Bolton's book is politically motivated. if Bolton had any real information that can be corroborated he would have testified in a second. so why didn't he? seems he either didn't what to spoil the sales of his work of fiction or he didn't want to testify under oath. or both. Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidHe didn't testify because maybe, and this is just a guess a guy named Jim Jordan would have shoved his book up his ass and that would have been a bit humiliating for the dummy that can't properly trim his mustache, lol.
- Levianon17
- 06-20-2020, 05:43 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 06-20-2020, 06:10 PM
Everybody in Washington hates John Bolton
Republicans say he's disgruntled while Democrats think he's just trying to sell books. And Trump calls him a 'sick puppy.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-bolton-328921
Former National security adviser John Bolton leaves his home in Bethesda, Md., on Jan. 28, 2020. | Luis M. Alvarez/AP Photo
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and BURGESS EVERETT
06/18/2020 04:41 PM EDT
John Bolton has few friends left in D.C.
A day after excerpts from his bombshell new book emerged excoriating President Donald Trump, the former national security adviser has managed to turn everyone against him.
Republicans say he’s a disgruntled sensationalist who’s merely trying to make money off his book. And Democrats, once buoyed by Bolton’s turn against Trump, now say he is “unpatriotic” for documenting his claims in a book rather than testifying before Congress during Trump’s impeachment inquiry.
Several Republicans this week took direct shots at Bolton, a neoconservative once heralded as the gold standard for the GOP on foreign policy and national security issues.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Bolton is “somebody who thought he was being hired to be the commander in chief, and he wasn’t.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he found it hard to take seriously “anyone who claims to have witnessed treason and obstruction of justice and tells about it in a book.”
“Every meeting I’ve been in with John Bolton, he views himself as the smartest person in the room,” added Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP leader. “He thinks he should be president, speaker of the House and chief justice of the Supreme Court all at the same time.”
Barrasso also accused Bolton of becoming “the darling of the liberal left.” But that’s not exactly true, either. Despite producing several new vivid anecdotes that could launch new congressional investigations targeting the Trump administration, Bolton has few friends in the opposition party.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Bolton “cares more about his book than he did public service.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Bolton is “obviously interested in making money, not saving the republic.”
On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday criticized Bolton for not testifying during the impeachment trial and said she’ll meet with committee chairs to discuss whether to haul him in to speak to lawmakers.
And it’s not just Capitol Hill Democrats who once tried to subpoena Bolton and Republicans who feel like he’s turned on the party to juice his book sales. The Trump administration is suing him in an attempt to block publication of the book even as it’s set to be released in the coming days.
Asked about the timing of Bolton’s book and his credibility, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) declared: “Nothing about that smells right. The House is frustrated by it, we are frustrated about it.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Bolton is “obviously interested in making money, not saving the Republic.” | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo
In his forthcoming memoir, “The Room Where It Happened,” Bolton makes a series of explosive claims and argues that House Democrats focused their impeachment investigation too narrowly on the president’s posture toward Ukraine and suggests Trump may have committed multiple impeachable offenses.
MOST READ
Bolton alleges that Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to buy American agricultural products to help him win reelection, and that the president encouraged Xi to continue building concentration camps for the Muslim Uighurs, a religious minority in the country’s Xinjiang region.
Several senior Republicans indicated they had no interest in discussing Bolton’s bombshell claims, questioning both his credibility and his motivations. It’s a somewhat painful moment for the hawkish Republican Party, which once found itself in lockstep with Bolton on many issues.
“I don’t have anything to say about it, because he’s selling books,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. He also downplayed any suggestion that Bolton should testify.
“I have no ill feeling towards John Bolton. Do you want to ask me about any policy questions?” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
White House
Trump asked China for help getting reelected, Bolton book claims
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
In January, Bolton said he would be willing to testify as part of the Senate impeachment trial under subpoena; but just two Republicans— Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine — joined Democrats in the failed effort to hear from additional witnesses. Several Republicans said they didn’t need to hear from Bolton in order to conclude that Trump did, in fact, solicit Ukraine’s help in the 2020 presidential election, even as they determined that it was not impeachable.
“The question for me was, did I need to hear more evidence to prove that the president did what the Democrats accused him of doing. And I said no because I’m convinced he did it,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was essentially the deciding vote on the witness question.
Still, Bolton resisted efforts to testify before House impeachment investigators — even threatening to challenge a subpoena in court if Democrats issued one to him, citing directives from the White House.
“He did it to maximize book sales. He felt like if he gave away information before, it would hurt his book sales,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said. “And so he held back even when it would be valuable to the nation.”
Democrats also took issue with Bolton’s criticisms of the impeachment inquiry, arguing that he should have testified if he felt that he had relevant information to share.
“Bolton himself says if the Democrats just asked the right questions the impeachment might have turned differently,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). “Mr. Bolton, why didn’t you come forward and testify to this effect while we were conducting an impeachment trial?”
Members of Bolton’s staff, however, testified voluntarilyduring the impeachment inquiry, something Democrats regularly pointed out as they decried Bolton’s “unpatriotic”refusal, as House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) put it in statements filled with criticism.
“For the first time in my 14-year political career I agree with Adam Schiff,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). He said of Bolton’s book: “I got a long reading list ahead of me, and it’s not going to go to the top of the stack.”
But Democrats may find Bolton’s book more enticing. And they were quick not to dismiss Bolton’s claims outright, saying that many of them fit into a pattern for Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said they found Bolton credible, while Brown said Bolton likely had documents to back up his assertions.
“I understand that given his motivations, people might question what he’s written. That’s a logical skepticism,” Murphy said. “But what he’s written seems consistent with everything we’ve watched Trump do publicly for the past three years.”
Senate Democrats are pushing for additional information on many of Bolton’s assertions, most notably his allegations involving Trump’s conversations with Xi.
“Regardless of whether you believe it or not, it needs to be tested because some of the issues presented in the book, if true, in my view undermine the interests of the United States,” said New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declined to take sides in the battle between Bolton and Trump. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The GOP-controlled Senate, though, is unlikely to pursue Bolton’s account of working at the White House.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the interim chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, demurred on whether he was interested in bringing Bolton before the panel to question him about the classified aspects of his memoir. Rubio declined to take sides in the battle between Bolton and Trump, who has repeatedly accused Bolton of lying.
Bolton doesn’t seem to have many friends left within the Trump administration, either. Hours after explosive details from the manuscript emerged, the Justice Department asked a federal judge for an emergency order to block publication of Bolton’s book, which is slated for public release on Tuesday and has already been shipped to some sellers.
The Justice Department argued that Bolton’s book contains classified information — an apparent acknowledgment that many of the details in the book are true. Yet Trump and his allies have dubbed Bolton a liar, saying he fabricated the anecdotes included in the book.
“Bolton’s book, which is getting terrible reviews, is a compilation of lies and made up stories, all intended to make me look bad,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning. “Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made, pure fiction. Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is!”
Republicans say he's disgruntled while Democrats think he's just trying to sell books. And Trump calls him a 'sick puppy.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-bolton-328921
Former National security adviser John Bolton leaves his home in Bethesda, Md., on Jan. 28, 2020. | Luis M. Alvarez/AP Photo
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and BURGESS EVERETT
06/18/2020 04:41 PM EDT
John Bolton has few friends left in D.C.
A day after excerpts from his bombshell new book emerged excoriating President Donald Trump, the former national security adviser has managed to turn everyone against him.
Republicans say he’s a disgruntled sensationalist who’s merely trying to make money off his book. And Democrats, once buoyed by Bolton’s turn against Trump, now say he is “unpatriotic” for documenting his claims in a book rather than testifying before Congress during Trump’s impeachment inquiry.
Several Republicans this week took direct shots at Bolton, a neoconservative once heralded as the gold standard for the GOP on foreign policy and national security issues.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Bolton is “somebody who thought he was being hired to be the commander in chief, and he wasn’t.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he found it hard to take seriously “anyone who claims to have witnessed treason and obstruction of justice and tells about it in a book.”
“Every meeting I’ve been in with John Bolton, he views himself as the smartest person in the room,” added Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP leader. “He thinks he should be president, speaker of the House and chief justice of the Supreme Court all at the same time.”
Barrasso also accused Bolton of becoming “the darling of the liberal left.” But that’s not exactly true, either. Despite producing several new vivid anecdotes that could launch new congressional investigations targeting the Trump administration, Bolton has few friends in the opposition party.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Bolton “cares more about his book than he did public service.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Bolton is “obviously interested in making money, not saving the republic.”
On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday criticized Bolton for not testifying during the impeachment trial and said she’ll meet with committee chairs to discuss whether to haul him in to speak to lawmakers.
And it’s not just Capitol Hill Democrats who once tried to subpoena Bolton and Republicans who feel like he’s turned on the party to juice his book sales. The Trump administration is suing him in an attempt to block publication of the book even as it’s set to be released in the coming days.
Asked about the timing of Bolton’s book and his credibility, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) declared: “Nothing about that smells right. The House is frustrated by it, we are frustrated about it.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Bolton is “obviously interested in making money, not saving the Republic.” | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo
In his forthcoming memoir, “The Room Where It Happened,” Bolton makes a series of explosive claims and argues that House Democrats focused their impeachment investigation too narrowly on the president’s posture toward Ukraine and suggests Trump may have committed multiple impeachable offenses.
MOST READ
- Trump threatens Tulsa protesters as mayor lifts curfew
- Navy upholds firing of carrier captain who warned of coronavirus
- The Woman Who Helped Save Joe Biden
- ‘My biggest risk’: Trump says mail-in voting could cost him reelection
- Mulvaney: Trump ‘didn’t hire very well,’ doesn’t mesh with ‘military personality’
Bolton alleges that Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to buy American agricultural products to help him win reelection, and that the president encouraged Xi to continue building concentration camps for the Muslim Uighurs, a religious minority in the country’s Xinjiang region.
Several senior Republicans indicated they had no interest in discussing Bolton’s bombshell claims, questioning both his credibility and his motivations. It’s a somewhat painful moment for the hawkish Republican Party, which once found itself in lockstep with Bolton on many issues.
“I don’t have anything to say about it, because he’s selling books,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. He also downplayed any suggestion that Bolton should testify.
“I have no ill feeling towards John Bolton. Do you want to ask me about any policy questions?” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
White House
Trump asked China for help getting reelected, Bolton book claims
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
In January, Bolton said he would be willing to testify as part of the Senate impeachment trial under subpoena; but just two Republicans— Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine — joined Democrats in the failed effort to hear from additional witnesses. Several Republicans said they didn’t need to hear from Bolton in order to conclude that Trump did, in fact, solicit Ukraine’s help in the 2020 presidential election, even as they determined that it was not impeachable.
“The question for me was, did I need to hear more evidence to prove that the president did what the Democrats accused him of doing. And I said no because I’m convinced he did it,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was essentially the deciding vote on the witness question.
Still, Bolton resisted efforts to testify before House impeachment investigators — even threatening to challenge a subpoena in court if Democrats issued one to him, citing directives from the White House.
“He did it to maximize book sales. He felt like if he gave away information before, it would hurt his book sales,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said. “And so he held back even when it would be valuable to the nation.”
Democrats also took issue with Bolton’s criticisms of the impeachment inquiry, arguing that he should have testified if he felt that he had relevant information to share.
“Bolton himself says if the Democrats just asked the right questions the impeachment might have turned differently,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). “Mr. Bolton, why didn’t you come forward and testify to this effect while we were conducting an impeachment trial?”
Members of Bolton’s staff, however, testified voluntarilyduring the impeachment inquiry, something Democrats regularly pointed out as they decried Bolton’s “unpatriotic”refusal, as House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) put it in statements filled with criticism.
“For the first time in my 14-year political career I agree with Adam Schiff,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). He said of Bolton’s book: “I got a long reading list ahead of me, and it’s not going to go to the top of the stack.”
But Democrats may find Bolton’s book more enticing. And they were quick not to dismiss Bolton’s claims outright, saying that many of them fit into a pattern for Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said they found Bolton credible, while Brown said Bolton likely had documents to back up his assertions.
“I understand that given his motivations, people might question what he’s written. That’s a logical skepticism,” Murphy said. “But what he’s written seems consistent with everything we’ve watched Trump do publicly for the past three years.”
Senate Democrats are pushing for additional information on many of Bolton’s assertions, most notably his allegations involving Trump’s conversations with Xi.
“Regardless of whether you believe it or not, it needs to be tested because some of the issues presented in the book, if true, in my view undermine the interests of the United States,” said New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declined to take sides in the battle between Bolton and Trump. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The GOP-controlled Senate, though, is unlikely to pursue Bolton’s account of working at the White House.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the interim chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, demurred on whether he was interested in bringing Bolton before the panel to question him about the classified aspects of his memoir. Rubio declined to take sides in the battle between Bolton and Trump, who has repeatedly accused Bolton of lying.
Bolton doesn’t seem to have many friends left within the Trump administration, either. Hours after explosive details from the manuscript emerged, the Justice Department asked a federal judge for an emergency order to block publication of Bolton’s book, which is slated for public release on Tuesday and has already been shipped to some sellers.
The Justice Department argued that Bolton’s book contains classified information — an apparent acknowledgment that many of the details in the book are true. Yet Trump and his allies have dubbed Bolton a liar, saying he fabricated the anecdotes included in the book.
“Bolton’s book, which is getting terrible reviews, is a compilation of lies and made up stories, all intended to make me look bad,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning. “Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made, pure fiction. Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is!”
- bambino
- 06-20-2020, 06:11 PM
Even Rocket Man hated him!!!!!!
BAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHA
- Tiny
- 06-21-2020, 12:01 PM
you started a thread about the "damning allegations" yet you have not listed even one.
so list them all and explain what's so damning .. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
No, I started a thread about Bolton and Bolton's book. As to the allegations and why they reflect poorly on Trump if true, you're not stupid, you already know. Here's a list
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53089609 Originally Posted by Tiny
if you don't .. well that means you have nothing to say here. you are not a libertarian as you claim because no libertarian would ever take the side of communist China over America and yet this is exactly what you have done repeatedly.
prove you are not a Chinese asset spreading disinformation against Lord Donald the Great!!
BAHHAAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
I'm not a Chinese asset. However Bolton alleges that Trump offered to become one if Xi would step up purchases of U.S. agricultural products to help him win the election. And how did this, if true, arise in the first place? Because Trump took the anti-Libertarian position of jacking up tariffs sky high. So the Chinese stopped buying American agricultural products, among other things. And Trump then took a huge chunk of the government revenues the tariffs generated and plowed them back into aid for the agricultural industry. The fact that you believe I'm anti-Libertarian when it comes to China and apparently believe Trump is pro-Libertarian shows you don't know diddly squat about what you're talking about in this instance.What's wrong? Cat got your tongue? This is about the third time you've demanded I come up with links and arguments to support what I said and then you ghost.
Libertarian Positions on Free Trade:
https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Li...Free_Trade.htm
Libertarian Position on Trump's trade wars and farm subsidies:
https://www.lp.org/following-tariffs...rnment-policy/ Originally Posted by Tiny
How about you convince me this time. I'm open minded. I don't want to see Democrats in control of the House, Senate and presidency come 2021. Exactly why do you think President Trump wasn't proposing to become a foreign asset in return for help with the election? In Bolton's unredacted book (before it was censored by the government), Trump's quoted as telling Xi, "Make sure I win. I will probably win anyway, so don't hurt my farms. Buy a lot of soybeans and wheat and make sure we win."
But Bolton may be lying. Maybe Trump was going to take what help he could from Xi with the election and give nothing in return. Fair enough. Then how about the phone call with Zelensky, the President of the Ukraine. He asked for help with CrowdStrike. Anybody with half a brain knew there weren't computer servers hidden in the Ukraine that would provide some kind of smoking gun to torpedo the Democrats in 2020. And Trump IS playing with a full deck. Was he angling for Zelensky to fabricate something about CrowdStrike or Joe Biden? What would Zelensky get in return? Military aid?
How about a cogent reply. "You're a fucking idiot and a Chinese asset BAHAHAHAHA" isn't convincing.
- matchingmole
- 06-21-2020, 12:25 PM
Trump hired Bolton
He would rather have hired Diamond and Silk.
They don't have mustaches as big as Bolton though.
He would rather have hired Diamond and Silk.
They don't have mustaches as big as Bolton though.
- eccieuser9500
- 06-21-2020, 03:04 PM
Trump hired BoltonHe's always hiring the best people, isn't he?
He would rather have hired Diamond and Silk.
They don't have mustaches as big as Bolton though. Originally Posted by matchingmole
One rat-faced, unprincipled jew.
And a rat-faced unprincipled Italian.
And a rat-faced unprincipled Italian.
Typical WASPy New York.
Won't get his hands dirty.
- matchingmole
- 06-21-2020, 07:11 PM
Does Bolton mention how Trump gets his infamous face "tan"?
- matchingmole
- 06-21-2020, 10:04 PM
- lustylad
- 06-21-2020, 11:50 PM
- lustylad
- 06-22-2020, 12:40 AM
Fucking media asshats keep quoting this passage from Bolton's book:
"I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations."
I call bullshit. Bolton is enough of a DC swamp creature and a foreign policy player to know almost all decisions are made for a VARIETY of reasons and based on a RANGE of considerations. I wouldn't have a problem if Bolton had said "driven IN PART by re-election calculations". But he didn't. He left out those two little qualifying words. That gives the impression that every decision was driven ENTIRELY by re-election considerations.
Besides, every POTUS in history has been keenly mindful of the impact on domestic politics when they make decisions. So what? That's called democracy. It's only a scandal if they put politics ahead of the national interest (e.g. Benghazi, or promising Putin to show "more flexibility after the election", etc.)
So would someone please explain - how the fuck is it against our national interest to get the Chinese to resume purchases of our aggy products (which they halted in the first place to put pressure on trump in farm states they know are electorally critical)? And how is it against our national interest to want to reduce our $345 billion annual trade deficit with China?
Bolton is pissed because his arguments repeatedly failed to sway trump. Now he is consoling himself by suggesting it was all due to crass political reasons rather than his own sorry inability to persuade.
"I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations."
I call bullshit. Bolton is enough of a DC swamp creature and a foreign policy player to know almost all decisions are made for a VARIETY of reasons and based on a RANGE of considerations. I wouldn't have a problem if Bolton had said "driven IN PART by re-election calculations". But he didn't. He left out those two little qualifying words. That gives the impression that every decision was driven ENTIRELY by re-election considerations.
Besides, every POTUS in history has been keenly mindful of the impact on domestic politics when they make decisions. So what? That's called democracy. It's only a scandal if they put politics ahead of the national interest (e.g. Benghazi, or promising Putin to show "more flexibility after the election", etc.)
So would someone please explain - how the fuck is it against our national interest to get the Chinese to resume purchases of our aggy products (which they halted in the first place to put pressure on trump in farm states they know are electorally critical)? And how is it against our national interest to want to reduce our $345 billion annual trade deficit with China?
Bolton is pissed because his arguments repeatedly failed to sway trump. Now he is consoling himself by suggesting it was all due to crass political reasons rather than his own sorry inability to persuade.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 06-22-2020, 01:26 AM
What's wrong? Cat got your tongue? This is about the third time you've demanded I come up with links and arguments to support what I said and then you ghost.
How about you convince me this time. I'm open minded. I don't want to see Democrats in control of the House, Senate and presidency come 2021. Exactly why do you think President Trump wasn't proposing to become a foreign asset in return for help with the election? In Bolton's unredacted book (before it was censored by the government), Trump's quoted as telling Xi, "Make sure I win. I will probably win anyway, so don't hurt my farms. Buy a lot of soybeans and wheat and make sure we win."
But Bolton may be lying. Maybe Trump was going to take what help he could from Xi with the election and give nothing in return. Fair enough. Then how about the phone call with Zelensky, the President of the Ukraine. He asked for help with CrowdStrike. Anybody with half a brain knew there weren't computer servers hidden in the Ukraine that would provide some kind of smoking gun to torpedo the Democrats in 2020. And Trump IS playing with a full deck. Was he angling for Zelensky to fabricate something about CrowdStrike or Joe Biden? What would Zelensky get in return? Military aid?
How about a cogent reply. "You're a fucking idiot and a Chinese asset BAHAHAHAHA" isn't convincing. Originally Posted by Tiny
i think i'll leave you right where i put you .. in a broken washing machine stuck on spin cycle
you started a thread to attempt to "expose" Trump via the fiction of a neocon warmonger who Trump fired for being a neocon warmonger.
so tell us why the neocon warmonger should be believed? in your own words .. if you can.
Fucking media asshats keep quoting this passage from Bolton's book:
"I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations."
I call bullshit. Bolton is enough of a DC swamp creature and a foreign policy player to know almost all decisions are made for a VARIETY of reasons and based on a RANGE of considerations. I wouldn't have a problem if Bolton had said "driven IN PART by re-election calculations". But he didn't. He left out those two little qualifying words. That gives the impression that every decision was driven ENTIRELY by re-election considerations.
Besides, every POTUS in history has been keenly mindful of the impact on domestic politics when they make decisions. So what? That's called democracy. It's only a scandal if they put politics ahead of the national interest, e.g. Benghazi, or promising Putin you will show "more flexibility after the election", or telling Defense Secretary Bob Gates why you opposed the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, etc.
So would someone please explain - how the fuck is it against our national interest to get the Chinese to resume purchases of our aggy products (which they halted in the first place to put pressure on trump in farm states they know are electorally critical)? And how is it against our national interest to want to reduce our $345 billion annual trade deficit with China?
Bolton is pissed because his arguments repeatedly failed to sway trump. Now he is consoling himself by suggesting it was all due to crass political reasons rather than his own sorry inability to persuade. Originally Posted by lustylad
“Every meeting I’ve been in with John Bolton, he views himself as the smartest person in the room,” added Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP leader. “He thinks he should be president, speaker of the House and chief justice of the Supreme Court all at the same time.”
the only way johnny walrus bolton is the smartest guy in the room is if he's the only guy in the room. and even that is debatable ..
BAHAHAHAA
- Tiny
- 06-22-2020, 09:24 AM
Fucking media asshats keep quoting this passage from Bolton's book:
"I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations."
I call bullshit. Bolton is enough of a DC swamp creature and a foreign policy player to know almost all decisions are made for a VARIETY of reasons and based on a RANGE of considerations. I wouldn't have a problem if Bolton had said "driven IN PART by re-election calculations". But he didn't. He left out those two little qualifying words. That gives the impression that every decision was driven ENTIRELY by re-election considerations.
Besides, every POTUS in history has been keenly mindful of the impact on domestic politics when they make decisions. So what? That's called democracy. It's only a scandal if they put politics ahead of the national interest (e.g. Benghazi, or promising Putin to show "more flexibility after the election", etc.)
So would someone please explain - how the fuck is it against our national interest to get the Chinese to resume purchases of our aggy products (which they halted in the first place to put pressure on trump in farm states they know are electorally critical)? And how is it against our national interest to want to reduce our $345 billion annual trade deficit with China?
Bolton is pissed because his arguments repeatedly failed to sway trump. Now he is consoling himself by suggesting it was all due to crass political reasons rather than his own sorry inability to persuade. Originally Posted by lustylad
i think i'll leave you right where i put you .. in a broken washing machine stuck on spin cycleYeah, We've got a similar opinion of Bolton, except I don't believe he's a liar. The world and the USA would be better off if he'd never entered public service. As to "how the fuck is it against our national interest to get the Chinese to resume purchases of our aggy products," there's nothing wrong with that. However when Trump says do it to "make sure we win" the election, he's just plain being stupid. Ukraine's the bigger problem, and part of the same pattern, and undoubtedly covered in lots of detail in Bolton's book. Trump's inability to control his mouth is going to cost him the election and may shut Republicans out of government until 2025 or later. Biden's going to have to screw up big time for the GOP to win the House in 2022.
you started a thread to attempt to "expose" Trump via the fiction of a neocon warmonger who Trump fired for being a neocon warmonger.
so tell us why the neocon warmonger should be believed? in your own words .. if you can.
“Every meeting I’ve been in with John Bolton, he views himself as the smartest person in the room,” added Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP leader. “He thinks he should be president, speaker of the House and chief justice of the Supreme Court all at the same time.”
the only way johnny walrus bolton is the smartest guy in the room is if he's the only guy in the room. and even that is debatable ..
BAHAHAHAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
As to the 345 billion trade deficit with China, what's happened to the overall trade deficit since Trump imposed the tariffs on China? It's gone up, except for an anomalous number in February of this year. As you well know, Chinese sales to the U.S.A. and some production are migrating to places like Vietnam and Malaysia. For those products still coming from China, the tariffs, which are paid by U.S. importers, are being passed onto U.S. consumers in the form of higher prices.
The trade deficit should be going down. Trump's corporate tax cuts and deregulation have made the USA competitive again. And maybe February was an indication of that starting to happen. But, for example, if a Chinese company goes and builds a new textile plant in Vietnam to supply the U.S. market, the cost is going to be passed onto the U.S. consumer, resulting in higher prices and a bigger trade deficit. Or the existing Vietnamese producers jack up their prices to U.S. customers because the Chinese are out of the game, which increases our trade deficit.
Trump did not attack the problem in a smart way, by building alliances with other countries to attack unfair Chinese trade practices and intellectual property theft. And by working to increase our production of products domestically that are important to national security.
- oeb11
- 06-22-2020, 10:19 AM
Tiny - Trump's inability to control his mouth is going to cost him the election and may shut Republicans out of government until 2025 or later.
I wish you were incorrect - and i think u are in the date of 2025.
If the LibDPST's win House, Senate, and POTUS - the SC will be packed with liberals to get a majority, voting mechanisms will be fixed to ensure Dem only victories, and all the socialist radical policies will be voted in.
There will never again be a two party system in America - only an Orwellian dystopia ruled by a Dem nomenklatura. kalifornia is the model .
I wish you were incorrect - and i think u are in the date of 2025.
If the LibDPST's win House, Senate, and POTUS - the SC will be packed with liberals to get a majority, voting mechanisms will be fixed to ensure Dem only victories, and all the socialist radical policies will be voted in.
There will never again be a two party system in America - only an Orwellian dystopia ruled by a Dem nomenklatura. kalifornia is the model .
- lustylad
- 06-22-2020, 12:04 PM
As to the 345 billion trade deficit with China, what's happened to the overall trade deficit since Trump imposed the tariffs on China? It's gone up... Originally Posted by TinyLast year our trade deficit with China shrank. Trump started to impose tariffs in March 2018.
US trade gap versus China
2017 - $375 bn.
2018 - $420 bn.
2019 - $345 bn.
If you're referring to the GLOBAL US trade deficit, it also narrowed in 2019 for the first time in 6 years. However, the shrinkage was very modest and I agree a lot of imports were simply reshuffled/resourced away from China to other low-cost countries. Given how the US has become energy self-sufficient on a net basis over the past decade, it is disappointing that we haven't seen a significant improvement in our global trade balance.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...rs-11580909498
- Tiny
- 06-22-2020, 01:27 PM
Last year our trade deficit with China shrank. Trump started to impose tariffs in March 2018.Yes, I referred to the overall or global trade deficit. You need to look at the numbers before 2017.
US trade gap versus China
2017 - $375 bn.
2018 - $420 bn.
2019 - $345 bn.
If you're referring to the GLOBAL US trade deficit, it also narrowed in 2019 for the first time in 6 years. However, the shrinkage was very modest and I agree a lot of imports were simply reshuffled/resourced away from China to other low-cost countries. Given how the US has become energy self-sufficient on a net basis over the past decade, it is disappointing that we haven't seen a significant improvement in our global trade balance.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...rs-11580909498 Originally Posted by lustylad
As you said, Trump started to impose tariffs in March, 2018. Click on the five year graph here:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOPGSTB
You'll see the trade deficit increasing through 2018, then appearing to start to go the other way around September, 2019. Still, except for February, 2020, the deficit has been mostly higher than when Obama left office. And by April, 2020 it looks like we're losing ground, although I bet a lot of that was Covid related.
Again, we should give Trump credit for the corporate tax cuts and deregulation, which made American businesses more competitive. That's a much better way to cut the trade deficit, if you consider it a problem, than applying tariffs willy nilly.
Very good point about energy self sufficiency. Not only did it used to be the biggest component of the trade deficit, but it's something that affects national security -- remember how the OPEC nations had us over a barrel in the 1970's. Biden has caved to the Progressives in his party and not only wants to put the country on a path to "0" carbon emissions, but even said in March that he wanted to ban fracking. I hope this doesn't come to pass, it wouldn't be good for the USA.