Halfwit/mit Romney said at the debate ... .

... That "I will label China a Currency Manipulator". We are all halfwits, right?

Every corporation knows, that the method to finish off its competitor is, to knock down the price to a petence, until the competitor becomes unable to recover its research-and-development costs. The purpose is to force that competitor to lose its expertise and know-how at that point by forcing it to lay off its expert people. After that, the price can jack sky high, since the others have no expertise left to compete.

Why would China behave any different? Has the USA ever behaved any different? I am an independent but doesn't the Republican party just ask me to crap up my brain again?

ab9924 said:

... That "I will label China a Currency Manipulator". We are all halfwits, right?

Every corporation knows, that the method to finish off its competitor is, to knock down the price to a petence, until the competitor becomes unable to recover its research-and-development costs. The purpose is to force that competitor to lose its expertise and know-how at that point by forcing it to lay off its expert people. After that, the price can jack sky high, since the others have no expertise left to compete.

Why would China behave any different? Has the USA ever behaved any different? I am an independent but doesn't the Republican party just ask me to crap up my brain again?

Click to expand...

Its fun watching people call Romney stupid. But tell me, what sort of moron would believe Obama's claim that jacking up taxing on two percent of America is going to create jobs, get rid of the deficit and make unambitious losers who are mired in government dependency get off their asses and compete with far hungrier and equally skilled workers in India, china, Korea and South America

ab9924 said:

... That "I will label China a Currency Manipulator". We are all halfwits, right?

Every corporation knows, that the method to finish off its competitor is, to knock down the price to a petence, until the competitor becomes unable to recover its research-and-development costs. The purpose is to force that competitor to lose its expertise and know-how at that point by forcing it to lay off its expert people. After that, the price can jack sky high, since the others have no expertise left to compete.

Why would China behave any different? Has the USA ever behaved any different? I am an independent but doesn't the Republican party just ask me to crap up my brain again?

Click to expand...

Considering Obama has pressured Chine to increase its currency valuation by roughly 12% in the last couple of years without labelling them "currrency manipulators". It seems Obama has a much better handle on the cultural, political and economic differences of the Chinese and is working thru them to achieve meaningful results. Romney wants to confront them, making them lose face and that is a sure fire recipe for china pushing back real hard. that is counterproductive to what Romney would want to achieve and completely unnecessary.

the neo con foreign policy of carry the big stick and use it often did wonders for America's reputation and position. Obama's far more intelligent and nuanced approach gets results, fosters co=operation and extends respect to the people who he'll actually sit across the table from. And dont you know that everyone knows he carries the biggest stick and while reluctant to use it, isn't afraid in the least to use it if push comes to shove.

I agree that tax hikes accomplish nothing. I hate the thought of them, and even those people who can afford no more than mac-and-cheese should be afraid of them too, because in American history, every single time when the progressive retards got the idea of "making the rich pay", soon absolutely everyone started to pay the same amount. Sounds like the alternative minimum tax story all over again. But also, in the same time, it is absolutely true, that Obama is a far better diplomat than any of the republican candidates in recent US history. I think what both of them should be talking about should be how much they would reduce the financial pain of America's decline. That way they would at least be a little realistic. If they want to prop Wall Street with their rhetoric, they both are losers, because investors are quicker anyways.