Well this is awkward

When did he make these deals?

Shortly after he was elected; 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/trump-taxes-china.html

he didnt, his finance records say he went 25 million in debt this year

Trump Records Shed New Light on Chinese Business Pursuits
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/trump-taxes-china.html

you know thats by nytimes, its not a creditable source, like fox news its bias, fact check that

NYT is one of the most credible news sources in the world. FOX is banned in some countries because of it's shitty reporting.

But whine all you want about how NYT has the scoop on Trump's finances. He's welcome to show otherwise. But he hasn't. He isn't. He won't. Because that's what it'll show.

No, the NYT is a disgusting lying rag. Has Fox ever helped cover up a genocide? The NYT did, and they’ve never apologized for that.

And they've claimed countries had entered the world wars when they never did.

Still clinging to a story about a guy who hasn't worked for NYT for 80 years? Next.

The people running the paper *right now* have still failed to apologize for the NYT’s role.

"Since the 1980’s, the paper [New York Times] has been publicly acknowledging his [Duranty's] failures. Ukrainian-American and other organizations have repeatedly called on the Pulitzer Prize Board to cancel Duranty’s prize and The Times to return it, mainly on the ground of his later failure to report the famine.

The Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award, most recently in November 2003, finding “no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception” in the 1931 reporting that won the prize, and The Times does not have the award in its possession."

You were saying?

" the paper [New York Times] has been publicly acknowledging his [Duranty's] failures. "

What, exactly, did they say? "Acknowledging his failures" is not necessarily anything like, "this newspaper was complicit in a horrific crime, and we humbly apologize".

In the context of the article, they're talking about his shady reporting which suggests a coverup. The Pulitzer Board said that there's no evidence to support the claim that there was a coverup. That being said, there's the glaring issues where his reporting was on the shitty side that may have failed to mention some important details.

In a letter to the Pulitzer board accompanying Prof. von Hagen’s report, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., then the publisher of The Times, wrote that “over the past two decades, The Times has often acknowledged that Duranty’s slovenly work should have been recognized for what it was by his editors and by his Pulitzer judges seven decades ago.”

Mr. Sulzberger cautioned, though, that rescinding the prize might evoke the “Stalinist practice to airbrush purged figures out of official records and histories.” He expressed concern that by doing so “the board would be setting a precedent for revisiting its judgments over many decades.”

http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/icymi-the-new-york-times-on-walter-duranty/

im not whining im saying, to show that this is true. the source for this is a bias sourer which when i ran through fact check didnt have creditable things.

True enough, NYT does have some articles that aren't factual. Yet, the majority of their articles are factual. According to adfontesmedia.com, a website designed to rate news sources for their biases and credibility on a rigorous metric, it will show that NYT has a reliability rating of ~47. With AP (Associated Press) and Rueters being rated the highest for facts and least bias of a score of ~49.

That being said, the majority of NYT articles fall well within the category of "Most reliable" news source. The lowest factual rating of the NYT is this story with a rating of ~22 sharing the 20 bracket with only one other story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/opinion/title-x-rule.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

I commend you for doing your homework and checking out their background though. That being said, your statement was a statement of absolution stating they *did not* have credible things, which is false. A correction would be *they had some questionable news stories.

At this website, you can see which stories are false, who writes the stories and recognize patterns by authors and view individual stories by various publishers.

For the most part, NYT is legitimate.

Fox News for example, has a reliability rating of ~22. Their stories are all over the spectrum ranging from reliable with no bias, to not reliable at all with extreme bias. The lowest reported factual news story is an op-ed piece by Kayleigh McEnany with a factual rating of 15 sharing the 10 and 20 bracket with a few dozen other stories: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/kayleigh-mcenany-ig-report-shows-these-findings

Having said all that, Trump is welcome to show his taxes and prove the NYT wrong. Except, he hasn't. He isn't. He won't. Because he knows it is true and has even admitted to some of the claims by NYT.

What countries is Fox banned in ? Cant find a single reference to the matter.
Is it Kazakstan or some other stan or NKPR.

Fox News cannot be advertised as Fox News in UK.