Trump talk only- no Eagles talk allowed (Steelers talk is OK though)

[BrahmaBulls 647]

3 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Squissy where did you semen thread go? Why did you delete it?

Bet he swallowed it

[Beaker15 236]

I would be shocked if Trump doesn't get at least 300 electoral votes like he did against Hillary in 2016.

[Fireballer 2,641]

Last night, Kamala mention closing all migrant detention centers on Day 1?  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,006]

10 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I wasn’t confident at all in 2016. I knew that Hillary wasn’t popular at all so I was nervous as hell. If you don’t see the difference between then and now then you’re not very smart. 

I really do think Kamala Harris is going to win this election and pretty decisively. Of course I could be wrong and if I am, so be it. But the “honeymoon” isn’t over, in fact it’s just beginning. Her numbers are only going to get better and better. Get ready. 

Here's your problem:  We're not the ones that better "get ready".  Nobody on our side is predicting a Trump victory and gloating about it already before the election like you are with Kamala.

The question isn't whether we're ready if Kamala wins, the question is whether YOU'RE ready if Trump wins.  Last time you were so sure Hillary was going to crush and then you and your side lost your sh#t for 4 years.  

I guarantee you that should Trump win (and I'm not predicting he will), I and many others in here will be making sure you and your pals who are gloating about Kamala get your daily serving of crow, all day, every day. 

Get ready (just in case). 

[squistion 2,105]

9 hours ago, Beaker15 said:

I would be shocked if Trump doesn't get at least 300 electoral votes like he did against Hillary in 2016.

Prepare to be shocked.

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

10 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I wasn’t confident at all in 2016. I knew that Hillary wasn’t popular at all so I was nervous as hell. If you don’t see the difference between then and now then you’re not very smart. 

I really do think Kamala Harris is going to win this election and pretty decisively. Of course I could be wrong and if I am, so be it. But the “honeymoon” isn’t over, in fact it’s just beginning. Her numbers are only going to get better and better. Get ready. 

“Wasn’t confident at all”

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19573125

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

10 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I wasn’t confident at all in 2016. I knew that Hillary wasn’t popular at all so I was nervous as hell. If you don’t see the difference between then and now then you’re not very smart. 

I really do think Kamala Harris is going to win this election and pretty decisively. Of course I could be wrong and if I am, so be it. But the “honeymoon” isn’t over, in fact it’s just beginning. Her numbers are only going to get better and better. Get ready. 

“Wasn’t confident at all” Joy Reid

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19576667

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

“Wasn’t confident at all” Joy Reid

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19576667

Love this gem -

“tommy is absolutely right. Several people here predicted with great confidence that Hillary would lose to Donald Trump, that by supporting Hillary over Bernie we were guaranteeing a Trump victory. Those people know who they are.“

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19525884

Total clown  

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

Love this gem -

“tommy is absolutely right. Several people here predicted with great confidence that Hillary would lose to Donald Trump, that by supporting Hillary over Bernie we were guaranteeing a Trump victory. Those people know who they are.“

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19525884

Total clown  

It gets even better. Dude tongued her butt hole in the daily 

“It also ignores the evidence of this thread. If anybody wants to, they can go back and look at how many people predicted Hillary would lose, that this or that would be the end of her campaign, and some of it long before Trump ever got the nomination. (Later on some of the best conversation was whether or not, after Trump defeated Hillary, I should be blamed. At least two posters argued vehemently that it was my fault.) 

Now many of these same people are telling us that Hillary is the luckiest campaigner in history, how anyone would have defeated Trump, how she would be crushed by any one else, etc. The truth is the opposite: Hillary is unlucky, or she would have been elected President in 2008. She lost then because a man of extraordinary talent and charisma challenged her. There was no one like that this time around, so she is going to win.”

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19510844

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,006]

12 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

“Wasn’t confident at all”

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19573125

 

10 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

“Wasn’t confident at all” Joy Reid

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19576667

 

8 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Love this gem -

“tommy is absolutely right. Several people here predicted with great confidence that Hillary would lose to Donald Trump, that by supporting Hillary over Bernie we were guaranteeing a Trump victory. Those people know who they are.“

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19525884

Total clown  

 

4 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

It gets even better. Dude tongued her butt hole in the daily 

“It also ignores the evidence of this thread. If anybody wants to, they can go back and look at how many people predicted Hillary would lose, that this or that would be the end of her campaign, and some of it long before Trump ever got the nomination. (Later on some of the best conversation was whether or not, after Trump defeated Hillary, I should be blamed. At least two posters argued vehemently that it was my fault.) 

Now many of these same people are telling us that Hillary is the luckiest campaigner in history, how anyone would have defeated Trump, how she would be crushed by any one else, etc. The truth is the opposite: Hillary is unlucky, or she would have been elected President in 2008. She lost then because a man of extraordinary talent and charisma challenged her. There was no one like that this time around, so she is going to win.”

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19510844

 

 F@CKING BOOM!  

 

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

25 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

“Wasn’t confident at all”

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19573125

He thought Hillary was going to win Florida...

[Reality 3,121]

36 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

“Wasn’t confident at all”

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread.721079/post-19573125

This is the person you all try to have rational conversations with, lol.

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

You guys certainly love to look back at my posts. I made hundreds of posts on that election. I thought Hillary would win and expressed it many times. I also expressed my fears that she would not many times. I thought, and I still do, that Hillary had a 75% chance of winning. But 25% seemed to me too large a number and that scared me. And that is what happened: Trump effectively came up with a straight flush. Could he do so again? Of course and this election as of now is much closer than that one was. But once again I think, at least for now, the odds favor the Democrat. And because I sense that Kamala is more of a movement candidate than Hillary I have less fears this time around. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

2 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I guarantee you that should Trump win (and I'm not predicting he will), I and many others in here will be making sure you and your pals who are gloating about Kamala get your daily serving of crow, all day, every day. 

Get ready (just in case). 

There is a big difference between us. 
 

First, if Trump wins you can gloat if you wish. I will congratulate you, wish you well, wish HIM well (he will be my President again after all) and hope for the best. 

If Kamala wins I will NOT gloat because this isn’t a game for me. I will be glad, obviously. But I will still wish you well and hope that we can find a way to settle our differences. As Americans we have much more in common than we do not. 

[Maximum Overkill 1,894]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

First, if Trump wins you can gloat

Nobody should gloat, its embarrassing that these 2 asssclowns are the best we have. 

Kamala is taking us down a road that is very very dangerous. You want socialism, that's what you're going to get. She's all about it yet acts like she never was. How y'all forget so quickly.

She's dumb and dangerous . Don't forget how we were under Trump. It wasn't so bad, no matter what CNN tells you. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,006]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There is a big difference between us. 
 

First, if Trump wins you can gloat if you wish. I will congratulate you, wish you well, wish HIM well (he will be my President again after all) and hope for the best. 

If Kamala wins I will NOT gloat because this isn’t a game for me. I will be glad, obviously. But I will still wish you well and hope that we can find a way to settle our differences. As Americans we have much more in common than we do not. 

Huh?  You're gloating now over Kamala. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,006]

1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Nobody should gloat, its embarrassing that these 2 asssclowns are the best we have. 

Kamala is taking us down a road that is very very dangerous. You want socialism, that's what you're going to get. She's all about it yet acts like she never was. How y'all forget so quickly.

She's dumb and dangerous . Don't forget how we were under Trump. It wasn't so bad, no matter what CNN tells you. 

Socialism is literally the first step towards Communism.  It will happen - that's the plan.

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

1 hour ago, Reality said:

This is the person you all try to have rational conversations with, lol.

Yeah I don’t get it deserves nothing but ridicule 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

15 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Yeah I don’t get it deserves nothing but ridicule 

Why? There’s no contradiction. I thought Hillary would win but I was unsure and nervous about it. I think Kamala will win but I’m unsure, though less nervous this time around. Why does any of this deserve ridicule? And why shouldn’t we try to have a rational discussion about it? 

[seafoam1 2,913]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Why? There’s no contradiction. I thought Hillary would win but I was unsure and nervous about it. I think Kamala will win but I’m unsure, though less nervous this time around. Why does any of this deserve ridicule? And why shouldn’t we try to have a rational discussion about it? 

Troll.

[Rabbit Range 51]

Kamala by armbar or whatever she wants. Easy win followed by moron tears and a short and pathetic Big Lie 2.0. It will be amusing.

 

 

[supermike80 1,876]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Why? There’s no contradiction. I thought Hillary would win but I was unsure and nervous about it. I think Kamala will win but I’m unsure, though less nervous this time around. Why does any of this deserve ridicule? And why shouldn’t we try to have a rational discussion about it? 

Its difficult with you tim because you just cant stop lying. Its frustrating when you do that.  Having a rational diacussion with people who struggle to be honest isnt anything people generally want to do. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

1 hour ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Nobody should gloat, its embarrassing that these 2 asssclowns are the best we have. 

Kamala is taking us down a road that is very very dangerous. You want socialism, that's what you're going to get. She's all about it yet acts like she never was. How y'all forget so quickly.

She's dumb and dangerous . Don't forget how we were under Trump. It wasn't so bad, no matter what CNN tells you. 

Perfectly stated - dumb and dangerous.  There should be a rule that you can’t run for President unless you’ve taken a college level Economics or Finance course.  These Leftist bozos like Kameltoe, Bernie and Pocahontas have no business running a Lemonaid stand, never mind the USA.  There’s no bigger threat to the country than people like this.  They are Castro, Chavez, Maduro….

It’s surprisingly easy to destroy an economy and then a country.  Venezuela has the largest oil reserves, and the eighth largest natural gas reserves in the world.  Twenty years ago they were one of the wealthiest countries in South America.  Today 82% of its remaining citizens (7.7 million have fled) live below the poverty level.  What started it?  Price controls, “joy”-type exuberance of Socialist ideas, and a monolithic, fawning Leftist media.  Don’t think it can happen here?  It absolutely can happen here.  It’s surprisingly easy.

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

41 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Its difficult with you tim because you just cant stop lying. Its frustrating when you do that.  Having a rational diacussion with people who struggle to be honest isnt anything people generally want to do. 

But I don’t lie. I didn’t lie in this case and I don’t lie at all. Sometimes I get things wrong and sometimes I don’t remember everything I wrote in the past (I post a lot) but I never deliberately try to mislead. That’s the honest truth. You have accused me in the past of making things up and I never do that. I don’t struggle at all to be honest. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

10 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Perfectly stated - dumb and dangerous.  There should be a rule that you can’t run for President unless you’ve taken a college level Economics or Finance course.  These Leftist bozos like Kameltoe, Bernie and Pocahontas have no business running a Lemonaid stand, never mind the USA.  There’s no bigger threat to the country than people like this.  They are Castro, Chavez, Maduro….

It’s surprisingly easy to destroy an economy and then a country.  Venezuela has the largest oil reserves, and the eighth largest natural gas reserves in the world.  Twenty years ago they were one of the wealthiest countries in South America.  Today 82% of its remaining citizens (7.7 million have fled) live below the poverty level.  What started it?  Price controls, “joy”-type exuberance of Socialist ideas, and a monolithic, fawning Leftist media.  Don’t think it can happen here?  It absolutely can happen here.  It’s surprisingly easy.

This is wrong in two major ways. First off Kamala Harris does not belong in the same category as Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. She is far more centrist than they are. Bernie is a leftist, Warren leans leftist, Harris is progressive but centrist. Conflating them all together is simply false. 
 

Second and even more important: Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders do not belong in the same conversation as Chavez, Maduro, or Castro. For all of Bernie’s socialism he believes in democracy, the American system and our Constitution. He does not seek dictatorship. The three guys who mentioned are savage murdering dictators who seek their utopia through the suppression of freedom and the elimination of democratic government. 

[MDC 7,268]

The truth is out: Trump is a career grifter and a washed up reality TV star in addition to being a geriatric loon. Whatever small success he had in his one term in office was entirely circumstantial. He has no message, policies or plans at all except to pardon himself and his cronies and use the next 4 years to enrich himself.

The only reason he’s in the race at all is that the Dems don’t have a better candidate. The fact that a nobody like Kamala is leading in national polls should tell you what people think of Dirtbag Don. If you actually like either of these 2 you’re a stone cold moron.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is wrong in two major ways. First off Kamala Harris does not belong in the same category as Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. She is far more centrist than they are. Bernie is a leftist, Warren leans leftist, Harris is progressive but centrist. Conflating them all together is simply false. 
 

Second and even more important: Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders do not belong in the same conversation as Chavez, Maduro, or Castro. For all of Bernie’s socialism he believes in democracy, the American system and our Constitution. He does not seek dictatorship. The three guys who mentioned are savage murdering dictators who seek their utopia through the suppression of freedom and the elimination of democratic government. 

Centrist?  She just proposed price controls!  And in an objective measurement she was rated THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR.  I can understand you missing that.  The Left scrubbed it from the internet after she got nominated.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,226]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

But I don’t lie. I didn’t lie in this case and I don’t lie at all. Sometimes I get things wrong and sometimes I don’t remember everything I wrote in the past (I post a lot) but I never deliberately try to mislead. That’s the honest truth. You have accused me in the past of making things up and I never do that. I don’t struggle at all to be honest. 

My lord.  Even when it’s shown right here within this thread that you were Uber confident in 2016 after saying you weren’t You still say  you weren’t.  You’re very dishonest. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

Just now, Patented Phil said:

Centrist?  She just proposed price controls!

Not exactly. She wants penalties for companies who abuse pricing, that’s not quite the same as imposing top down price controls. 

But even if she did want price controls so did Nixon. It’s a dumb policy IMO but it’s hardly extremist and it doesn’t lead to socialism. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

My lord.  Even when it’s shown right here within this thread that you were Uber confident in 2016 after saying you weren’t You still say  you weren’t.  You’re very dishonest. 

Pathological is the word.  It’s fascinating to watch actually.

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

My lord.  Even when it’s shown right here within this thread that you were Uber confident in 2016 after saying you weren’t You still say  you weren’t.  You’re very dishonest. 

I can only repeat: I thought Hillary had about a 75% chance of winning and argued that. I predicted she would win certain states that she didn’t. I was not “Uber” confident, whatever that means. I was pretty nervous about it and posted that along with the other posts that were dredged up. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Not exactly. She wants penalties for companies who abuse pricing, that’s not quite the same as imposing top down price controls. 

But even if she did want price controls so did Nixon. It’s a dumb policy IMO but it’s hardly extremist and it doesn’t lead to socialism. 

She wants to tax unrealized capital gains!

Dude - seriously - see the dishonesty posts above.  You are delusional at times.  Just admit what she is - a Socialist with very dangerous Leftist economic policies.  It’s not hard.  You can still like her and have joy.

[thegeneral 3,100]

6 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

She wants to tax unrealized capital gains!

Dude - seriously - see the dishonesty posts above.  You are delusional at times.  Just admit what she is - a Socialist with very dangerous Leftist economic policies.  It’s not hard.  You can still like her and have joy.

There’s a bit more to this plan

It applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth who do not pay at least a 25% tax rate on their income (inclusive of unrealized capital gains). Payments can be spread out over subsequent years

 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

5 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

She wants to tax unrealized capital gains!

Dude - seriously - see the dishonesty posts above.  You are delusional at times.  Just admit what she is - a Socialist with very dangerous Leftist economic policies.  It’s not hard.  You can still like her and have joy.

I don’t see it that way. She’s not a leftist at all. And no I’m not being dishonest. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

Also capital gains tax- another bad idea- has been a Democratic priority for decades. It’s hardly socialist. It’s just not too smart (IMO). Major reason I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

22 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Also capital gains tax- another bad idea- has been a Democratic priority for decades. It’s hardly socialist. It’s just not too smart (IMO). Major reason I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. 

Ok, so her first two economic proposals - both anathema to free market capitalism - are “bad ideas” according to you.  Glad we could agree on that.

Other than that she’s a Centrist.

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

Regarding my concerns in 2016: there was a poster at the other forum named SaintsInDome2006- a really smart guy who I miss talking to. We had several conversations about Hillary and Trump in the thread @Dizkneelande posted from, and whenever I would express my fears that Trump might win, Saints would tell me “Tim stop worrying about it there is NO chance Trump wins.” This same conversation occurs several times in that thread, if anyone wants to bother to look them up (I do not.) At other times, like the ones posted, I was more confident.  But that only proves I am often mercurial; it doesn’t demonstrate any dishonesty, then or now. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

Just now, Patented Phil said:

Ok, so her first two economic proposals - both anathema to free market capitalism - are “bad ideas” according to you.  Glad we could agree on that.

Other than that she’s a Centrist.

Yes. And the problem is that both of those ideas are nowhere near the anathema to free market capitalism that tariffs are or controls on free migration. Compared to these two ideas which have taken over the Republican Party, what you’re talking about is minor. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

By the way @Patented Phil only yesterday your guy Trump called Kamala a liar for suggesting that tariffs are a tax on the a American consumer- he stated his belief that tariffs are paid by other countries and make us richer and lowers inflation. 
 

Now I don’t think he is lying about this. I think he truly believes this nonsense. I think his economic knowledge is just about zero and without the guardrails he had last time he will do for our economy what he did for his various businesses over the years: namely drive us into bankruptcy. Those new tariffs will be catastrophic and you as a capitalist should know that. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

 

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes. And the problem is that both of those ideas are nowhere near the anathema to free market capitalism that tariffs are or controls on free migration. Compared to these two ideas which have taken over the Republican Party, what you’re talking about is minor. 

You act like Kameltoe is far Tight on free trade and tariffs.  She’s not.  Good article in The NY Times:
 

With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue

The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues.

In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”

But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known.

William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.”

In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.”

Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change.

While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”

Her skepticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was also partially related to its impact on the environment. She expressed concerns in an interview that it might undermine California’s environmental laws. As a senator, Ms. Harris also sponsored the Green New Deal, an expansive set of policies aimed at addressing climate change.

That has given rise to speculation among trade experts that, if elected, Ms. Harris might lean more on trade as a tool to fight climate change — for example, by striking more limited deals that encourage trade in cleaner products and raise barriers for trade in dirtier ones.

“A Harris presidency would continue and build upon Biden’s trade policy,” said Todd Tucker, the director of Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy and research organization. “Where I would expect to see Harris go even further than Biden is on integrating trade and climate policy.”

Politicians have only recently turned to trade policy as a tool to fight climate change, and not much has yet been accomplished in the area. But it is an approach that is gathering support.

In negotiations with the European Union, the Biden administration pushed for trade measures that would encourage makers of steel and aluminum in Europe and the United States to cut carbon emissions. While those talks have faltered, they could be a model for more actions under a Harris administration, trade analysts said.

Greta Peisch, a former trade official with the Biden administration who is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, said that the Biden administration had been on the cusp of pushing the United States to use trade tools to address climate change. “With the Harris administration, that would be a trajectory that she would be on as well,” she said.

Ms. Peisch added that Ms. Harris could also potentially push forward nascent policies addressing how the United States should work with foreign countries to regulate digital trade. Ms. Harris is familiar with the tech industry from her time in office in California, she said, and could help to set the agenda for how tech issues like artificial intelligence and privacy regulation factor into trade negotiations.

Both Republicans and Democrats have adopted more protectionist stances on trade in recent years, moving away from a time when “free trade” was often an unquestioned pursuit for many politicians. While the Trump administration imposed large tariffs on foreign products in an effort to gain leverage and renegotiate trade deals, the Biden administration has declined to pursue traditional free-trade agreements, instead focusing on domestic investments and other kinds of international partnerships.

Many Democrats now view free trade deals as a reason that American companies have shipped jobs overseas — a view that seems likely to carry into another Democratic administration. Ms. Harris has emphasized reorienting U.S. trade policy to prioritize the impact on American workers, rather than big companies that would prefer to cut costs by outsourcing jobs.

She has also taken a more critical stance against China in her appearances as vice president and her voting record as a senator. And she has denounced the Trump administration’s more aggressive and broad-brush approach to dealing with trade partners, describing the tariffs on China as a tax for American consumers.

In a 2019 presidential debate, Ms. Harris described Mr. Trump’s trade policy toward China as erratic and full of bluster. “He reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’” she said. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude.”

Mr. Biden was also critical of Mr. Trump’s tariffs during that campaign. Once in office, however, the Biden administration ultimately chose to maintain Mr. Trump’s China tariffs and recently added some new ones, saying they were necessary to prevent cheap foreign products from flooding the United States and protect new factories that have received federal funding.

Mr. Trump has upped the ante in his current campaign for president, proposing tariffs on most foreign goods and floating a tariff of 60 percent or more on goods from China. The Biden administration has said that level of tariffs could damage the U.S. economy, widen the gap between the rich and poor and spark global trade wars that would hurt U.S. exporters.

In her role as vice president, Ms. Harris took part in the administration’s push to lessen the dependence of supply chains on China, including by promoting new partnerships for apparel manufacturing in Central America. In speeches, she often took a hard line on China, rebuking the country during two trips to Asia for its maritime clashes with countries like Japan and the Philippines.

As a senator, she condemned the persecution of Uyghur and minority women in western China and sponsored a bill by Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses in the region. She was also a sponsor of Mr. Rubio’s Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which was a response to China’s increasing control over the former British territory.

“They steal our products, including our intellectual property,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 debate. “They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents."