Anti capitalist conservatives......

No we are not. Trump tried to get us in a cold war with China, but even that failed under his tutelage. This is really about US Hemogony and why China thinks US Hemogony is a bad thing. Although I like the Trans-Pacific Agreement, it failed to include China. It should. It is also why many of the SE Asian Countries are hesitant to sign willingly to this agreement with the US. And some, like Malaysia, Singapore, and New Zealand have expressed or suggested we could get china into the Trans-Pacific agreement with the other countries. And China has formally applied to be in this trade agreement with the process of acceptance being slow, probably too slow for Beijing's taste.

https://www.usip.org/publications/2...-pacific-trade-pact-affect-regional-stability

 

If you think China was our ally in the cold war you're misinformed. It's hard to have a discussion when we disagree about the basics and that's the case here.

 

None of your comments address my point. I wonder if you have my post confused with someone elses?

 

You phrased it that way because you are trying too hard to sound intellectually superior, but your post in actuality doesn't really offer anything of value.

Thus, the Mkay.

 

Simply having a deficit doesn't mean the trade was unfair, it means we exchanged cash for goods rather than goods for goods or goods for their cash.

That's a much different thing than what we experience trading with China.

It's really pretty simple.

Selling US infrastructure reduces our ability for self preservation and reduces our trade leverage.

It isn't a conspiracy when the facts prove China is rigging the game in their favor:

https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...i30l5j0i390.3997j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

No...it was a legitimate interest. And to demonstrate why it's bad form to chop peoples posts...it's hard to go back and read.
Wtf is sound intellectually superior? That's just how I talk/write.

What ever, like I said, you couldn't refute his claims.

 

There are private corporations and individuals in China.

Maybe you need to explain your concern.

 

It does Mikey. Either you don't want to address it because it will actually show the weakness and generalizations you made in your argument or you cannot refute it because you know not what you are talking about.

Simply saying "it doesn't address...;..." does not help your argument or your knowledge of the subject.

You are the one who stated that Chinese companies are beholden to the Chinese government, namely the CCP. Two logical assumptions. First, you are stating indirectly that the companies are owned by the government, aka the state, or B that the Chinese people who run the companies are completely loyal to the CCP. In either case, those assumptions with your argument are complete foolishness. If one is loyal, then one should be a member right? A loyal person, a person who "owes their life" or is beholden to the government should be a member of said party, like the days of Stalin and Lenin. A lot of people were loyal to them and they joined the party or a lot of people were loyal to Hitler and they joined the party.

And the snippet I pointed out proves that your you argument is false.

 

Dude, again you're misinformed. Conservatives are libertarian and can be righties or lefties. A right-winger (such as yourself) who demands the Jan. 6 rioters be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and a right-winger (such as yourself) who demands the US become involved with the fascist gov't of Ukraine are not conservatives. In fact, are the opposite of conservative.

 

Then you don't know what an ally is. China acted much the same way in the 1970s and 80s as the USSR did with us and the other Western Nations during WW2.

 

Let me use this analogy: Suppose China was bent on destroying the US and China began owning US farmland. Would just 2.5 percent of farmland owned by China be a threat to the US?? Duh?

 

.

China is a serious adversary, but buying land in the US will not be a problem until they find a way to take the land back with them to China.

Japan bought a great deal of real estate in the US as its economy peaked -- they even bought Rockefeller Center. How did those investments turn out for them?

 

Libertarian is a subgroup of conservativism. Conservatism can range from traditional to neoconservative to modern conservatism to fiscal conservatism and even paleoconservatism. True Libertarians are the strictest form of economic conservatism who quite literally believe in a laisse-faire form of capitalism like it was prior to the 1930s. Some even combined with the small limited government to include no drug laws, no immigration law outside the strictest Constitutional, original meaning, standard. But conservatism, as a whole, is a political, economic, and social philosophy that simply seeks to promote and preserve traditional social institutions.

 

Let's change that up, suppose Canada was bent on destroying the US economy because they haven't forgiven us for invading them in 1813 and Canada began to buy up farmland and owning said farmland in order to not produce a single vegetable, meat, etc. Would that be the same, hypothetically speaking?

Canada owns about 29% of the 2.7% of total US land in the US. China is less than 1%. So I wonder if the boogeyman appears to be real to you?

 

Why do you think people use the terms neo-conservative, neo-fascist and neo-authoritarian, for examples?

Answer: 'Cause the neo part of the redefinition isn't the classical definition. And in many cases, is the opposite of the classical definition.
Neo-conservative includes many authoritarians which is the opposite of classical conservativism.
Neo-fascism includes only righties who're authoritarian, er, neocons which is the opposite of the classical definition for fascism. I mean, Mussolini was a lefty and Hitler was a centrist.

Neo-authoritarianism includes politicians like Trump who are libertarian (the opposite of authoritarian) but somehow in this alternative universe Trump is deemed authoritarian.

 

Can Canada's military defeat the US's military? Is Canada making direct threats to the US?

 

Dude, please read the topic. An example about how to talk about libertarianism and still be on topic:

Libertarians support fewer immigration restrictions and fewer tariffs. Trumpist "conservatism" is the opposite. Two slam-dunk capitalist topics, with Trumpists being on the anti-capitalist side of both. Trump was the least libertarian/capitalist GOP candidate running.

 

Neo can mean a new or a newer definition in which it morphs into something that the people of today can understand. It's like using the word "gay" whose original meaning means happy. Nowadays it means a person who is attracted to the same sex as that person is.

Most people who are young will never truly understand the phrase "broken record player" or what it was tryly like to search for music, LP 45s and such, at a record store, and a whole bunch of other things. Same can be said with politics or economics as well. In the old days, people would believe, from top to bottom, a philosophy such as classical economics or traditional conservatism. Nowadays, conservatism and liberalism have evolved beyond their original intent because most of the people do not stick with one philosophy on everything. It is more like a cafeteria style where people are conservative in some and liberal in others, like the Bush's for instance. Politically, but not socially, the Bush's were extremely conservative. Socially, they were "liberal" despite having beliefs that abortion is wrong for instance. That is why Bush Sr and Jr are considered neoconservative. Economically and politically they were, but they didn't feel social issues should take center stage on a national scale at all, no matter what they and others believed.

Now you have conservatives who want to put government back in the bedroom, quite literally, by banning sodomy, abortion, certain sex acts between two consenting adults within the same age bracket, and the list goes on. This I would call this authoritarian conservative, but I would probably drop the word conservative because putting authoritarian and conservative in the same phrase is an oxymoron.

 

Electronic surveillance of a nearby Air Force base.

 

But if Canada closes its borders to Americans, kicks out all Americans living in Canada, including American firms, recalled its ambassador to the US, and threatens to destroy us economically, would Canada need their military to defeat us or just strangle us enough economically so that we cannot do sh**.

Besides, China cannot defeat our military. It can, however, cause serious damage to our military, especially the South China Sea, some 7000 miles away from our shores. Furthermore, China is not a first strike nuclear nation. It never has been, not even today with its DF-50 missiles, some 50 plus or so.

 

what type of electronic surveillance? Drones? hypersensitive listening devices?

Most of what you would think of would have to be within hundreds of feet, if not less, to be effective. They can be cumbersome, like a giant antenna, for that to be effective, and obvious to everyone to see.

Again, you are grasping at straws.

 

Really? They need to buy billions in land to do that?

Are our military bases that stupid that a drone from the neighbors next door can capture all our secrets? Be serious.

 

I was serious.

 

Well let's take Tiktok for instance. It's owned by a Chinese company called ByteDance, which is a massive tech company with offices all over the world. The nature of this social media platform is that it collects a massive amount of personal information from users all over the world. The Chinese government has access to all of that data regardless of whether ByteDance is a private company or not.

Frankly I'm stunned that so many people on this forum think Chinese companies are just like Western ones. I'll have to mull over that one.

 

This is a good example of trying to argue with people who simply want to argue.

You distilled my argument to two propositions of yours: 1) That private companies are owned by the government, and 2) the people who run these companies are fanatically loyal to the CCP. Since I never said either of those things, you are really arguing with yourself, so no surprise that you find yourself winning your own imaginary argument.

I think I already stated that these companies, privately owned whether the owners are fanatic CCP enthusiasts or not, are under the thumb of the totalitarian dictatorship that is the Chinese government and are beholden to them. If the government gives them a directive, they follow it.

Now you may not understand that, or you may want to re-write it, as you've already done, to try to change the argument something that you can easily dismiss. Either way I don't care. I love coming to this forum and having challenging engagements with other users, but your argument is so stupid it's instantly boring. If you think Chinese private companies are exactly like Western private companies, please continue to do so. I'm only willing to waste so much time trying to educate over obviously stupid points.