American Politics

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2961406]On May 24,2000, Bill Clinton clinched what many believed would be the last great legislative victory of his presidency. That afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to award China permanent normal trade relations, effectively backing Beijing's long-in-the-making bid to join the World Trade Organization. The historic deal had been Clinton's top priority in the waning days of his last terma move he hoped would improve relations with the world's most populous nation, while cementing his own legacy of using free trade to advance America's foreign policy interests. It had been opposed by labor unions wary of competition from poorly paid foreign workers and championed by corporations salivating over 1. 3 billion potential Chinese customers (the business lobby had spent millions on TV ads supporting the pact). In the end, after much wrangling, 73 Democrats joined 164 Republicans to pass the agreement, which was expected to glide through the Senate.

"This is a good day for America," Clinton said afterward. "In 10 years from now we will look back on this day and be glad we did this. We will see that we have given ourselves a chance to build the kind of future we want. ".

Advertisement.

Things have not worked out quite as the 42nd president hoped. Normalizing trade with China set our rival on a path to becoming the industrial powerhouse the world knows today, decimating American factory towns in the process and upending old assumptions about how trade effects the economy. Thanks to a growing body of academic research, we're only just now beginning to understand the extent of the economic fallout, as well as the degree to which it has helped poison our politics. If you want to understand why Donald Trump's furious message about trade resonates with so much of the public, and has helped him come within striking distance of defeating Hillary Clinton and taking the White House, you have to start with another Clinton's choice at the end of his term.

Clinton's reasons for embracing trade with China had as much to do with geopolitics as economics. By the late 1990's, the People's Republic was a fast-growing but relatively cloistered economy dominated by a government whose human rights record could be summed up with the words Tiananmen Square. But after years of false starts, its leadership had become determined to join the WTO, the club of nations that sets the ground rules for international trade. This was no small commitmentgaining membership would require China to strike individual deals with the group's 135 members to ease tariffs and open itself to foreign companies. In part, that meant giving its own citizens more leeway to run businesses.

Embracing those sorts of economic liberties, Clinton argued, might one day lead the Communist Party to allow more political liberties as well. "By joining the WTO, China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products; it is agreeing to import one of democracy's most cherished values: economic freedom," the president said in a March 2000 speech.

Former Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, who served as the USA Trade representative under Clinton and helped negotiate China's deal with the USA, explained to me that given China's size, its involvement on the world stage was "an almost foregone conclusion. " With that in mind, what mattered was how it would happen: "Would it go in a direction antithetical to Western norms? Or could it be encouraged to go in a direction that was compatible to Western norms?

In 1999, the White House hashed out its agreement with Beijing. China would drop tariffs and other trade barriers tripping up USA Farmers and companies. In return, the USA Would support China's WTO application, phase out some quotas that limited Chinese textile imports, and (most importantly) give it permanent most favored nation trade status. What, exactly did that mean? China had enjoyed the same low tariffs on its exports to the USA As most other countries since 1979. But, under an old Cold Warera law, the president and Congress were essentially required to renew those trade rights each year, a bit of political theater that often involved airing all sorts of grievances about China's rights record. (They were nevertheless renewed each time, without fail.) Making trade relations permanent eliminated that thorny annual ritualin short, it would take Beijing off probation.

Advertisement.

Most experts did not see this as a particularly large concession, since nothing, as far as they could tell, would fundamentally change about the USA And China's trade relationship. Paul Krugman, who was pro-normalization, and would go on to win a Nobel Prize in economics for his work on trade, spoke for many when he called it "an issue whose symbolic importance is much larger than its direct economic implications. " Clinton, for his part, argued the USA Was essentially getting something for nothing. "Economically, this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way street," he said in March 2000. "It requires China to open its marketswith a fifth of the world's population, potentially the biggest markets in the worldto both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys. ".

Supporters of the deal didn't just tout its benefits for Americans. They also argued that voting against it would handicap USA Businesses in the future. China technically only needed support from two-thirds of the WTO's members, even if it was expected to strike bargains with all of them, so it would join the group regardless of Washington's qualms. And if Congress refused to grant China trade permanent status, Beijing would be allowed to continue shutting out American companies even as it opened its market to their foreign competition. "If Congress votes yes, the United States will benefit. If it votes no, only its economic competitors will benefit," wrote the Washington Post's editorial board, in support of normalization.

It's striking, in retrospect, just how small supporters of normalization seemed to think the economic stakes of the deal really were. The USA International Trade Commission, for instance, produced an analysis suggesting that if Beijing joined the WTO, the USA Economy would grow by just $1. 7 billion. Gary Hufbauer and Daniel Rosen of the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggested that, with permanent normal trade relations, USA Exports to China would enjoy a one-time jump of $5. 4 billion. Without it? They'the pop up $2. 4 billion. The difference to the USA Economy would be like an extra rock or two tossed into Lake Michigan.

Labor unions and their allies thought otherwise. Already angry over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had drawn some manufacturing production into Mexico, they argued that a deal with China would send more factory work overseas. Some of their predictions seemed apocalyptic. The Economic Policy Institute's Robert Scott suggested that our roughly $70 billion deficit with China might double or more in 10 years, costing the USA Some 817,000 jobs. (Hufbauer and Rosen called those calculations "an absurd extrapolation. ".

In hindsight, the fears weren't absurd at all. In the months immediately after Congress voted to normalize trade with China, dozens of USA Corporations announced that they were moving manufacturing overseas. And once China officially joined in the WTO in 2001, the country rapidly began transforming into an export behemoth as foreign investment and factory work flooded into the countryits surplus with United States alone rose from $83 billion in 2001 to more than $295 billion in 2011. During the same 10-year period, USA Manufacturing employment, which had stayed essentially steady in the years after NAFTA, declined from about 17.1 million to 11.8 million. Manufacturing had been withering as a share of America's labor market for many, many years. But the shockingly fast collapse of the early 2000's simply convulsed blue-collar communities.

Advertisement.

Were all 5 million of those job losses due to trade with China? Not at allmany likely disappeared as machines replaced human labor in factories. Did American manufacturing vanish altogether? Nopeoutput actually reached all-time highs before the Great Recession. But starting in 2013, economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, along with other collaborators, began publishing a series of papers showing that manufacturing employment had declined significantly more in parts of the United States where local businesses faced stiff competition from Chinese imports, compared with places where industry was less exposed. Between 1999 and 2011, the authors estimated, about 985,000 American manufacturing jobs were wiped away by China's export boom. Adding in the restaurants, movie theaters, and other businesses that wilted as plants shuttered, the researchers estimated that the "China shock," as they dubbed it, cost the USA Some 2 million to 2. 4 million jobsspread from the Rust Belt to the South to the far corners of New England.

Much of this flew in the face of conventional economics. The textbook line on free trade was that while it created winners and losers, the effects were supposed to show up in people's paychecks, not in raw jobs numbers. For a country like the USA, trading with a country like China or Mexico should push down wages a bit for less educated workers as factory work moved away, and increase wages for more educated workers, whose salaries would stretch a little further thanks to inexpensive cars, TVs, and T-shirts. People who lost work, it was assumed, would generally adjust by movingeither into a new industry, or a new town with better prospects.

How had the economists, and the administration, gotten it so wrong? The most popular answer among politicians is currency manipulation. China pegged the yuan to the dollar after massively devaluing it in the mid-1990's, then didn't let it begin to rise in value until after 2005, once its boom had taken off. Keeping the redback cheap simultaneously boosted Chinese exports, by making them more affordable to buyers abroad, and discouraged imports, by making them more expensive to Chinese consumers.

But most economists think currency manipulation is, at best, only a partial explanation for China's export explosion. Another answer is that joining the WTO forced the country to reform its economic rules in ways that made its manufacturing sector exponentially more competitive, which quickly unleashed the power of its massive, low-wage labor force. As Autor, Hanson, and Dorn have noted, Beijing shut down turgid state-owned manufacturers, allowing private businesses to take their place. It permitted companies to start exporting directly instead of working through state-owned intermediariesaccording to one study, that change alone might have made a 30 percent difference in its exports. By lowering tariffs, the government also made it easier for companies to import the materials they needed to manufacture their goods. In other words, China had more room to grow than anybody imagined, because of how stunted its economy had started out.

Advertisement.

"I don't think people were stupid. I was one of those people," Hanson told me, when I asked why he thought so many economists had underestimated China. "We didn't realize how distorted China's economy was. ".

Clinton's decision to normalize trade relations and welcome China into the WTO may have been like a key in the ignition, encouraging Beijing to become more competitive. But researchers are starting to think it had an important psychological effect on American business executives, too. Justin Pierce of the Federal Reserve Board and Peter Schott at Yale suggest that granting Beijing permanent trade status gave companies the confidence that they could send production offshore, or just start buying goods from Chinese suppliers, without having to worry that Washington might one day impose large tariffs. In other words, it instantly made moving your TV plant to Shenzhen less of a risky bet. In support of this argument, they show that after 2000, American employment generally dropped fastest in the manufacturing industries where tariffs on Chinese goods would have shot up the most had Congress suddenly revoked the country's trading rights. The more the threat of tariffs faded, the more jobs disappeared.

And it turns out that people and communities don't instantly adjust when their livelihoods are upended, the way they do in textbooks. Autor, Dorn, Hanson, et al. Found that, when factory jobs disappeared, nothing showed up to replace them. Rather than moving to places with more opportunities, workers tended to stick around their hollowed-out hometownsafter all, uprooting your life for the sake of work isn't that easy for people without much in the way of resources.

It's hard to say exactly what the USA Should have done differently. What would have happened if Congress had rebuffed Clinton and refused to normalize relations? Maybe Beijing's leaders would have soldiered on and joined the WTO anyway, as many predicted. Or maybe injured national pride would have empowered China's own anti-globalization hard-liners and kept it from acceding or embracing market reforms as ardently as they didin which case, there's a chance hundreds of millions of Chinese workers would be poorer today, because their country still hadn't opened up to the world. It's also possible that the USA Trade deficit would have grown even if China hadn't turned into such a manufacturing force, in part because the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency keeps its value high, and because, as a nation, we don't save a lot (which the rules of economics say should lead to a trade deficit). If China had never risen, maybe we'the be angrier today about factories fleeing to Mexico or Vietnam.

It's also possible that most Americans have benefited from Chinese trade in the end, thanks to lower consumer prices. Would you even have an iPhone right now without China's low-cost supply chain? Unfortunately, people feel such benefits less acutely than the very concentrated losses in communities where the local economy has been shredded by trade.

Advertisement.

The deep pain those cities and towns have experienced is one of the powerful forces that have transformed American politics into a form of tribal warfare over the past decade. Exhibit A is, of course, Donald Trump. It's a mistake to try to pin the Republican nominee's rise on any single factor, whether xenophobia, racism, or economic anxiety. But it's no accident that a candidate who barks about the evils of trade and the need to get tough on China has won the adoration of white working-class men who have watched their hometowns bleed jobs thanks, at least in part, to globalization. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal found that during the Republican primary, Trump won 89 of the 100 counties that were most exposed to trade with China.

But the political impact of Chinese imports has been wider than just Trump. Academic researchers have found that districts that lose jobs due to trade are more likely to turn against incumbents. Between 2002 and 2010, districts that faced Chinese import competition became far less likely to elect moderate Democrats and far more likely to elect extremely conservative Republicans, including Tea Party members.

Whether or not embracing trade with China was the correct economic decision for the wider country, the people in power simply weren't prepared to help the communities that would suffer the bargain. Their best guesses about the economic impact of normalization bore little relation to what was in store, and little was done for those who got the short end of the bargain, even after it became clear that all was not proceeding as Clinton had hoped. It's become fashionable to say that America needs to do a better job assisting globalization's losers so we can all enjoy its benefits. We don't know how to do that yet, and for a lot of Americans it's too late. Many of them are placing their hopes in Donald Trumpand even if he loses, the rage and disappointment he's capitalized on will remain.[/QUOTE]Oh, so that was the Repub Congress that did that in 2000. And then the Repub so-called potus that officially signed off on it in 2001.

Late 2001.

The last month of 2001.

BTW, that was a culmination of interests and efforts by at least 5 Presidents; 3 Repubs and 2 Dems, then finalized by a Repub.

And, yes, it was better for the USA Economy than the alternative.

But it is highly debatable whether or not the horrific economic downturns ushered in by those 3 Repub presidents offset enough value and benefit to China entering the WTO for Americans to fully feel those benefits.

As usual, you are demonizing the wrong people for your economic grievances. Or racial grievances. Or whatever grievances you and the MAGAs are wallowing in.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2961487]Hunter Biden is a red herring. The evil doers are the FBI, intelligence experts who lied their asses off to rig an election and Anthony Blinken who organized the conspiracy. There was also the media that buried its head in the sand once the laptop was known to be real.

Think about what you just wrote, Tiny. You are a smart guy. You go for the facts. Why are you suspecting versus knowing? Why am I directing you to the content of the laptop versus the media? The basis of any con is telling the mark what he wants to hear. And when you used the words, I suspect you admitted to not knowing. You believed what was pleasant. The 2020 election was the fairest in history. That is not what is. That is what you want. You do not want to believe the election was rigged by all these current and past government officials.

In 2000, GW Bush was up in the polls and it was leaked that he had a DWI. That shifted the polls by 2 or 3% and GW Bush almost lost because of that story. That DWI was the breaking point for 2 to 3% of the population because for them Bush's personal morality was in question. What was on that laptop is a 1,000 X worse than a DWI. Joe Biden had a son engaging in these disgusting behaviors and Joe Biden claimed the laptop and son's behaviors were false and that his son did nothing wrong and he was proud of his son.

Forget about the legal issues and look at the political one. How much does Joe Biden go down in the polls if the content of the laptop is known? How much does Joe Biden go down if it is known that he is lying? My bet is 10 to 20% and Trump wins in a landslide, but I am not whining. I am glad what happened happened. When the deep state got away with rigging an election, they got even bolder so much so that they could no longer be ignored.

What we Republicans cannot do is repeat the Hiliary Clinton thing and say this is water under the bridge and let it go. You have to condemn, discipline, fire, and potentially jail the people involved in this. This has to be about rigging an election, not anger that your side lost.

And what Trump indicated in his Joe Rogan interview was this is just the tip of the iceberg. My dream is in 2028 we actually have an election that the FBI and the deep state do not try to rig.[/QUOTE]People vote with their pocketbooks Elvis. Yeah, when Trump left office, except for deficits and debt our economy was probably better than any developed country's. GDP was roughly what it was before COVID hit. Real median weekly wages were up. The unemployment rate was 6. 4%, incredible considering it was as high as 15% the previous year.

But think back to October and early November, 2020, when people were voting. In the past few months many had been through hell. Your situation, where you were sailing through airports and banging Colombian sugarbabies for chump change, was unique. Trump had the misfortune, through no fault of his own, of governing during the worst pandemic since 1918 and the biggest decline in GDP since the Great Depression, both just months before the election. The stars weren't aligned for him.

We already knew a lot of dirt about Hunter, independent from his laptop. His moral turpitude was common knowledge. I believe we already knew he was selling access to his father, and his father had taken him along on the Vice Presidential jet to China so he could pursue business interests. I don't think the content of his laptop would have made a difference in the election.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2961487]Hunter Biden is a red herring. The evil doers are the FBI, intelligence experts who lied their asses off to rig an election and Anthony Blinken who organized the conspiracy. There was also the media that buried its head in the sand once the laptop was known to be real.

Think about what you just wrote, Tiny. You are a smart guy. You go for the facts. Why are you suspecting versus knowing? Why am I directing you to the content of the laptop versus the media? The basis of any con is telling the mark what he wants to hear. And when you used the words, I suspect you admitted to not knowing. You believed what was pleasant. The 2020 election was the fairest in history. That is not what is. That is what you want. You do not want to believe the election was rigged by all these current and past government officials.

In 2000, GW Bush was up in the polls and it was leaked that he had a DWI. That shifted the polls by 2 or 3% and GW Bush almost lost because of that story. That DWI was the breaking point for 2 to 3% of the population because for them Bush's personal morality was in question. What was on that laptop is a 1,000 X worse than a DWI. Joe Biden had a son engaging in these disgusting behaviors and Joe Biden claimed the laptop and son's behaviors were false and that his son did nothing wrong and he was proud of his son.

Forget about the legal issues and look at the political one. How much does Joe Biden go down in the polls if the content of the laptop is known? How much does Joe Biden go down if it is known that he is lying? My bet is 10 to 20% and Trump wins in a landslide, but I am not whining. I am glad what happened happened. When the deep state got away with rigging an election, they got even bolder so much so that they could no longer be ignored.

What we Republicans cannot do is repeat the Hiliary Clinton thing and say this is water under the bridge and let it go. You have to condemn, discipline, fire, and potentially jail the people involved in this. This has to be about rigging an election, not anger that your side lost.

And what Trump indicated in his Joe Rogan interview was this is just the tip of the iceberg. My dream is in 2028 we actually have an election that the FBI and the deep state do not try to rig.[/QUOTE]I can't wait for the "Democrats are sore losers. You lost! Get over it already" corner of this choir to chime in and give you such a tongue-lashing over all these many, many posts for the last 4 years right up to today!

I know it's coming.

Any minute now.

Soon.

I'm sure of it.

Swear to god.

No. Really. It's coming.

Really.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2961436]
And he is getting the money selling dad's influence. You think Americans seeing Hunter Biden's $20,000 monthly porn bills would not have affected some voters? You think this photo is not going to cost Biden votes? [URL]https://bidenreport.com/[/URL]#p=269 (You may have to go to the Biden report site and put in 269 in the page number. There are dozens of disgusting Hunter photos.).[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO! WTF! Ok, maybe you're right. They say you can tell the character of a person by the character of his offspring and how well he raised them. And on that score Joe fucked up pretty badly.

But then on the other hand I guess Joe can take part of the credit for Hunter's creativity. Hunter’s a great artist, who sells paintings for hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party donors! And how about coming up with tax deductions for payment of his daughter's tuition, house rentals for his girlfriend and daughter, hookers, drugs, and luxury clothing. The fucker came up with $4.9 million in bogus tax deductions! And even then he didn't file tax returns for several years!

https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-hookers-payments-tax-evasion-1850678

M

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2961440]To me, the only silver lining of this election is that Israel will be safer with Trump than it would be with Harris. And not because Trump loves Jews (that's laughable), but because he knows he can't afford to anger evangelicals, at least for now.

As for the so-called Muslim leaders, well, good job! Why not cut off your nose to spite the face?

Respect![/QUOTE]Rabid Jew haters for Harris have to wait until 2028 to try to get their anti Israel hopes up again.

Shapiro forget it Fetterman LOL not a chance, I think he's a closeted Jew.

Pritzker lolol not in this lifetime.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2961505]People vote with their pocketbooks Elvis. Yeah, when Trump left office, except for deficits and debt our economy was probably better than any developed country's. GDP was roughly what it was before COVID hit. Real median weekly wages were up. The unemployment rate was 6. 4%, incredible considering it was as high as 15% the previous year.

But think back to October and early November, 2020, when people were voting. In the past few months many had been through hell. Your situation, where you were sailing through airports and banging Colombian sugarbabies for chump change, was unique. Trump had the misfortune, through no fault of his own, of governing during the worst pandemic since 1918 and the biggest decline in GDP since the Great Depression, both just months before the election. The stars weren't aligned for him.

We already knew a lot of dirt about Hunter, independent from his laptop. His moral turpitude was common knowledge. I believe we already knew he was selling access to his father, and his father had taken him along on the Vice Presidential jet to China so he could pursue business interests. I don't think the content of his laptop would have made a difference in the election.[/QUOTE][URL]https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1432[/URL]

Considering the proliferation of financial and economic media, even Winger-owned media, armed with all available data, evidence, facts, figures, charts and graphs to publish and post glowing assessments of how lucky, lucky, lucky the incoming president was to inherit such fanfuckingtastic economic conditions at the end of the Clinton-Gore, Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris presidencies vs the deeply troubling, unprecedentedly challenging or outright horrific economic conditions being handed the unfortunate incoming team at the end of the Reagan-Bush / Bush-Quayle, Bush-Cheney and Trump-Pence so-called presidencies, I sure as hell WISH the Dems had a lock on rigging elections!

Sadly, only Reagan-Bush pulled an October Surprise, only Bush-Cheney pulled a Brother Jeb Florida steal, only Trump-Pence pulled 34 Felony Convictions for business fraud in a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election and only that same administration declared bloody War Against America on American Soil to overthrow a free and fair election and came damn close to accomplishing it.

Obviously, the exact polar opposite wrong side of this thing is rigging, stealing and killing cops to "win" elections in the USA.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2961436]No, polls have shown that is not true.

Keep in mind what Joe Biden said about Hunter. He was proud of his son and that his son had done nothing wrong. Joe Biden himself said in the debate with Trump the laptop was fake. So the Democratic douche notion that Hunter Biden's laptop did not smear Joe Biden is bullshit.

As for what was on the laptop, well what do you imagine was on it that would have thrown the election to Trump and was worth conspiring over? Hunter having sex with hookers and underage women? Check. Using crack cocaine? Check. Outlining the Biden bribe machine? Check. Taking millions from the Chinese? Check. The contents are all on line now.

And he is getting the money selling dad's influence. You think Americans seeing Hunter Biden's $20,000 monthly porn bills would not have affected some voters? You think this photo is not going to cost Biden votes? [URL]https://bidenreport.com/[/URL]#p=269 (You may have to go to the Biden report site and put in 269 in the page number. There are dozens of disgusting Hunter photos.).

Give me a fucking break man. That laptop shows beyond a shadow of a doubt what sleaze the Biden family is.

There is no President Biden if the public knew about what was in the content of that laptop. That is why the FBI, intelligence experts, and press tried so damned hard, successfully I might add, to suppress its content.

This is definitive proof the 2020 election was rigged.

Go to [URL]bidenreport.com[/URL]. If you want to see how bad all of it really was.[/QUOTE]I'm predicting the Big Guy / Scumbag Joe will pardon the Whole Scumbag Biden family including Dr Jill LMAO.

By Thanksgiving lololol but no later than Christmas, as gifts to them all, since the he will be low on cash, as he just picked up his last money ball today!!

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/world/americas/biden-xi-meeting.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/09/hunter-biden-jill-biden-is-selfish-silly-entitled-cnt/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.instagram.com/wearebreitbart/p/CfzffrSp5Mx/?hl=en[/URL]

The whole lot belong in Florence the Clintons the Obamas the Bidens the Bushs, ID say dig up Ronnie the Retard and throw him in there with them too.

TREASONOUS bastards the whole lot.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Haven't you been in on this [I]Trump Pump[/I] on Crypto since November 5th? If so, then I don't understand why I need to prove that USD is flowing into crypto.[/QUOTE]Yes!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Are you in on it only with baht you earned in Thailand?[/QUOTE]No!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Biden's Worldwide Economic Rescue and Recovery Money is flowing into crypto.[/QUOTE]No!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Even yours or so I thought.[/QUOTE]No!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]So why would anyone need to prove some of it is flowing from the USA too?[/QUOTE]Only if you want to be seen as credible by backing up a claim you have made.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]If no USD is flowing into crypto at this time and no USA citizens are buying it, why in the world would Harris have needed to say anything about it during the campaign?[/QUOTE]She did say something about it during the campaign? If so what did she say? She was invited to attend the Bitcoin conference. She declined. That told me all I need to know about her stance as a candidate for the Presidency of the United Stares of America.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Fine. Educate me on it. Are Americans forbidden to purchase crypto?[/QUOTE]No!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Or are their purchases at such low levels one needs to uncover hidden evidence of it somewhere?[/QUOTE]I don't know. Not making claims about money flows. I have presented evidence in several forms that the majority of the money flow are from institutions.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Really. Why are you demanding I prove some of the worldwide money flowing into crypto comes from the USA and the fact that I have not produced a link to USA bank transfers means it isn't happening?[/QUOTE]You don't have to do anything I ask of you. But without proof it is just your opinion and I am allowed to disagree with that. You cannot just keep repeating it to me like you are giving lessons to a child EihTooms. It is disrespectful!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Sorry, but I do think that is a strange point of contention and there is nothing personal about it.[/QUOTE]It is very personal to you. I get that. Because your candidate of preference lost. Figure out why! Then get back to me. If the crypto vote does not matter. Continue to ignore it.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Kamala Harris won practically all of the Democratic Party Delegates votes to become its Party's candidate. That does not violate any legal, legitimate or long term democratic norm.[/QUOTE]Does not change my mind. In my opinion (please note those three words) the Democratic Candidate for president was illegitimate.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]By contrast, Trump is trying to manipulate and destroy the long term separation of powers' Advise and Consent norm by appointing his weird and unfit Cabinet Chairs and probably most other appointments over the next 4 years without a single Senate hearing or vote required.[/QUOTE]Nothing illegal about that if Congress allows it to happen.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961477]Do you have any problem with that?[/QUOTE]No!

Do you live in the United States of America or even understand how the constitutional government of the United Staes of America even works? Because if you did you would know the Senate is not giving up their power to another branch of government. Your logic about the increase in crypto money fails on one simple point, if is money Biden gave to citizens of the United States of America, why didn't the crypto market up up BEFORE the election results are announced?

Democrats ignored the crypto vote. But it does not matter. Because the crypto vote does not matter. See you at the midterms.

Are you Overjoyed that We Shall Never have to Hear from Cackling Kamala Jones Ever Again? Also Uncle Obama's Deep State Shadow government Shall Be Destroyed?

[QUOTE=TheCane;2961464]I mean WTF did these dumb fucks expect? Chump is somebody who didn't even want to admit Muslims into this country! Even if they had valid visas! Then he turned around and moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem! Just what did they believe he was going to do for them? Talk about voting against your own interests! Same for women. It's just ignorant![/QUOTE]Yes, I m amazed women, Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, voting for Trump when he hate them. So many millions of US are so low level brained.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2961516][URL]https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1432[/URL][/QUOTE]OK, got it. Joe Biden lied about the laptop, Biden operatives hoodwinked ex intelligence officials into supporting the lie, and the FBI didn't inform the public of the truth. The main stream media fell in line and social media like Facebook censored any posts reflective of the New York Post's reporting. That's just business as usual in Washington, D. C. The memo from the confidential FBI informant that was released by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley was a hell of a lot more damning than Hunter's Laptop, and that wouldn't have made a difference in the election either. It was all about the economy and fallout from the pandemic, and Trump was dealt a bad hand. If Hillary Clinton had been running as the incumbent in 2020, my guess is that she would have lost by more than Trump.

There are some parallels with Democrats' argument that James Comey cheated Hillary in 2016 and she would have won the presidency if not for that. Admittedly the Democrats have a weaker argument.

And before Tooms and Spidy jump down my throat, the confidential FBI informant was probably lying. Grassley agrees.

Grassley's release: [url]https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-obtains-and-releases-fbi-record-alleging-vp-biden-foreign-bribery-scheme[/url]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2961507]...Democrats are sore losers. You lost! Get over it already"... [/QUOTE]Finally! The truth! That makes so much more sense than your arguments about Republican presidents and the economy.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2961531]Yes!

No!

No!

No!

Only if you want to be seen as credible by backing up a claim you have made.

She did say something about it during the campaign? If so what did she say? She was invited to attend the Bitcoin conference. She declined. That told me all I need to know about her stance as a candidate for the Presidency of the United Stares of America.

No!

I don't know. Not making claims about money flows. I have presented evidence in several forms that the majority of the money flow are from institutions.

You don't have to do anything I ask of you. But without proof it is just your opinion and I am allowed to disagree with that. You cannot just keep repeating it to me like you are giving lessons to a child EihTooms. It is disrespectful!

It is very personal to you. I get that. Because your candidate of preference lost. Figure out why! Then get back to me. If the crypto vote does not matter. Continue to ignore it..[/QUOTE]When there is no serious Party challenge for the potus nomination and the majority of the Party's delegates vote for one person, that person's candidacy within that Party is legal, legitimate and perfectly in keeping with democracy. In fact, that is the way it has typically been done throughout history when the Vice President of the current administration is the likely nominee. As was the case with Kamala Harris.

Now, I am not patronizing you, talking to you like a child or disrespecting you by pointing that out. You literally said you thought doing it that way made her and presumably every other VP candidate for the Party nomination of the outgoing administration "illegitimate" and I honestly don't know any other way to state how blatantly inaccurate that is.

On the other hand, wholesale appointments for Cabinet positions, judges, etc by a potus during Congressional recesses so as to avoid ANY hearings, advising OR consenting by the Senate is not typical in modern times or ever. And a potus proposing that is what he wants and intends to do while expecting his ass-licking, democracy-hating fellow Party Senators to go along with it in order to prevent the American people from knowing just how Loony and unfit those nominations are, while not illegal, has never been done. Ever.

Talk about being disrespectful. No so-called potus has ever suggested something so disrespectful to Congress and the American people with regard to who will be carrying out that so-called potus' economic, national security policies and stewardship.

Yep, once again we touch on how central and key to economic and national security results IS the President of the United States since it falls on him to nominate his choices for leadership and purpose for virtually every ignificant element of American society.

But I digress.

My position has never been that crypto speculation is being done with money "Biden gave" anyone.

Money people earned because Biden spearheaded the earliest and strongest economic stimulus to revive and resuscitate global supply-chains and get worldwide economies moving again, creating jobs and paying people for the work they do has been going into the USA Stock Market and crypto quite regularly during the past 2-3 years. It has been going into recovered businesses and services that in turn get stock bumps thanks to their profit reports.

The USA Stock Market hit dozens of all-time closing highs under Biden prior to the election. There is always a lull and often even a slight pullback before any potential market-related "event" and then a relief rally after it has happened and nervous Nellie Stock Market investors realize the world did not come to an end due to that "event" after all.

The "event" can be something as simple as the monthly jobs report, the release of the Fed Meeting minutes, a Fed rate announcement or an election.

People all around the world who are into crypto as much or more than you are probably reading something good because of Trump's win. They are just guessing though, right? I mean, he hasn't passed any pro crypto legislation yet. Will he? Probably not, but nobody knows. I understand some feel his SEC Chair will be good for crypto. But what if he is not? What if he is worse for crypto than the guy he replaced?

Interesting that the USA Stock Market post-election relief rally lasted about 3 days. Not a very promising response, really. As of right now, Trump's 1st full week as President-elect for a second glorious term was a down week in the USA Stock Market.

[QUOTE=Sirioja;2961553]Yes, I m amazed women, Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, voting for Trump when he hate them. So many millions of US are so low level brained.[/QUOTE]Regardless whatever is floating around in his lizard brain skull with regard to "love" or "hate", the irrefutable fact is Trump did virtually zero that benefitted those groups or anyone else in America.

The first couple of years was him coasting on the Obama-Biden economy he inherited. The increase in wages during his term was all due to primarily Blue Cities and Blue States raising wages in 2018 and 2019. No meaningful business expansion or jobs creation came about from his $2. 5+ Trillion TCJA addition to the deficit in those first three years. He kept our military actively involved in a full combat War in Afghanistan for the entirety of his term, every day of it.

But he did find a way to fulfill his traditional historic Repub Party Potus Duty to wipe out millions upon millions of jobs before he was booted out. And with the added and probably new Repub Party Potus Duty bonus of mass murdering at least a million Americans. Mostly older ones last time. Look for him and his Secretary of Health and Human Brain-Eating Worms to set new records on mass murdering American infants in his 2nd term.