I will be voting for Trump in 2020 Topic

Posted by tangplay on 11/1/2019 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Don't get me wrong, I think Yang is pretty great, but I don't see the logic in only liking him and Gabbard.
Dammit my post timed out. Tang when you garner my academic and work credentials we may debate until then it’s pointless. You don’t even know what an Interception is and you’re supposedly a sports writer.
11/1/2019 4:20 PM
Posted by The Taint on 11/1/2019 3:18:00 PM (view original):

A World Trade Organization (WTO) panel said on Friday that China was entitled to slap compensatory sanctions on U.S. imports worth $3.579 billion annually for the U.S. failure to remove anti-dumping duties - roughly half the amount China had sought.

The decision came as the world's two biggest economies try to clinch Phase 1 of a trade deal. President Donald Trump and U.S. negotiators are "very optimistic" about concluding it, White House adviser Larry Kudlow said.

In the WTO ruling, a three-member arbitration panel said Chinese exporters suffered impairment to trade valued at $3.579 billion annually. China may now ask the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body for a green light to impose the retaliatory tariffs on imported U.S. goods valued up to that amount each year.

China told the WTO in September 2018 that it had suffered $7.043 billion in damages annually due to U.S. anti-dumping duties ruled illegal by a WTO panel in 2016 and later upheld. China therefore requested permission to raise trade barriers on U.S. goods to the same amount, as allowed under WTO rules.

As the Trump administration objected to the amount, the issue was sent to arbitration.

The case relates to U.S. dumping duties on industries including machinery and electronics, light industry, metals and minerals, and the U.S. Commerce Department's way of calculating the amount of "dumping" - Chinese exports that are priced to undercut American-made goods on the U.S. market.

The U.S. calculation method, known as "zeroing”, tended to increase the level of U.S. anti-dumping duties on foreign producers and was repeatedly ruled to be illegal in a series of trade disputes brought to the WTO.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington had no immediate response.

Taint is so gullible. LOL

Scary. Wow. No idea how the global economy works.
11/1/2019 4:21 PM
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/1/2019 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/1/2019 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Don't get me wrong, I think Yang is pretty great, but I don't see the logic in only liking him and Gabbard.
Dammit my post timed out. Tang when you garner my academic and work credentials we may debate until then it’s pointless. You don’t even know what an Interception is and you’re supposedly a sports writer.
He's supposedly a Mennonite.
11/1/2019 4:25 PM
Hey only 385,000 gallons of oil leaked from keystone today.

SO MUCH WINNING
11/1/2019 4:26 PM
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/1/2019 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/1/2019 3:18:00 PM (view original):

A World Trade Organization (WTO) panel said on Friday that China was entitled to slap compensatory sanctions on U.S. imports worth $3.579 billion annually for the U.S. failure to remove anti-dumping duties - roughly half the amount China had sought.

The decision came as the world's two biggest economies try to clinch Phase 1 of a trade deal. President Donald Trump and U.S. negotiators are "very optimistic" about concluding it, White House adviser Larry Kudlow said.

In the WTO ruling, a three-member arbitration panel said Chinese exporters suffered impairment to trade valued at $3.579 billion annually. China may now ask the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body for a green light to impose the retaliatory tariffs on imported U.S. goods valued up to that amount each year.

China told the WTO in September 2018 that it had suffered $7.043 billion in damages annually due to U.S. anti-dumping duties ruled illegal by a WTO panel in 2016 and later upheld. China therefore requested permission to raise trade barriers on U.S. goods to the same amount, as allowed under WTO rules.

As the Trump administration objected to the amount, the issue was sent to arbitration.

The case relates to U.S. dumping duties on industries including machinery and electronics, light industry, metals and minerals, and the U.S. Commerce Department's way of calculating the amount of "dumping" - Chinese exports that are priced to undercut American-made goods on the U.S. market.

The U.S. calculation method, known as "zeroing”, tended to increase the level of U.S. anti-dumping duties on foreign producers and was repeatedly ruled to be illegal in a series of trade disputes brought to the WTO.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington had no immediate response.

Taint is so gullible. LOL

Scary. Wow. No idea how the global economy works.
I know more about the worlds economy than anyone. Many people say this.
11/1/2019 4:26 PM
Posted by DougOut on 11/1/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/1/2019 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/1/2019 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Don't get me wrong, I think Yang is pretty great, but I don't see the logic in only liking him and Gabbard.
Dammit my post timed out. Tang when you garner my academic and work credentials we may debate until then it’s pointless. You don’t even know what an Interception is and you’re supposedly a sports writer.
He's supposedly a Mennonite.
And Jewish. I know. I think he identifies as one or the other when it’s convenient. Next he ll identify as Patrick Mahomes.
11/1/2019 4:27 PM
Why would you capitalize interception with that great intellect of yours?
11/1/2019 4:28 PM
An why are you for universal basic income?
11/1/2019 4:28 PM


Drink more milk please. GOD bless you. Amen.
11/1/2019 4:28 PM


That's not funny.
11/1/2019 4:31 PM
Posted by The Taint on 11/1/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Why would you capitalize interception with that great intellect of yours?
My damn phone does it and I am too lazy to correct it. Why do you care? You a volunteer grammar policeman?
11/1/2019 4:31 PM
Posted by The Taint on 11/1/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):
An why are you for universal basic income?
What in the blue hell are you talking about? Who is your fave out of that crew of Democrats?
11/1/2019 4:32 PM
That’s Yang’s signature platform policy that gives him any sort of “stand-out” from the field.


I haven’t watched a second of debates and have barely delved deep into platforms/ideals.

Still holding out hope that Trump is removed and Kasich can move in. Pipe dream I know.
11/1/2019 4:37 PM
Posted by The Taint on 11/1/2019 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Hey only 385,000 gallons of oil leaked from keystone today.

SO MUCH WINNING

An estimated 9,120 barrels of oil spilled near Edinburg, North Dakota, affecting 22,500 square feet of wetlands about an hour from the Canadian border.

The oil leak, which would fill about half of an Olympic size swimming pool, was discovered Tuesday and prompted the shuttering of a portion of the pipeline.

Drinking water sources were not affected, though the oil spill will harm vegetation and soil within the wetland area, said Karl Rockeman, director of North Dakota’s Division of Water Quality. He said the leak has been contained within the initial spill zone.

11/1/2019 4:37 PM
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/1/2019 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/1/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Why would you capitalize interception with that great intellect of yours?
My damn phone does it and I am too lazy to correct it. Why do you care? You a volunteer grammar policeman?
There’s no better grammar policeman than me. Many people say that.
11/1/2019 4:37 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
I will be voting for Trump in 2020 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.