’s largest nation, second largest economy and Asia’s largest military power is utterly foolish and incredibly dangerous.  

Nikki Haley is a twit. A bought and paid for dunce. A Libbie.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

This is true. The Civil War was not about slavery...primarily...until Lincoln made it so with his emancipation proclamation. 

You're a loon. There is absolutely no question that the US civil war was about slavery--both explicitly and implicitly. All but one of the states that issued reasons for secession identified slavery as a primary justification. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until 2 years after the war began. 

Imagine, states take the time to write up articles explicitly explaining why they are seceding, and then 150 years later some uneducated internet jackasses decide to 'splain that "Nah, what they really meant was..."🤪

Sorry apologists for white supremacy, nobody is buying your revisionism.

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You're a loon. There is absolutely no question that the US civil war was about slavery--both explicitly and implicitly. All but one of the states that issued reasons for secession identified slavery as a primary justification. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until 2 years after the war began. 

Imagine, states take the time to write up articles explicitly explaining why they are seceding, and then 150 years later some uneducated internet jackasses decide to 'splain that "Nah, what they really meant was..."🤪

Sorry apologists for white supremacy, nobody is buying your revisionism.

What revisionism? The war was about federal vs. state powers. While slavery was among those powers being fought over, it was not the primary reason until Lincoln made it so.

[Queenmandy85]

I cannot believe how fast Ambassador Haley has droppoed in my estimation. A few days ago, I was praising her intelligence. Now, first it was the stupid civil war clanger, now China? She over looks the fact we and the US have gone to war with China once, in response to a UN resolution over Korea. 

We are going to need closer ties with China in the coming years. They are leading the world in the development of thorium reactors. We certainly will need them as Russia becomes a greater menace if Putin crushes Ukraine and initiates a second, more brutal Holodomor. It is better to have China as an ally than an enemy.

In foreign relations, you need to look for allies and avoid making enemies. Putin chose to become an enemy. Xi hasn't. As a former Ambassador, Ms. Haley should know this, but clearly doesn't. 

So many countries depend on what happens in the US election. Canada, the Ukraine and many others, don't get a vote but the result could have terrible consequences for us. For Ukraine, millions of lives are riding on this. And Ms. Haley is doing her best to push President Trump back into power by her own ineptitude.

 

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Nikki Haley is a twit. A bought and paid for dunce. A Libbie.

Twit? Yes

Dunce? Yes

Libbie? Nope

Hey, we 2/3 agree on something, so let’s take the win! 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Rebound

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What revisionism? The war was about federal vs. state powers. While slavery was among those powers being fought over, it was not the primary reason until Lincoln made it so.

You've got that backward. It was absolutely about slavery, and the defense of slavery was sometimes couched in the context of "states rights."

Again, the secessionist states told the world exactly what it was about. Believe them. 

[herbie]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you think the war was all about slavery and that's the only answer you've gone full on woke-tarded

And if you think I'm going to believe you are actually that stupid to actually believe that and not just doing your usual sheer contrariness to troll even more ignorant responses from the totally brain dead, you're fooling yourself.

As for trade wars with China, maybe she should propose a "Chicken Tax" on Chinese EVs like the one that's kept reasonable pickups trucks out of American hands for 50 years and hasn't saved the Big 3 from their own incompetence.

[Rebound]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I've read a hell of a lot about it - and it's painfully obvious that the problem wasn't slavery itself. Sorry kid - if it was the north would have attacked the other slave holding states and they didn't. 

This was about state vs federal control and also about money.  The 'free' states wanted to be able to set their own laws and expected the north to respect that, the north wanted far more 'federal' control and wasn't happy with the influence southern money brought (which was made possible by slavery of course).

THe south wanted its own laws and slavery was an exmaple, but no the war wasn't fought over slavery.  IF there were no slaves the war would still have happened evenutally - since the very first day that friction between state and federal was font and center

Repeating myself: If you READ the articles of secession written and passed by the legislatures of the Confederate states, particularly South Carolina and Mississippi, the very first sentence of each document states that the reason was slavery. 
 

THAT is what the secessionists formally said at the time of secession. Not Emancipation Proclamation. At the time of secession. Formally. Officially. It’s called a Primary Source.  That trumps whatever revisionist nonsense you’ve been reading.   
 

To quote from one of them:

”Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”

Given that fact, you cannot say that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War. It absolutely was.  

Edited December 29, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

This is true. The Civil War was not about slavery...primarily...until Lincoln made it so with his emancipation proclamation. 

Which didn't even end slavery in the us entirely right away.

It's just like ww2 was not fought about the jews - but the holocaust was indeed a huge thing that happened at that time and hitler without a doubt had plans on how to deal with jews in each of the territories he intended to invade (just ask the former speaker of the house )

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Repeating myself: If you READ the articles of secession written and passed by the legislatures of the Confederate states, particularly South Carolina and Mississippi, the very first sentence of each document states that the reason was slavery.

Repeating myself -  slavery was an example but not the underlying cause.

Your own quote tends to prove it. Do you see where it says 'we should go to war over slavery'?  No? how interesting. It simply says that it should leave the federation AND it's ONLY one state. And it states that it's about its ecnomic impact, not 'slavery' itself. So that's not why they went to war.

Here's a great summation of the issues:

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.

In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

A key issue was states' rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.

The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.

Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.

 

 

So.  NOT slavery.  But rather the right to control their own economics.  As well as OTHER laws the south might disagree with. 

AND the cap on it all was the fact they paid federal taxes but now had no representation.  Hmmm - taxation without representation, remind me - is there any history of americans getting uppity over that?

IT wasn't about 'slavery' - it was about the right to make their own laws and representation and a few other issues, and slavery was one of the law issues that was prevelant at the time.   But the war didn't start over slavery per se.  Sorry.

[WestCanMan]

On 12/28/2023 at 2:53 PM, Rebound said:

I saw a Nikki Haley ad on TV today. In big letters, it said:

DEFEAT CHINA

Great! Nikki Haley wants to wage war with China.  Fair trade? Sure. Free trade? Sure. Equitable trade? You bet. 
 

Fight a Cold War? No. 
Fight a Hot War? No. 
Fight a Trade War? No thank you. 
 

Tough talk might make you feel good, but destroying our relationship with our largest trading partner, the world’s largest nation, second largest economy and Asia’s largest military power is utterly foolish and incredibly dangerous.  

Normally it makes sense as a politician to overpromise and underdeliver, as she's clearly doing there, and which they all do, but it doesn't make sense to sever her relationship with China before she ever walks into the oval office. It was a stooge move if she actually said it the way that you're claiming. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

And if you think I'm going to believe you are actually that stupid to actually believe that and not just doing your usual sheer contrariness to troll even more ignorant responses from the totally brain dead, you're fooling yourself.

 

I had to read that like 4 times ....  Sounded like gobbledegook but that actually was a correct sentence (More or less)   Sorry for doubting you  

Having said that you're wrong.  So... you win some and you lose some  

I know you find facts and logic to be 'argumentative for the sake of it' when they don't agree with you but that's more of a 'you' problem than a 'me' problem.

Quote

As for trade wars with China, maybe she should propose a "Chicken Tax" on Chinese EVs like the one that's kept reasonable pickups trucks out of American hands for 50 years and hasn't saved the Big 3 from their own incompetence.

Maybe but in the end the goal would have to be to pressure china to open up it's markets. Right now trade is extremely lopsided, giving china huge access to a massive market that basically drives its entire economy while restricting access to it's own people to a trickle for political control.

[-TSS-]

Nikky Haley, first of all, she is Indian and her real name is Nimrata.

Secondly, she should run for the President of Israel. She clearly loves that country more than the country the presidency of which she is running for.

[eyeball]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:56 PM, Rebound said:

THINK. Instead of listening to talking heads, just think for yourself.  It happened because US manufacturers and retailers outsourced all of their manufacturing to China.  Free market.  Not war. Not even “war.”  Our companies raced to outsource, and now Haley wants to pretend it’s a some kind of war?  

The GOP was instrumental in encouraging corporations to move offshore, convincing its dupes/supporters to embrace and celebrate it by largely cultivating the sense that its critics were liberals, lefties and commies.

Nowadays its critics are the same GOP dupporters who've dimly woke up to some sense they've been screwed over. Now they've been duped into blaming liberals, lefties and commies for being the ones who screwed them over.

Quote

Everybody agrees that trade policies must be mutually fair, but I doubt that will lead to a trade balance, only equity.

Fair and equitable amongst the oligarch class, maybe. These are like piranha, happy to swarm and devour hapless dupes but just as happy to take a chunk out of one another too if need be.

[herbie]