Did China Just Bribe Trump to Undermine National Security?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

His businesses are set to benefit in the millions from this deal and America? Not much of anything.

Except fair trade deals between the U.S. and China, but never mind that, what else do you hate about the President?

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Southern Guardian

His businesses are set to benefit in the millions from this deal and America? Not much of anything.

Except fair trade deals between the U.S. and China, but never mind that, what else do you hate about the President?

He's 'gasp' ...he's orange

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Southern Guardian

His businesses are set to benefit in the millions from this deal and America? Not much of anything.

Except fair trade deals between the U.S. and China, but never mind that, what else do you hate about the President?

He's 'gasp' ...he's orange

An impeachable offense toward any snowflake.

a reply to: highvein

I know! Let's see him worm his way out of that one when Pelosi comes for him

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: highvein

I know! Let's see him worm his way out of that one when Pelosi comes for him

She is the epitome of a great orator. Razor sharp with a rapist's wit. Many have succumbed to her verbal barrage. Trump is doomed.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

First

I love how to get trump you throw out the "innocent until PROVEN guilty in A COURT OF LAW" to "court of public OPINION".

I guess your against the CONSTITUTION that in such I can find no clause that says just because someone becomes president, is a party you dont like, or a person that doesnt share your causes that they dont get the protection YOU YOURSELF WANT/DEMAND/ENJOY.

Since you want to go with "court of public opinion" I guess if someone claims that (for example only) your a racist bigot and can convict you in that court you be ok with it?

because once you set that bar you cant then claim it only applies to XX person/party
It becomes fair game for all.

second ...here is the definition of "bailout" by websters

bail·out
ˈbāˌlout/Submit
nouninformal
an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse.

the FACTS as reported by of all places NBC NEWS (hardly "faux news")

Chinese telecom giant ZTE agreed Tuesday to plead guilty to violating U.S. laws that restrict business with Iran, and will pay the largest criminal fine ever in an export case — nearly $900 million.

exactly how is your view of "bail out" can override websters OFFICIAL definition?


lets be honest you hate trump and you (as others to be fair) will keep spinning rumor, innuendo and tell even outright lies

tell me how blatant and easily proven WRONG propaganda is gonna get trump out of office?
since it worked so well in the election now didnt it


Scrounger

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm sorry are you with the state department handling negotiations?

Are you? I'm not one claiming, with nothing to show, that this is a bargaining chip for China to renegotiate trade. Unless you're the one involved you're just making assumptions.

lol

Oh and please tell me how Trump a man who deals in real estate

Yes, a man who went bankrupt 4 times and got a small one million dollar loan in the 70s. A man who grew up with a silver spoon. That man. No no, you tell me about Trump. Am I off?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, a man who went bankrupt 4 times and got a small one million dollar loan in the 70s. A man who grew up with a silver spoon. That man. No no, you tell me about Trump. Am I off?

Yes, you're way off and also incorrect in your statement. He never filed for "personal" bankruptcy. He did file for 4 "corporate bankruptcies" and that is a big difference. Explains it well here

Even if we went with your false premise that he went bankrupt 4 times, it would actually say a lot about him since he is still a billionaire.

So, yeah, you are just as far off as your understanding of your own op that people tried clearing up for you for the better part of 3 pages.

a reply to: JustaBill

He never filed for "personal" bankruptcy. He did file for 4 "corporate bankruptcies"

4 bankruptcies. If splitting hairs makes you feel any better, have at it.

Even if we went with your false premise that he went bankrupt 4 times,

You just admitted he had 4 bankruptcies. I get it, you think explaining those bankcruptcies will somehow soften the fact he went through 4 bankcruptcies but it doesn't change anything.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yeah, once again you prove you don't comprehend things too well. It's not splitting hairs, it's an actual difference. I provided you a link that explains the differences.

Even if we went with your false premise that he went bankrupt 4 times

Again, you don't comprehend things well at all. I clearly stated "Even if we went with your false premise".

Look up premise and get back to me.

And finally to correct another false statement of yours, I never once admitted he had 4 bankruptcies. I said he had 4 corporate bankruptcies. For you to understand my statement you have to know the differences between personal bankruptcy and corporate bankruptcy which you clearly don't.

Unlike some people I will not be spending the next 3 pages trying to explain the differences. This, grasshopper, you must do yourself.

Please learn to comprehend things better.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

it isnt "splitting hairs" between personal and business bankruptcy.


here is a link to educate yourself or show you how foolish you are.

www.thebankruptcysite.org...

In fact the main stream press (pick which one they all stated it) that the 4 BUSINESS bankruptcies were out of OVER 200 (with some reports of over 300 ) businesses.

this means he had a business failure rate of 2 percent or less (depending on how many businesses you count) .

Ford had business failures.
edison had business failures (rembember the DC AC wars)
Abraham Lincoln had PERSONAL AND BUSINESS bankruptcies.
but I defy you to claim or even show where you use the same standard to claim Lincoln was not good enough to be president.

hell even OBAMA financial Guru Warren Buffet had massive business failures costing him millions and millions of dollars along with a recent energy company going BANKRUPT .

funny dont see you calling him a failure at business either.

again in your rush to try to show your anti trump hatred you again used easily disproven facts.
while using them you clearly show you dont care about facts as long as you can claim that it makes trump look bad.

too bad it boomerangs on you .
like it also did when tried in the election.
tell me how that work out for you?



scrounger

a reply to: JustaBill

Yeah, once again you prove you don't comprehend things too well. It's not splitting hairs, it's an actual difference.

Did Trump go through 4 bankcruptcies or not? Here's a clue, go back to your first response.

a reply to: scrounger

again in your rush to try to show your anti trump hatred you again used easily disproven facts.

There's no rushing, I'm taking my sweet time responding.

As with disproven facts, what disproven facts?

What's the definition of a bankcruptcy?

the state of being bankrupt.
"many companies were facing bankruptcy"
synonyms: insolvency, liquidation, failure, (financial) ruin, ruination, debt, indebtedness;

The definition is not restricted to personal.

Trump has gone through 4 bankcruptcies, this is fact. If you want to spin them on here to bring some comfort to that fact, have at it.

Not sure what other disproven facts you have? He's making a deal to save this Chinese corporation and China hasn't contractually committed to anything other than the fact there will be US monitors.... on this one company... among a plethora of other Chinese and Asian corporations that will continue as they are. The US isn't gaining much of anything and claiming this move is somehow to bring China to the table for a trade deal is nothing more than an assumption. The fact this move doesn't disturb anybody, especially considering it coincides with sudden Chinese investment in one of Trumps ventures, is very telling.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

He was calling out the cabal telling the Q has it all . Their phones were comped from day 1 that they thought were Q free. Q posted pics from all the comped phones including a picture of the POPES personal owl with the popes face reflected in the eye. He posted all these pics on 8 . The ZTE thing was a message to the cabal that Q has it all. - Baker -

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, just before I sell out the country I live in, I tweet instructions of how it will happen.

I'm glad you found an article that told you what you really wanted to hear. It's a joke, but it seems to have made you happy.

And remember, when you start to look like a fool, don't run away, it just make the "fool" stick more.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: dragonridr

As far as deals go it's a good one in taking care of the problem.

Making China's problem go away. Think about that.

But the main reason is as a bargaining chip with China this company Is big enough that China will make trade concessions

If it's a bargaining chip where's the part of the contract where China commits? Or are we just assuming this?

It amazes me how people dont realize how to make deals anymore and I think it's because most people dont know how to compromise any more.

What compromise? He's saving a gigantic Chinese communications firm from collapse because China will lose jobs. China, the country he promised to be tough on economically because of their dodgy practices such as currency manipulation.

Again, not making sense.

All you ever do is repeatedly ask the same questions over and over, meanwhile people are providing answers that you completely disregard without any reason. Its like you're so suck on an idea that you cannot see past it. Its a form of bias where your mind is static and unable to accept or even acknowledge concepts that do not conform to your bias. Its a product of the left vs right mentality. Wake up and read what people have already written.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: CB328
This seems like treason to me, once again. Trump is the worst President in American history.

Indeed, dodgy as hell. It's amusing to see his supporters, both out of the closet and inside the closet, struggle to make excuses. He's essentially doing completely opposite to what he campaigned on against China (and what they called Obama weak for). What's funnier is this excuse that somehow this is meant for a future 'deal' on trade... yet there's nothing to show for it. China didn't agree or commit to any trade changes. We know the Chinese have invested a considerable amount in Trump's South East Asian venture following this deal. He's gained. Not America.

What's truly amazingly amusing is to see his detractors oppose anything he says. To the point of siding with MS13, illegal alien criminals. Something you folks need to be thankful for is Trump not making any public statements about breathing air. Though it might be fun to see ya'll turn blue for real.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: JustaBill

Yeah, once again you prove you don't comprehend things too well. It's not splitting hairs, it's an actual difference.

Did Trump go through 4 bankcruptcies or not? Here's a clue, go back to your first response.

I'll do you one better. Let's go back to your post that initiated my post. Now I'm typing this real slow so you can follow along. You made the following statement..."Yes, a man who went bankrupt 4 times and got a small one million dollar loan in the 70s. A man who grew up with a silver spoon. That man. No no, you tell me about Trump. Am I off?" Go back and look, I'll wait...

OK, you're back now, took you longer than expected, but welcome back. Notice you made the claim "Yes, a man who went bankrupt 4 times", yeah you made that claim and it is utterly FALSE!!

The problem is you have no idea what the difference is between "personal" and "corporate" bankruptcy. I provided you a link you clearly didn't read or didn't understand. I believe it's probably a combination of both. To make things worse, you come back and attempt to make a false accusation claiming I said something I didn't. Even after being corrected, you double down on ignorance saying it's splitting hairs. Again, proving you didn't read the link provided or you just really don't understand the subject you're attempting to argue. Here is the last bit of assistance I'll give you. Go to the links and read them. They are very helpful. Because I know you will never go read them and I honestly know my attempts to educate you is like teaching a rock to swim, I will post this from the link provided...HERE

"One answer is that Donald Trump has never filed personal bankruptcy. From 1991 through 2009, corporations that he was associated with filed corporate bankruptcy, primarily as a result of too much debt in his hotel and casino properties in Atlantic City.

The second answer is that, other than in his first corporate bankruptcy — where he personally guaranteed some of the corporate debt — his personal wealth was not involved. A corporation is a separate legal entity, so a corporation going bankrupt does not automatically impact the personal assets of its shareholders."

It can't be any clearer then what is listed above, yet I am sure you will return asking the same question..."Did he file for backruptcy or not." Which will only further prove you have zero knowledge on something you're trying to argue.

I do have some hope though. Hope I typed this slow enough for you to return and say, "OH, I got it now, my bad." You will be respected more from admitting you were wrong or didn't understand something. There is no shame in doing so. Continuing to argue, even after being shown numerous times where your statement is incorrect, is when you lose whatever respect people may have in you.

I know you hate Trump with a passion and that's fine. I know you wish, hope, and pray he fails. While I personally never pray to see anyone fail, it is your right to do so and that's also fine. I think your desire to see Trumps demise interferes with your ability to see things unbiased preventing you from evaluating information correctly. But, as stated above, it's your right to do so, and that's fine.

A little more help

Have a GREAT weekend!!

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: dragonridr

As far as deals go it's a good one in taking care of the problem.

Making China's problem go away. Think about that.

But the main reason is as a bargaining chip with China this company Is big enough that China will make trade concessions

If it's a bargaining chip where's the part of the contract where China commits? Or are we just assuming this?

It amazes me how people dont realize how to make deals anymore and I think it's because most people dont know how to compromise any more.

What compromise? He's saving a gigantic Chinese communications firm from collapse because China will lose jobs. China, the country he promised to be tough on economically because of their dodgy practices such as currency manipulation.

Again, not making sense.

All you ever do is repeatedly ask the same questions over and over, meanwhile people are providing answers that you completely disregard without any reason. Its like you're so suck on an idea that you cannot see past it. Its a form of bias where your mind is static and unable to accept or even acknowledge concepts that do not conform to your bias. Its a product of the left vs right mentality. Wake up and read what people have already written.

I think he suffers from a condition, most who hate Trump for no justifiable reason, suffer from...

"Myopia Trumpatosis"--->Can't see past their hate for Trump

a reply to: Southern Guardian

How many US jobs are on the line here? And wasn't there already an identical thread on this?