Another way to frame trade deficit (sometimes) is using the phrase "investment surplus".

Many top economies have trade deficits. China is a unique example that goes against that, although I believe China is trying to have their population spend more rather than save.

while that is true, there is more to it than that. It distorts US finances and debt market. It is helpful to the US, until at some point it will cause major problems, it's just hard to say exactly when.

It means the US received a lot of goods and services without any need to actually make them or make something of equal value.

My understanding is that while politicians generally focus on trade deficits being the result of unfair trade practices or high US labor costs, the majority of economists think that foreigners preference to invest in US financial markets is the main driver.

"Actually, it's good when a country imports more than it exports."

This claim seems like it warrants at least some qualifying statements. Certainly you'd acknowledge where there are situations in which a trade imbalance is a net negative?

Generally I'd rather be in a trade surplus; I would want my country to sell more things than it buys. Energy, technology, machinery, services, whatever it is, if I'm selling, it means I have productive capability/advantage over others and thus more independence.