Did China Just Bribe Trump to Undermine National Security?

a reply to: timequake

Its a product of the left vs right mentality.

What do you think of the OP? Do you think Trump's deal with ZTE is justified? Do you agree with this move?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

They never answer questions like that directly.

I tried to ask them what you think about Trump assertion regarding the crowd at his inauguration. No response.


They never respond to something logical and objective

Just imagine Obama doing something like this, what the same people who are defending Trump would be saying.

Traitor, communist, foreigner, all kinds of scorn.


Trump knows he can literally do anything and they will defend it. He said himself 'I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters'

originally posted by: Willtell
Just imagine Obama doing something like this, what the same people who are defending Trump would be saying.

Traitor, communist, foreigner, all kinds of scorn.


Trump knows he can literally do anything and they will defend it. He said himself 'I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters'

Obama would never do anything that makes sense anyway, so your "thinking" is deceiving and backwards.
😃✍

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Southern Guardian

They never answer questions like that directly.

I tried to ask them what you think about Trump assertion regarding the crowd at his inauguration. No response.


They never respond to something logical and objective

They also like to trod out the 'left vs right sheeple' BS or 'I'm not Republican but' all the while defending Trump. It's hilarious.... and cowardly at the same time.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: timequake

Its a product of the left vs right mentality.

What do you think of the OP? Do you think Trump's deal with ZTE is justified? Do you agree with this move?

I will give you an answer--given what I know-- that has largely already been provided for you in this thread. I do not think that there is anything wrong with this deal on the following basis: that the concern regarding theft of trade secrets, and potential for espionage has been addressed in the deal with the requirement that the company must pay for US oberservers.... that it is not in fact a bail out, but simply allowing the company to purchase billions of dollars in US goods... that this move is a carrot to help further along US/China trade relations that could reap further trade consessions from China in the furture. Will some of trump's financial interest stand to benefit? Is that the sole intent or just collateral circumstance? I think maybe the latter, but we'll see. Maybe, and so will several other us based companies as a result of better trade relations--so long as trade secrets are recognized.


Will this ultimately be successful, or will it be a bust? We don't know. Depends on how others respond. We'll see. But I will say that I think it is a rational step toward negotiating a deal. If it goes south, the embargo on this company can simply be put back into place.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How many US jobs are on the line here?

Good luck getting a coherent answer.

🤧

a reply to: timequake

I will give you an answer--given what I know-- that has largely already been provided for you in this thread.

To which I've responded to those members. Those that haven't or continue to dance around the matter at hand I continue question. I want an answer from them, not deflection.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with this deal on the following basis: that the concern regarding theft of trade secrets, and potential of espionage has been addressed in the deal with the requirement that the company must pay for US oberservers....

And the in lies the issue. Why's there so much focus on this particular company when there have been countless of companies committing the same thing and never got this opportunity? Case in point foreign European and Asian banks being punished as part of Trump's move to supposedly protect US interests. What's more, this goes right against Trump's very own promise that he'd be tough on China economically. This deal doesn't benefit the US in the slightest. It softens the blow for ZTE, while others continue to be punished, and US monitors will be placed, yes, for this one company among a plethora of others than will continue to do as they please. Meanwhile Trump's Southeast venture mysteriously gets Chinese investment.

It still stinks to me.

. that this move is a carrot to help further along US/China trade relations that could reap further trade consessions from China in the furture.

China hasn't committed to any trade concessions as the result of this deal. So far you and others have only made the assumption that this is to pave a way for Chinese concessions in the future. They haven't committed to anything, much in the same way that North Korea didn't necessarily have to commit to the future peace meeting.

Will this ultimately be successful, or will it be a bust?

I'm leaning on the fact this deal with successful..... for Trump.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Except maybe ....

China Plans Up to $200 Billion in Trade Concessions, but Skepticism Abounds

note "skepticism" from NYTass

🔑=🔓

a reply to: xuenchen

Except maybe.... China hasn't contractually committed to anything, just like North Korea, just like those companies that claimed they'd invest in the US but ended up being pennies in the end.

My point still stands Xue, sorry.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I don't think your points stand for much of anything.

🥁🤷

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think your points stand for much of anything.

Where has China committed to anything Xue?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

How many US jobs are being hurt by this?

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think your points stand for much of anything.

Where has China committed to anything Xue?

This isn't a contract. Its a good faith concession. Its the carrot to the stick. Does it mean Trump is not-so-tough on China? We'll see if China reciprocates, and if they don't, does Trump employ the stick? That's when we'll really know.

Perception is everything. The Chinese press has a different, more somber perception of the entire ZTE deal than the OP. ..
news.cgtn.com...

So much for opinions

Didn't the deal say they still have to pay the fine, and use US made components? sounds like a win to me...

a reply to: Southern Guardian


Don't know that they did but they have been know to bribe american, mostly dem-o-rats elected types. I think they did Nixon and Clinton for sure.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
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.

wow, the dodging is only overshadowed by how EASILY your proven wrong.

First UNDER THE LAW there is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between business and personal bankruptcy

you can post, argue, name call ect till your blue in the face...but THE LAW and WEBSTERS overturn YOUR OPINION.

Second YOU STATED TRUMP WAS BAIL OUT THE COMPANY.

Not only did I provide the WEBSTERS DEFINITION OF BAILOUT, but what THE COURTS were doing with A MAIN STREAM MEDIA SOURCE.

Again YOUR OPINION does not change OFFICIAL WEBSTERS AND LEGAL DEFINITION.

your hatred of trump is proven again.

Now if you wish to continue (as you clearly will) want to try to change peoples minds and votes by these tactics...by all means continue

but it will work as well as it did in last election

BTW who WON AGAIN


Scrounger

What's that term you fellers use? Triggered? I think that applies here by the look of them capitalized words.

a reply to: scrounger

ow, the dodging is only overshadowed by how EASILY your proven wrong.

Sure.

First UNDER THE LAW there is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between business and personal bankruptcy

you can post, argue, name call ect till your blue in the face...but THE LAW and WEBSTERS overturn YOUR OPINION.

Did Trump go through 4 bankcruptcies? Yes or no?

Second YOU STATED TRUMP WAS BAIL OUT THE COMPANY.

Not only did I provide the WEBSTERS DEFINITION OF BAILOUT, but what THE COURTS were doing with A MAIN STREAM MEDIA SOURCE.

Again YOUR OPINION

Not my opinion. It's there for all to see. He's letting this company off lightly and China hasn't contractually committed to anything in exchange. There's talk of 'trade concessions' but this is an assumption pushed by his supporters to justify what would otherwise be an obviously dodgy and questionable deal.

This idea that China will make a trade concession to the tune of $200 billion in favor of the United States to settle a trade deficit in exchange for a lighter 1.2 billion fine imposed on what is one of many Chinese owned corporations is laughable in the least. Watching Trumps supporters throw all sorts of excuses on here is amusing. This is what happens when you voluntarily choose to restrict yourself to political safezones. You part with reality.

Now if you wish to continue (as you clearly will) want to try to change peoples minds

I'm not here to change peoples minds because most of their minds were clearly made up years ago. I'm here to post the facts and make the case, whether you agree or not.

BTW who WON AGAIN

Your guy did of course, that however has nothing to do with the OP and still bragging about it smells of desperation at this point. Oh and by the way, he lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes. He's the most unpopular president in modern history. Still, knowing how utterly weak and disorganized the Dems are, he still has a got shot at 2020.

No, the fact is you’re a walking political dogma machine, right versus left. When the right-wing does something the left wing does its good but when the left-wing does it, its bad

That’s what you project