Tariffs?

[gil]

You gotta believe the Chinese, they are, after all, known for their freedoms.

Good one. I was also going to make a crack about a conservative (Bessent) citing the mainstream media.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

No doubt in my mind that the outcome of the tariff's on China will be published as a win for China in all Chinese publications and a loss by all American main stream media outlets.

[auroraave]

No doubt in my mind that the outcome of the tariff's on China will be published as a win for China in all Chinese publications and a loss by all American main stream media outlets.

and without fail Gil will 100% believe and quote China and CNN over common sense - because he has to abide by his assigned response of "trump did it = BAD!" Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

No doubt in my mind that the outcome of the tariff's on China will be published as a win for China in all Chinese publications and a loss by all American main stream media outlets.

and without fail Gil will 100% believe and quote China and CNN over common sense - because he has to abide by his assigned response of "trump did it = BAD!" Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm trying to be friendly and not attack..... just point (or nudge) in the right direction.

I did find it a little frustrating that he picked a Chinese publication to refute what I posted.

[gil]

No doubt in my mind that the outcome of the tariff's on China will be published as a win for China in all Chinese publications and a loss by all American main stream media outlets.

and without fail Gil will 100% believe and quote China and CNN over common sense - because he has to abide by his assigned response of "trump did it = BAD!" Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm trying to be friendly and not attack..... just point (or nudge) in the right direction.

I did find it a little frustrating that he picked a Chinese publication to refute what I posted.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

I didn't "pick" a Chinese publication. It was the one Secretary Bessent cited in the interview: the South China Morning Post. I simply looked to find the article that he was citing in the interview, and as I posted, what the article said was a bit different from what Bessent said it said.

[gil]

No doubt in my mind that the outcome of the tariff's on China will be published as a win for China in all Chinese publications and a loss by all American main stream media outlets.

I'm curious: how would you define a win and a loss here. For either China or the U.S.? Can both win?

[auroraave]

No doubt in my mind that the outcome of the tariff's on China will be published as a win for China in all Chinese publications and a loss by all American main stream media outlets.

and without fail Gil will 100% believe and quote China and CNN over common sense - because he has to abide by his assigned response of "trump did it = BAD!" Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm trying to be friendly and not attack..... just point (or nudge) in the right direction.

I did find it a little frustrating that he picked a Chinese publication to refute what I posted.

He's too far gone. You can see it clearly. There's a saying that what people say is who they think they are and what they do is who they really are. Gil has always purported to be 'neutral' or unbiased or refusing to acknowledge his total obedience to the dems and CNN. But every post is literally anti trump. It's not because he believes it - it's just what he has been trained to do through years of CNN/Hillary brainwashing. He doesn't get it - and there are moments where you can tell he doesn't really believe what he is saying but he has to say it due to his conditioned response aka the "assigned response." He's a good dude, no doubt, but he is one of those that has let their thinking be done for them for too long - at least he isn't unhinged like that SOB - jesus christ that is just mental ward level.

Notice he has never explained how the US using tariffs is BAD - but when others do it (like canada's 300% tax on US farmers goods) it's fine. How can you hold two completely opposing POV's? That makes no sense - and making no sense is quite literally the fundamental baseline for the Dems and CAA. ANYTHING the dems do is justified by CNN and ANYTHING trump does is villified. Just common sense would tell you the statistical probability of that being true is very very low - and when you look at the last ten years of staggering lies and corruption by the dems - but still have folks like gil running the out the baseline response of "anything trump does is bad".

Cover of the wall street journal last week had trump threatening sanctions against russia, trump distancing himself from Israel, and an article about the tariffs and how the negotiations are on going and a long game tactic. Those are literally three things he has complained about - but when these positive articles come out (from an UNFRIENDLY source, mind you) it's crickets. Wasn't he saying trump is letting russia and isreal "do whatever they want" and he has a problem with that? Where is the response when Trump is literally doing exactly what he's asking for? crickets.

Like trump hilariously said, he could cure cancer and suddenly the wackadoodle dems and CNN would magically be pro cancer. "Assigned response."

To be clear - I don't have any issue with him holding those positions, I support him doing it, I have an issue with him suggesting he doesn't or isn't blatantly anti trump when the evidence is overwhelmingly so -that's insulting to anyone's intelligence.