Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

Trump says he'll put 10% tariffs on remaining China imports

52 Comments
By PAUL WISEMAN, KEVIN FREKING and JOSH BOAK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Gary Cohn, Trump's former US chief economic adviser:

“for all the rhetoric, the trade war with China is hurting the US more than it is the Chinese.”

This might be the first time that a recession would be good for America. It would be the end of Trump.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

The United States needs a new constitutional amendment that's says something like "Congress shall not interfere with the voluntary exchange among other individuals". Constitutional restrains is probably the only realistic way to stop politicians and governments from ruining people's lives with idiotic policies. Tariffs are in top 3 most self-harming and destructive policies out there.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

So what Trump is saying is that there has been no progress.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

When you only carry a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Speaking to reporters Thursday at the White House, Trump complained that President Xi is "not moving fast enough."

Trump Is not going to admit it but the US is not winning and there will be no winners. The trade war will most like continue past the election 2020. The Chinese seem averse to negotiating under threats and dig in their heels deeper with every Trump tweet.

But his administration is providing $16 billion in aid to American farmers — on top of $11 billion last year — to offset sales lost after China imposed retaliatory tariffs on soybeans and other U.S. farm products.

Trump is subsidizing farmers who can’t sell to China by borrowing money from China. So he exchanged income from China for an equal amount of debt to China. It’s the equivalent of forgoing your salary and asking your boss to just loan you money to pay your bills instead.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Didn’t doubt it for a minute. Time for China to make a fair deal, they have nothing left to retaliate with.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

So it is flat out trade war, China will hit back! Pointless to talk with the trump administration. Ah Blacklabel, China can cut off all rare earth shipments to the USA.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The book’s title should have “The Art of Promising Deals but Nothing to Deliver”

5 ( +8 / -3 )

90% (high probability plus more) of so called MSM financial experts are bewildered at what their perspective on the surface. Mnuchin and Lighthizer kicked off the initial restarts of trade talks with China days ago. In the meantime Trump's tweets insinuates to repudiate the abeyance of a deal making. The 'free-for-loss presstitutes yellowstream propanda centers' appears to call this mixed messaging; but that's definitely not what that is in regards to the tweets.

As a full time personal, private institutional technical intrinsic value-based trader (80%) as well as a macro fundamental investor (20%) who trades/invests my own money of 8-9 figure USD voluminous transactions through FOREX spot & futures, options, bonds, stock indexes, ETFs, commodities, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate, I am still astounded as to why the MSM financial propaganda centers just do not get the big picture at play here. They just don't get it... Unmistakably!

Jaw-agape and mesmerized at ostensibly at-odds condition to a fresh undertaking with China, the MSM financial pundits are unschooled feeble-minded numb skulls. They're so authentically, unintelligibly disconnected as to what the heck is really going on.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-set-to-slump-as-weak-earnings-weigh-2019-07-30

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Ross, the Commerce Sec spoke last week, which had full of insights for someone who pays attention to details. He talks about America's present viewpoint in reference to the China-US trade bargaining. If you're aware of the general principles of Trump's 'America First' policies in regards to trade, then it should be obviously a pretty clear picture. But, as I expected almost always, majority of trade analysts as well as so called financial experts neglected and overlooked Ross' (on behalf of the administration) loud and clear message a week ago or so.

I guess it must be difficult for individuals to see the bigger perspective at play when they don't have to put their own money where their mouth is or they don't put their own cash on the line for their analysis. Relying on someone to write their checks for them makes somebody who has a JOB (Just-Over-Broke) position have limited critical thinking with small picture perspective attached to it.

In my view as someone in the the professional investment/trading class, Sec. Ross explicitly made aware the pro investment entities when he mentioned the present objective for Lighthizer and Mnuchin was to determine and unmask if China is predisposed to re-immersed from the initial point where the 2 countries left off before the prior negotiations collapsed.

I don't know about others but Ross' insights was very valuable and a significant tell. Subsequent weeks of staff contacts as well as phone calls if team America did not know the answer to that question, well, there is virtually zero plausibility of any sanguinistic prospect.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Fundamentally the only value within the present arrangement is financial "optics" for stabilitating the S&P 500, Dow Jones, NASDAQ, Russell, etc capital markets.

Well well well. The latest tariff announcement now provides clarity if Xi and his cohorts are willing to re-engage from previously point of contention. Now it's clear that China does not want to.

With this, predictably the investment/financial elites @ Wall Street will go nuts about this situation. American based multinationals who have invested profoundly with China manufacturing related business contracts are going to be apoplectic. Therefore the Main Street VS. Wall Street strife now entering in a fresh phase of adversarialism and confrontation.

Its been transparent (confirmed @ G20 results) that Trump will not affirm to anything unworthy of a comprehensive and integral structural vicissitude in America's trade position with Beijing. Trade negotiator Lighthizer's astringent enforcement as well as compliance clauses, clear-cut to each exclusive trade sector, are inviolable.

Only a very low probability scale, that there will be some kind of compromise because China will never want to change due to their historical culture of not believing in a win-win environment with zero sum mindset. The reforms within the initial arrangements between Liu He and Lighthizer were polarizing to China. Xi and the rest of the CCP politburo hardliners absolutely rebuffed them. For China, the enforcement and compliance sections within the accordance were to austere and didn't allow for Xi and CCP to preserve advantageous control over the trading terms. Therefore the agreement was utterly jilted.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

China, stop buying all American farm produce. Let the US donate their produce to all the countries it has destabilised.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Trump is aware of this and discerns that Xi is viewing this from a zero sum angle. As a repercussion, Trump's position in regards to tariff application is a matter of "when" no a matter of "if". Trump will surely drop the tariff hammer sooner or later.

With that mentioned, with regards to America's standpoint, there is actually no duplicity whatsoever. Lighthizer and Mnuchin are solemnly engaging in good faith; but, with really high probability, Trump is calculating "no deal".

When Trump formulates that unbending position, well, just affirm it - and then see around at what else Trump is laying out to contravene that result/expectation.

With very high probability, massive tariff deployment on Red Dragon are coming regardless but the question is the timing as well as more significantly, the scale of the tariffs. Most likely Trump will not drop the atomic sledge tariff hammer against Xi and the CCP until the after the ratification of the new USMCA trade accord.

With that said, the Canadian election on Oct. 212, 2019 is very significant and well connected to this. If Trudeau fails to get re-elected (very high probability will not), then Nancy Pelosi can't hold out until after the US 2020 national election with USMCA's ratification.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

China, stop buying all American farm produce. Let the US donate their produce to all the countries it has destabilised.

That won’t happen and China knows it.

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/06/19/2018/jim-cramer-china-needs-us-more-we-need-china

Now how about the $115 billion or so - it has meandered between that and $150 billion over the years. First, it's not really clear how much is imported and how much is made. For example, we know that Starbucks (SBUX) and YumChina could be boycotted. We know that FedEx (FDX) planes could be idled on the tarmac. We know that the diaper market, the razor market, the shampoo market and the make-up market could all be hit. We know that machinery, particularly machinery made by Caterpillar (CAT) and the Otis division of United Technologies (UTX) could be taxed. Honeywell (HON) , 3M (MMM) and Emerson (EMR) all have substantial businesses in China. All of these stocks have been hurt and probably will continue to get hurt to the point where they reflect no real growth from China or even a decrease in sales.

Boeing's (BA) the most visible but as I have been saying for so long that it's become repetitive: judging by the queue for Boeing planes, China needs Boeing more than Boeing needs China.

Judging by the items I just ticked off in entirety, I think it is obvious that China needs us more than we need China. And I am not even including how much technology they need, as we saw from how easy it would be to close ZTE (ZTCOF) , the Chinese telcom equipment manufacturer without our technology.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Not too long ago, Pelosi and Trudeau met up in Washington to have an agreement to not have the Canadian Parliament deal with USMCA ratification this year. But if Justine loses, whoever the winner of the Canadian federal election will likely expedite the ratification since Mexico already overwhelmingly and unanimously ratified the USMCA accord.

With Mexico ready to go and if Canada does as well then Pelosi cannot hold out especially if Canada and Mex have both ratified the new USMCA deal.

When the new USMCA deal is set in stone, then there should be actually no motive for low China tariff aimed for leverage acquisition toward a deal that would bypass higher tariffs. In this environment there's no deal possible; in consequence the extent or scope of the tariffs against Xi/CCP will be extremely weighty and compelling.

I would say, with high probability, put tariff on everything @ 25%, heck even push it up to 50 even better. My argument is based on the constant, never ending devaluing of the Chinese Yuan/Renminbi currency, China's pre-committment to subsidies and of course Trump's communication about that manipulation.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

bass4funk: So, the US will not donate to the countries it has destabilised, to the millions that are suffering at the hands of the US?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Trump is subtly laying out an economic platform with distinct output and deliverable yields in 2020. Trump formulated something in the big picture perspective that adds up to monumental, extensive net USA economic value that will aggrandize for multi-decades by way of the new, improved, transparent, no loopholes USMCA accord between Mex/Canada + trade/tariffs with Beijing + tariffs/trade with European Union + possible trade arrangement with an independent (possibly) United Kingdom. Trump's economic blueprint is like a series of dominoes.

With USMCA deal, it changes the world dynamic of how multi-nationals will attain admission to America's massive broad-based market. This kicks start multi-series of geopolitical stratagems. With high probability, I have a good feeling that Japan-America deal has already been worked out. Navarro, Lighthizer, Mnuchin as well as Ross did not spend all the time in the land of the rising sun during the month in advance before the Osaka G20 for nothing.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Picture of China like this way, it's a huge lake suffused and brimming with American economic value. By virtue of Trump's ASEAN conferences with Australia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, et al, POTUS has clandestinely and surreptitiously developed a thin assessment, like an ASEAN dam or something to that extent, which will point the way the Red Dragon lake full of USA economic value towards S.E. Asia instead.

After the USMCA goes into effect, the infamous stable genius will make the dam explode by way of massive tariff triggering on the Red Dragon. Whoever the entities that smartly recognize this generational opportunity and ends up working together with Trump, those exodus will greatly benefit in short, medium and more significantly in the longer term horizon.

With the Australian PM scheduled to have an official state visit as a guest of Trump on September 20, 2019. Coincidence...? By any chance, you think this is an accident...? Well, if you see the big picture at play, then you know the answer to that.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

So, the US will not donate to the countries it has destabilised, to the millions that are suffering at the hands of the US?

It has and still does, Japan and Germany economic powerhouses.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Like I said earlier, Trump is subtly laying out an economic platform with distinct output and deliverable yields for 2020. Trump formulated something in the big picture perspective that adds up to monumental, extensive net USA economic value that will aggrandize for multi-decades. So far the other 2020 presidential candidates do not have any viable economic strategies that can match the scale of American benefit that P45 has positioned. I recognized nobody of the other 2020 candidates fundamentally discusses anything much about economics, commerce and trade.

Here's how I see it the prioritized sequence in regards to the big picture of Trump's economic/trade platform...

a) USA economy = economic security = America First

b) Immigration = sovereignty = America First

c) Nat Sec = America First

d) Safeguarding IC weaponization won't occur ever again (Spygate, Crossfire Hurricane, FISAgate, Declass, etc)

Trump will actuate the landscape, and he is going to lay out any candidate as antagonistic to each of those list of priorities above. Letter d) the fourth and least of all priorities will impede and obverse any "impeachment" exertions by his adversaries; but the smallest deal in terms of first concerns. It's only relevant as a political weapon to counter the letter a) or 1st objective of Nancy Pelosi and candidate chosen by the DNC. Trump's disputant has no obstructive stance for letter a) through letter c) objective priorities. P45 retains that battlefield space.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

UknownPlayer: With the Australian PM scheduled to have an official state visit as a guest of Trump on September 20, 2019.

Over the past 2 years the US has established a military base in Northern Queensland and another base is planned in the Northern Territory. The visit by the Australian PM to Washington is to receive Washington's orders. Australia still has the dream of being the US deputy in the Pacific. Trump trying to sure up Australia's support against China and Iran.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Australia still has the dream of being the US deputy in the Pacific. Trump trying to sure up Australia's support against China and Iran.

Hmmmm...not sure about all that.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Over the past 2 years the US has established a military base in Northern Queensland and another base is planned in the Northern Territory. The visit by the Australian PM to Washington is to receive Washington's orders. Australia still has the dream of being the US deputy in the Pacific. Trump trying to sure up Australia's support against China and Iran.

Sure. Thanks for the info. I will keep this in mind. Cheers.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

What exactly would a "trade deal" be?  Seems to me just mutual tariff levy and undertakings to buy goods from the US.  Makes little sense.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Until such time as there's a deal," Trump said, "we'll be taxing them."

Gee Mr Master Deal Maker, does that include all your Trump ties and Ivanka's shoes made in those Chinese sweatshops? You know, the ones you have made in China instead of American factories? Somehow I doubt it...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2154219/trade-war-rages-shoe-biz-goes-ivanka-trump-and-her

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYoOPgeTMQc

Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said: "These talks are not getting any easier. I don't expect the Chinese to sit by ... The combination of these latest tariffs, with Chinese counter-retaliation, is going to take a heavy toll on U.S. consumers, workers, farmers and businesses."

BINGO!

But his administration is providing $16 billion in aid to American farmers — on top of $11 billion last year — to offset sales lost after China imposed retaliatory tariffs on soybeans and other U.S. farm products.

All courtesy of America's first Socialist President - Bernie and AOC welcome Donnie to the socialist club...

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Donald Trump intensified pressure Thursday on China to reach a trade deal 

Good.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Serrano not until a couple of weeks back you didn't know how tariffs work...America pays not China

If that be the case, how come China's so upset about it? Hint: China pays a price in lost sales. The tariffs have a negative impact. Without this pressure they will not change their unfair trading practices. Economics 101.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Northern,

It may seem criminally moronic not to understand the tariffs they're cheering on, you have to remember that arithmetic and independent Republicans don't make good bedfellows....

1 ( +5 / -4 )

arithmetic and independent Republicans don't make good bedfellows....

You're confusing independent Republicans ( as opposed to dependent Republicans ), with Democrats.

( Green New Deal, Medicare For All, including illegals, free college, college debt forgiveness, reparations... )

If you're not on the Trump train, you're gonna be needing a big supply of Kleenex.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Yeah, I concede it's the U.S. importers who pay the tariffs. Anyhow enough said...

Yeah, I concede we've been getting our asses handed to us by China. The situation is being ah, rectified.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

A result of this trade war is that China if finding out that there are so many cheaper options out there and more willing countries that would like to do business with China. Trump thinks that his 16 billion dollars promised to farmers affected by his trade war will help, but when its spread so thinly among millions of farmers, its not that much help. Also, the time and effort they took to develop their export partners will not be easy to get back. Would you rather trust the voice of a liar like Trump who says farmers are doing great, or from the voice of the farmers themselves who say they are experiences losses at an alarming rate?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Gee, I can remember when Repubs were the free traders - they hated things like tariffs and trade wars - they supported free trade agreements. What happened?

Oh yea, we elected a "Master Negotiator" and "Brilliant Businessman" - who has bankrupted 6 companies and lost over $1 billion...

And all the Repubs flip-flipped on their co-called principles and followed him over the cliff...

Wonder how our farmers are doing these days....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-costs-factbox/factbox-from-phone-makers-to-farmers-the-toll-of-trumps-trade-wars-idUSKCN1UR5XZ

And I'm still waiting for the Trumpers here to tell us if these increased tariffs apply to Donnie's ties and Ivanka's shoes - all made in China...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It may seem criminally moronic not to understand the tariffs they're cheering on, you have to remember that arithmetic and independent Republicans don't make good bedfellows....

Lol, from the same people that didn’t care about surpluses, the private sector, a sluggish economy, scared away foreign investments, thought corporate take rate of 35% was just fine and a limp 2% GDP and then had the nerve to boast about it, never, ever lifted a finger to take on China, that’s just skimming off the surface, Democrats and socialists should never talk about money or economy, they don’t even know what that is.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If you're not on the Trump train, you're gonna be needing a big supply of Kleenex.

Next stop....The Kremlin. Your Engineer today is "Putin's Poodle", and your conductor is "Moscow Mitch"...

Have a safe trip, comrade....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Democrats and socialists should never talk about money or economy, they don’t even know what that is.

Dang straight - just look at how Bill Clinton ruined the economy - highest growth in the entire post-war period, largest growth in the US stock market ever, balanced budget and even a surplus...

And just look at Bush 2 who cratered the whole economy in 2007....and Trump who had a huge 2.1% growth last quarter and has taken our deficit to over $1 trillion - the largest ever...

Yep, Dems should never talk about the economy...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Dang straight - just look at how Bill Clinton ruined the economy -

Ok, so let’s go back into the Marty McFly time machine to the 90’s....a little Soul to Soul...Married with Children....the good old days.....lol

I prefer the here and now 2019

And just look at Bush 2 who cratered the whole economy in 2007.

At the end, yes, not before.

...and Trump who had a huge 2.1% growth last quarter, better than a sluggish economy with zero investments internationally and the lowest underperforming GDP of any President.

And was almost consistently on or over 3% GDP.

and has taken our deficit to over $1 trillion - the largest ever...

Yep, Dems should never talk about the economy

They really shouldn’t.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Dang straight - just look at how Bill Clinton ruined the economy -

Ok, so let’s go back into the Marty McFly time machine to the 90’s....a little Soul to Soul...Married with Children....the good old days.....lol

Your words - you said "Democrats and socialists should never talk about the economy". Bill Clinton is a Democrat and had the largest post-war economic expansion of any president and the only balanced budget and surplus. No Repub President has ever come close to that - and we all know Bush 2 almost caused a Depression.

So explain again why Democrats shouldn't talk about the economy? We'll be waiting...

And just look at Bush 2 who cratered the whole economy in 2007.

At the end, yes, not before.

To use Trump's words, it happened on his watch...

...and Trump who had a huge 2.1% growth last quarter, better than a sluggish economy with zero investments internationally and the lowest underperforming GDP of any President.

And was almost consistently on or over 3% GDP.

Obama had a 5.1% in the 3rd Qtr of 14 - Trump's never gotten above 4.1.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

and has taken our deficit to over $1 trillion - the largest ever...

Yes, he has...

Yep, Dems should never talk about the economy

They really shouldn’t.

Why? Because it embarrasses Repubs too much? Answer this question - Which Repub President has had a better economy than Clinton? We'll be waiting....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Your words - you said "Democrats and socialists should never talk about the economy".

They really shouldn’t.

Bill Clinton is a Democrat and had the largest post-war economic expansion of any president

Before cell phones, makes sense, thanks to Newt Gingrich who pushed Clinton who was going far left and brought him back center, so I give them both thanks

and the only balanced budget and surplus. No Repub President has ever come close to that - and we all know Bush 2 almost caused a Depression.

And Obama presided over one of the worst recoveries with the worst GDP of any President.

To use Trump's words, it happened on his watch...

And Trump fixed it.

With Thursday’s final revision of fourth-quarter GDP growth to 2.1 percent from its previous 1.9 percent level, President Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Obama’s best year, as far as growing the economy, was 2015 when it grew 2.6 percent from 2014 — after growing 2.4 percent that year from 2013.

Trump's never gotten above 4.1.

But over 3%

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Your words - you said "Democrats and socialists should never talk about the economy".

They really shouldn’t.

For the fourth time, why?

Bill Clinton is a Democrat and had the largest post-war economic expansion of any president

Before cell phones, makes sense, thanks to Newt Gingrich who pushed Clinton who was going far left and brought him back center, so I give them both thanks

BS - It was Dem Clinton and Dem Greenspan - Repubs sat on their hands. But you are now giving a Democrat credit for the economy, contradicting yourself above. Good.

and the only balanced budget and surplus. No Repub President has ever come close to that - and we all know Bush 2 almost caused a Depression.

And Obama presided over one of the worst recoveries with the worst GDP of any President.

Uh, yea - a recovery - from a Bush 2 caused recession - the worst since WW II... Think - Recession (caused by Repub) bad, Recovery (led by Dem) good....

To use Trump's words, it happened on his watch...

And Trump fixed it.

Obama - a Dem - fixed it - Bush 2- a Repub - caused it...

With Thursday’s final revision of fourth-quarter GDP growth to 2.1 percent from its previous 1.9 percent level, President Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.

Really? Let's look at the last three years of Bush 2;

2006 $15.338  2.9% 2007 $14.452 1.9% 2008 $14.713 -0.1%

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Not near 3% is it? It's OK, don't be embarrassed, you can admit you were wrong.

Trump's never gotten above 4.1.

But over 3%

You may want to read that again....

One more time, tell us a Repub President that has a better economy than Bill Clinton? We're still waiting...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

blacklabel: Time for China to make a fair deal, they have nothing left to retaliate with.

They have plenty of internal harassment of American companies yet to be played.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

BS - It was Dem Clinton and Dem Greenspan -

As well as the Republican Congress led by Gingrich that brought Clinton to the Center, thankfully.

Uh, yea - a recovery - from a Bush 2 caused recession -

Trump revitalized the last Presidents life support economy.

Not near 3% is it? It's OK, don't be embarrassed, you can admit you were wrong

Worse! Obama had:

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Sad...

Obama had

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Sad...so sad.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

BS - It was Dem Clinton and Dem Greenspan -

As well as the Republican Congress led by Gingrich that brought Clinton to the Center, thankfully.

Oh, you mean the Gingrich that was tossed out of Congress for corruption and ethics violations? Sure, he was a big help...

*Uh, yea - a recovery - from a Bush 2 caused recession -*

Trump revitalized the last Presidents life support economy.

Due to a recession caused by a Repub President...

Not near 3% is it? It's OK, don't be embarrassed, you can admit you were wrong

Worse! Obama had:

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Sad...

You said no President except Obama had less than 3% annual GDP growth. I showed you that Bush 2's last three years in office were all below 3%. So you were wrong. It's OK, happens to a lot of Trumpers.

Sad...so sad.

Yes, being unable to admit you were wrong is sad...

And no answer for the sixth time to the question to name a Repub President that had a better economy than Clinton...I guess that corner must be pretty tight....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And no answer for the sixth time to the question to name a Repub President that had a better economy than Clinton...I guess that corner must be pretty tight....

And nothing but continued silence - I guess the corner closed up on the Trumpers...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I think there is only one person alive who is so beyond the pale that they are still trying to pretend Republicans are fiscally responsible.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites