• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China considers limiting rare-earth exports to US

LosAngelesAngel said:
~ Brazil has plenty of rare earth and the new president likes Trump. India and Australia also could be a source. The U.S. can reopen the mineral mine in California if needed.
I think China may cut their own throat with this "threat ". That could be a good thing ! 🇺🇸
Click to expand...

And the "Breaking News" story the day before the new facilities have been completed and are ready to go into operation would be "China removes restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals to the US - prices plummet".
 
PirateMk1 said:
China strip mines those minerals at loss, and at great ecological damage to itself.
Click to expand...

Assuming that you can prove that assertion, I suggest that you contact the US government immediately as such conduct as you allege clearly constitutes "dumping" and the US has a perfect legal right to impose trade sanctions (read as "tariffs and countervailing duties") on such goods.

That would mean that the Chinese would no longer have any competitive advantage as the Chinese would be paying those tariffs and countervailing duties - right?
 
Serenity said:
Strangely enough, the BBC article I quoted does state that until the 1980s, the US was in fact the largest producer of rare earths.
Click to expand...

That could be due to the fact (?) that, until the 1980s there wasn't much of a demand for rare earths outside of the United States of America.

You might want to consider that it was in the mid 1970s that the decline in the predominance of the US economy began and also that it was about the same time that the rate of increase in "wealth disparity" started to increase.
 
Herkamer63 said:
I say let China do it and Trump can lift more environmental regulations to allow mining companies dig here. Saves us money, we get it faster, and it creates jobs, further lowering the unemployment rate. I'd also say, while we're at it, let's lift other environmental regulations and drill more oil. Same results. I don't mind at all having our own country producing things. I actually prefer it over going to another country to get what we need when we can get it all here. Screw what these environmentalists are going to say. They already destroyed cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles so they can have their wish and banning things like water bottler and plastic straws, and it all being replaced with used syringes and human poop on the streets, creating old diseases like typhus. So yeah, let China make their threats because they could be destroying their number one way of making money, trading with the US.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, possibly the Chinese have finally wakened up to the fact that the US provides only around 5% of the potential global economy and have decided that there is more money to be made by increasing trade with the other 95% and letting the US 5% go by the boards.
 
From Reuters


China willing to meet reasonable rare earth demand from other countries​

BEIJING (Reuters) - China is willing to meet reasonable demand for rare earths from other countries, but it would be unacceptable that countries using Chinese rare earths to manufacture products would turn around and suppress China, its commerce ministry said.

That would be unacceptable, Gao Feng, spokesman at the Chinese commerce ministry, said at a weekly media briefing on Thursday, without identifying any country.

COMMENT:-

IOW, China is willing to go along with any reasonable deal, but is not willing to simply give the US everything that Mr. Trump demands if it doesn't get anything in return.​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Assuming that you can prove that assertion, I suggest that you contact the US government immediately as such conduct as you allege clearly constitutes "dumping" and the US has a perfect legal right to impose trade sanctions (read as "tariffs and countervailing duties") on such goods.

That would mean that the Chinese would no longer have any competitive advantage as the Chinese would be paying those tariffs and countervailing duties - right?
Click to expand...

Whatever you say bub.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I understand what you are saying but I can't agree.

Both China and to a lesser extent Japan, succeed economically because their cultures are based on group success in conformity over the individual's non-conformity. Thus, especially in the case of Chine, there is so little concern for the individual in their stress for personal sacrifice for the group that they are willing to "throw bodies" at a problem until it either works out...or they run out of bodies.

But they are inherently stagnant compared to cultures who push individual achievement. Historically they simply develop things to a useful point, and then appear content continuing to maintain them seeing no need for improvement.

It is only fairly recently in both nation's histories where innovation is forced on them and they have had to adapt...often by stealing such technology from others. But IMO they still remain primarily traditional and "socialist," only appearing more vibrant outwardly.
Click to expand...
I think you may find your "historical" thoughts on China are not necessarily coherent with the China of recent years. They've come a long way since Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Nixon visit. The are either leading or poised to be leading in many things like 5G, AI, Quantum Computing, High-Speed Rail, Super Computing, Genetic Engineering, Financial/Retail Technology, etc. Yes, China - like Japan earlier - was a copier. But I think if you research this a bit, you'll find they are becoming quite innovative and at the forefront of technological development. And the Chinese consumers can't get enough, and demand more.

Here's just a little anecdotal example of a neat technological idea. Do you doubt this device will not be in stores across America, soon?



This is also the problem I see with socialism in general; people seen as merely interchangeable cogs in a social machine trying to maintain balance while being "guided" in stagnant conformity by those who are more equal than others.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I primarily was speaking to the conflicts of competing with a directed economy. As to "directed" innovation, I'd point to our NASA Space program and military programs, which developed much of the innovative technology we see today. GPS, the internet, nuclear, space & aviation technology, quickly come to mind. Remember, even though those programs used private contractors, the work was government directed.

Now I'm not saying we should have a fully directed economy, but we should have something to compete with the 10B Quantum Computing lab that China's building (due to open 2020).

And while we shouldn't be socialist, we live in a mixed economy and may need some tacking to effective social programs like public funded Community College and Single Payer healthcare.

Edit: If you're looking for an interesting news source to add to your daily reads, you may consider the South China Morning Post. I prefer the Chinese edition (English language), to get a better feel for the Chinese perspective - especially from the public commenters.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
It just means that we will not be buying Huawei 5g tech. Europe is a huge customer: Europe adopts Huawei gear into 5G networks over US objections -
Nikkei Asian Review

Moreover, domestically China is a huge customer as is much of Asia. Huawei's 5g tech is hardly dead, even if with it banned in the United States, they are still the dominant 5g tech vendor worldwide by a good margin.

Where Huawei will be hurt is their mobile devices as they can no longer use Google's Android on them and are having to build their own fork of it now.
Click to expand...


Your being a China Fanboy limits your credibility both significantly and substantially. You have been had by the Beijing PR Machine that works assiduously to project to the world falsely that everything is fine in China, that all is smooth and under control, going as planned, even keel and of course inevitable. That everything over there is quiet, fine and dandy. Such innocence and gullibility is sad actually.

So what you need is the reality dose that it ain't over till the fat lady sings...


NATO weighing Huawei spying risks to member countries

At a news conference to unveil his annual report, Stoltenberg was asked if there was a chance that NATO would recommend to allies to ban Chinese companies from 5G procurement. He was also asked if NATO had any evidence of state-sponsored cyberattacks from China.

“We are now consulting closely on this issue, including on the security aspects of investments in 5G networks. I know that this is something which is addressed in many NATO capitals, and it is an issue which is partly a trade and an economic issue, but also has potential security implications," he told reporters.

“So we will now consult. We will assess the issue and find out how NATO as an alliance can, in the best possible way, address the challenges related to investments in 5G infrastructure.

“This is a very important issue and therefore I will not speculate so much about the potential outcomes of the assessments and discussions which are now going on in different NATO countries. “Regardless of this, NATO has significantly stepped up our efforts when it comes to cyber defense and cybersecurity.” By conducting large-scale exercises, increasing awareness and sharing best practices NATO had sought to “strengthen the resilience of infrastructure and cyber networks for all allies, including our own networks,” he said.

NATO weighing Huawei spying risks to member countries





image

An aerial photograph of the UK Government Communications Headquarters, also known as GCHQ, in Cheltenham Gloucestershire. (Photograph by David Goddard/Getty Images)
 
chuckiechan said:
True to a point, but we are the only country with enough disposable income in consumers hands to float those economies and ours too.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of this figure, nor am I sure of what you're getting at here. But China's GDP is closing-in on ours, and will eclipse ours during the next decade. As to consumers, there are 5X as many Chinese employed as Americans. That's a lot of consumers. Also, their middle-class is 3X ours, and is ferociously growing while ours is decreasing.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not aware of this figure, nor am I sure of what you're getting at here. But China's GDP is closing-in on ours, and will eclipse ours during the next decade. As to consumers, there are 5X as many Chinese employed as Americans. That's a lot of consumers. Also, their middle-class is 3X ours, and is ferociously growing while ours is decreasing.
Click to expand...

Chinese real GDP is between 2% to 4% and not the 6.7% the Party Government claims it is each year. Nomura was the first to call the bursting of the property bubble in 2015 and projects a 20% loss off GDP of 14% ten years ago into the next decade.

The recently modified one child policy has resulted in not enough working age population to support the increased elderly population that is living longer. One child in one family has two parents and four grandparents to support while meager and spotty retirement programs are inadequate or they don't have them.

Medical expenses for all Chinese come straight out of pocket as there is no national health insurance that even equals Obamacare nevermind European systems of health and medical care.

Global markets are waiting on the inevitable "major economic adjustment" the Chinese have not yet had and have been dancing around for the past several years. Unemployment is only increasing as production declines. Veterans of PLA have been in the streets all year protesting their short shrift because Beijing doesn't want the personnel expenses the Pentagon has.

Know that the Chinese are genetically grandiose in their thinking and in their self image. A classic example is how the Chinese were confident in the absolute they were going to establish a global market for electric cars....


Magical Thinking

Why China’s shining promise as a major electric vehicle producer fell short

It was easy to overlook Japanese and American efforts in the face of China’s booming auto market. After a decade of anemic growth, Japan just wasn’t as sexy as China. It was seen as the “sick man of Asia.” America’s industry was also out of favor. Its largest automaker was now derided as “Government Motors.”

But Japan and America were the real driving forces of this transformation. In California, the state’s Air Resource Board was meticulously creating the policy incentives that would force automakers from around the world to build and sell electric cars—not only in California, but other states like New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts. In Japan, bureaucrats were coordinating with industry to fine-tune the mechanisms to launch their EV sector on a sustainable path of growth. Not least, Japan was investing prodigiously in an extensive network of fast chargers around the country. Nothing as concrete or strategic was taking place in China.

Ironically, many of the same American capitalists who turned up their nose at Washington’s meddling with GM and Chrysler were quite enchanted by China’s corporatism. In China’s authoritarian economy, everything was so efficient. Government could just make things happen. Why should EVs be any different?

A steady drumbeat of media sensationalism reinforced this narrative. But, on the ground in China, it was hard to shake the feeling that none of the major players really understood how to meet these expectations. No one was in charge, and none of them really knew what they were doing. The Communist Party wanted China’s companies to build EVs, and believed that they were going to be, somehow, easier to perfect than vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine. They figured that the necessary motors, inverters, and lithium-ion batteries had all reached a sufficient degree of maturity. Where necessary, they thought, they could force foreign companies to yield up valuable technology in exchange for access to the Chinese market. In order to curry favor with Beijing, Chinese auto companies made sure they looked busy on the research, development, and deployment side of things.

But where was the charging infrastructure? What if foreigners decided not to barter their technology endowment for access to China’s market? Where would the technology come from? And who would buy these indigenous Chinese EVs? All these questions were left unanswered.

The spectacular failure of China’s electric car.
 
TheDeplorable said:
That is a bit overblown. While China can take the hit and attempt to sell to other countries does that not create a huge market surplus and the price to fall. Let's say that China's costs of widgets are $20, and some other country, say Japan offers them at $25. Now China begins trading for $18 in Japan flooding the market to at least sell what they have and keep even a small fraction of the revenue they are creating with US trade. Maybe they have to go down even lower to win these contracts. Maybe those prices really fall due to a huge surplus over demand. Japan responds by attempting to open "new", huge markets opened up by China's withdrawal. They offer the widgets at the same price China is selling them in their country or at least for what the US was paying in China to get these new revenue stream contracts signed since they are not selling as many now due to the dumping by China. (Production in the US while possible is doubtful given EPA and other government regulations. Like heavy pollution durables. We import those products rather than abide by the government regulations believing in the "not in my backyard theory." We say it's ok (by our purchases) to pollute some other country as long as we don't see it or pay more) In the end you can see it may not cause us to be screwed for "a helva' long time". At least not nearly as bad as ignoring a growing problem when the economy is booming.
Click to expand...
The problem here is not with the hit China will take, but the hit our business interests will take. There's no way we can quickly establish supply chains for the minerals in question. While I don't have numbers, I strongly suspect the hit for a small subset of mining a niche mineral in China, will pale in comparison to bringing our domestic high-tech to a halt. I could be wrong. But it won't be pretty, even if I am.

Something I don't get with liberals though. My sense is some often base their opinion on emotion. Why is the attitude is so strong of regulating the US and the EU with environmental laws, worker rights, minimum wages pushes, etc, all arguably noble causes. Yet when it comes to countries like China that doesn't honor any of these, at least to the point that the liberals have pushed in the US and Europe, they ignore that factor in trade. I am somewhat surprised that liberals wouldn't be pushing for severe sanctions on China given their obvious mocking of those things liberals have fought so hard to have other places in the world. How do liberals align their emotional base on issues of fairness while siding with China on Trade? Is it just TDS or would they have felt the same about China trade under the previous admin of President Obama?
Click to expand...
I've seen Trump rallies. Do you feel the same about those participants? Your question seems to be attempting to paint a partisan picture.
 
TheDeplorable said:
I am not sure I can sign on to this statement and wish to discuss it further if you don't mind Sir. Everyday Technology grows like a snowball rolling down a hill, faster and larger with each day, yet we see here and generally in the world unbridled prosperity. If your statement were true wouldn't the unemployment here and in every other technology based country continue to rise despite the type of government employed (dictatorships excluded)? That is certainly not what we are witnessing.

In regards to Detroit or the big manufacturing behemoths of the industrial revolution can we not consider the idea with automation while it takes less workers, it greatly brings down the prices allowing that product to be used to make other products more financially viable to be produced thereby creating jobs? Or by providing a finished product at a far greater savings to consumers allowing them to use that capital to support other workers producing other items? It is obviously not a zero sum game.
Click to expand...
The problem here is we can't just say "job". We need to speak in terms of "quality of jobs". What technology is doing, is assisting in the huge growth in the gap in wage disparity. It doesn't mean much to have a "job", if you still live in poverty. That's the problem.

So I see the "employment rate" argument as useless and somewhat irrelevant. We need to think in terms of wealth and quality of living.

As far as this latest round of push back from China in an attempt to wiggle out of honoring their agreement on fair trade practices, there is no doubt it will hurt consumers, the manufacturers, and the individual economies by taking capital out of that economy in the form of higher costs due to importing goods from other countries or from our own start up costs to produce domestically. But what is the cost of not doing it? How do you get China to agree to abide by fair trade practices accepted worldwide, when they know it will hurt them? Somehow we must bring them into accord with the rest of the world regarding trade. It is the US obligation to lead that effort as the world biggest economic competitor. If not now, in the best economy in 50 years, then when?
Click to expand...
Your argument here is sound. I have no problem with your making the case for tariffs, by pointing to the pain caused by them as being a necessary evil to achieve a greater good. That's a reasonable argument.
 
Chomsky said:
The problem here is not with the hit China will take, but the hit our business interests will take. There's no way we can quickly establish supply chains for the minerals in question. While I don't have numbers, I strongly suspect the hit for a small subset of mining a niche mineral in China, will pale in comparison to bringing our domestic high-tech to a halt. I could be wrong. But it won't be pretty, even if I am.

I've seen Trump rallies. Do you feel the same about those participants? Your question seems to be attempting to paint a partisan picture.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, my mistake.
 
Tangmo said:
Chinese real GDP is between 2% to 4% and not the 6.7% the Party Government claims it is each year. Nomura was the first to call the bursting of the property bubble in 2015 and projects a 20% loss off GDP of 14% ten years ago into the next decade.

The recently modified one child policy has resulted in not enough working age population to support the increased elderly population that is living longer. One child in one family has two parents and four grandparents to support while meager and spotty retirement programs are inadequate or they don't have them.

Medical expenses for all Chinese come straight out of pocket as there is no national health insurance that even equals Obamacare nevermind European systems of health and medical care.

Global markets are waiting on the inevitable "major economic adjustment" the Chinese have not yet had and have been dancing around for the past several years. Unemployment is only increasing as production declines. Veterans of PLA have been in the streets all year protesting their short shrift because Beijing doesn't want the personnel expenses the Pentagon has.

Know that the Chinese are genetically grandiose in their thinking and in their self image. A classic example is how the Chinese were confident in the absolute they were going to establish a global market for electric cars....


Magical Thinking

Why China’s shining promise as a major electric vehicle producer fell short

It was easy to overlook Japanese and American efforts in the face of China’s booming auto market. After a decade of anemic growth, Japan just wasn’t as sexy as China. It was seen as the “sick man of Asia.” America’s industry was also out of favor. Its largest automaker was now derided as “Government Motors.”

But Japan and America were the real driving forces of this transformation. In California, the state’s Air Resource Board was meticulously creating the policy incentives that would force automakers from around the world to build and sell electric cars—not only in California, but other states like New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts. In Japan, bureaucrats were coordinating with industry to fine-tune the mechanisms to launch their EV sector on a sustainable path of growth. Not least, Japan was investing prodigiously in an extensive network of fast chargers around the country. Nothing as concrete or strategic was taking place in China.

Ironically, many of the same American capitalists who turned up their nose at Washington’s meddling with GM and Chrysler were quite enchanted by China’s corporatism. In China’s authoritarian economy, everything was so efficient. Government could just make things happen. Why should EVs be any different?

A steady drumbeat of media sensationalism reinforced this narrative. But, on the ground in China, it was hard to shake the feeling that none of the major players really understood how to meet these expectations. No one was in charge, and none of them really knew what they were doing. The Communist Party wanted China’s companies to build EVs, and believed that they were going to be, somehow, easier to perfect than vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine. They figured that the necessary motors, inverters, and lithium-ion batteries had all reached a sufficient degree of maturity. Where necessary, they thought, they could force foreign companies to yield up valuable technology in exchange for access to the Chinese market. In order to curry favor with Beijing, Chinese auto companies made sure they looked busy on the research, development, and deployment side of things.

But where was the charging infrastructure? What if foreigners decided not to barter their technology endowment for access to China’s market? Where would the technology come from? And who would buy these indigenous Chinese EVs? All these questions were left unanswered.

The spectacular failure of China’s electric car.
Click to expand...
Thanks for respectfully portraying the other side of the coin.

Due to its size and the developments to date, I still see China as likely to become the dominant economy of this century. I'm sure not everything will be rosy, and there will be ups & downs. But the slope seems relatively sure.

But I will predicate my statement in the paragraph above. I believe there is a minority chance that China could implode upon itself. There's no way that I see for them to bring all 1.4B Chinese into the mainstream economy. And as the wealth grows amongst the top in their society, and given the growing communications and transparency where the unfortunate can see the growing disparity, it may spark political revolution.

The scenario in my above paragraph is the wildcard. Otherwise, I think the writing is on the wall for China's eventual economic growth.
 
"Constructive confrontation" of Chinese practices in trade and technology is what is occurring in the present time. It will continue...

Almost 15 years after China joined the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 2001, the vision of China embracing a rules-governed, market based
global trade system has yet to materialize. If anything, the country’s
aggressive innovation mercantilism has grown stronger in recent years, as
China seeks absolute advantage across a wide range of advanced technology
industries. This report examines the gap between China’s
WTO commitments and practices, explores how the original proponents
of China’s WTO membership got it so wrong, and explains how only a
policy of “constructive confrontation” will prove adequate in addressing
China’s increasingly “innovation mercantilist” trade practices.


To be clear, a China that participates in the global trading system while abiding by the
rules and norms of the WTO system is a plus for the global economy. However, a China
that uses the WTO as a shield to protect its innovation mercantilist policies is not. To
remedy this situation, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
recommends that the United States and Europe work together to confront and eliminate
Chinese innovation mercantilism.

http://www2.itif.org/2015-false-promises-china.pdf
 
Chomsky said:
Thanks for respectfully portraying the other side of the coin.

Due to its size and the developments to date, I still see China as likely to become the dominant economy of this century. I'm sure not everything will be rosy, and there will be ups & downs. But the slope seems relatively sure.

But I will predicate my statement in the paragraph above. I believe there is a minority chance that China could implode upon itself. There's no way that I see for them to bring all 1.4B Chinese into the mainstream economy. And as the wealth grows amongst the top in their society, and given the growing communications and transparency where the unfortunate can see the growing disparity, it may spark political revolution.

The scenario in my above paragraph is the wildcard. Otherwise, I think the writing is on the wall for China's eventual economic growth.
Click to expand...

Your posts present only Chinese inculcated images of China as planned, designed and desired by the CCP Boyz in Beijing.

The vast majority of people's posts over time present only the image of China that is consistent with the Chinese generated image of China. That is, everything is smooth, even, moving steadily and well, under control, placid, harmonious, positive and inevitable. The authoritarian way is the right way and thus the only way. No problem and no obstacles. There's only the inevitable global peace and prosperity directed by the Chinese. The Global Pax China.

The prevalent superficiality of the unreality is breathtaking.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not aware of this figure, nor am I sure of what you're getting at here. But China's GDP is closing-in on ours, and will eclipse ours during the next decade. As to consumers, there are 5X as many Chinese employed as Americans. That's a lot of consumers. Also, their middle-class is 3X ours, and is ferociously growing while ours is decreasing.
Click to expand...

What I meant was countries like the USA are buying their exports. Thus, he have to be “wealthy” enough to by them. We shipped 3/4 trillion bucks to them in exchange for their plethora of gadgets.
 
chuckiechan said:
What I meant was countries like the USA are buying their exports. Thus, he have to be “wealthy” enough to by them. We shipped 3/4 trillion bucks to them in exchange for their plethora of gadgets.
Click to expand...

“Gadgets!?” What’s the last major purchase your household made that wasn’t Chinese?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
On the other hand, possibly the Chinese have finally wakened up to the fact that the US provides only around 5% of the potential global economy and have decided that there is more money to be made by increasing trade with the other 95% and letting the US 5% go by the boards.
Click to expand...

~ This seems an unlikely scenario. China's economy is dependent on worldwide exports. However nearly 20 percent of China's exports go to the United States. China has more to lose economically in an all-out trade war with the US. Trump needs to go hard on China. The US can take care of ourselves - not so certain that China can.
· Constituting less than 5 percent of the world's population, Americans generate and earn more than 20 percent of the world's total income. America is the world's largest national economy and leading global trader.
The U.S. has retained its position of being the world's largest economy since 1871. The size of the U.S. economy was at $19.39 trillion in 2017 in nominal terms and is expected to exceed $20.41 trillion in 2019.

➡ Office of U.S. Trade Representative / Investiopedia
 
Last edited:
LosAngelesAngel said:
~ Brazil has plenty of rare earth and the new president likes Trump. India and Australia also could be a source. The U.S. can reopen the mineral mine in California if needed.
I think China may cut their own throat with this "threat ". That could be a good thing ! 🇺🇸
Click to expand...

China has been setting up limits lately anyway.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Trump and the rest of the US admin is doing everything possible to maintain US power. Using tactics that should be used as a last resort rather than an every day event. The trade threats vs Europe, Japan and other countries is going to drive them further away lowering US influence. The sanctions including using Swift as a weapon to enforce them against uninvolved countries will cause them to develop alternatives. When other countries start to trade without using the USD as the settlement process the decline will accelerate.

Trump might be able to pull it off and keep other friendly countries from moving away but rising populism/nationalism in other countries will cause other countries to seek the same sort of protectionist policies. There won't be a common enemy to unite them with the US. Europe is not going to be afraid of China or see them as a threat
Click to expand...
You support the status quo. The status quo has been failing for decades. It's insane. You need to change your ways.
 
American said:
You support the status quo. The status quo has been failing for decades. It's insane. You need to change your ways.
Click to expand...

My post has nothing to do with stating support for the status quo or for change.

It is my opinion Trump is going after to many targets at once making achieving success in them more difficult and the negatives of potential failure much higher. That he is using leverage that should be used rarely far to often.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
My post has nothing to do with stating support for the status quo or for change.

It is my opinion Trump is going after to many targets at once making achieving success in them more difficult and the negatives of potential failure much higher. That he is using leverage that should be used rarely far to often.
Click to expand...

It's better to try and fail, then be a yapping dog like our other politicians past and present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom