[mcphage]

This is your evidence? This is meaningless. The problem is, you’re applying reasoning backwards. You’re starting with the assumption that Trump’s ramblings are justified, so you search for whatever you can find that supports his side, and thus conclude that this evidence is sufficient to justify his claims, because it’s all the evidence out there. Instead of actual reasoning, which would be to start with the question “are his claims justified?”, searching for evidence for and against, and realizing that these few articles in support are dwarfed by the hundreds of billion dollars in trade between the two countries.