71–80 of 361 posts
One thing that I really like about the Trump administration is that finally the WH has decided to act against the systemic threat posed by China. Can someone who is well versed in politics shed some light on if this is a trump specific phenonemon or had there been a sea change and the dems are now on board too ?
With a shoot self in foot reaction...
I thought that "blacklist" was deprecated and that "denylist" or "blocklist" were appropriate usages? https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#letter-B
One thing that I really like about the Trump administration is that finally the WH has decided to act against the systemic threat posed by China. Can someone who is well versed in politics shed some light on if this is a trump specific phenonemon or had there been a sea change and the dems are now on board too ?
You could argue these things hurt China more than the US, and while that may be true, it's also true that China arguably has a higher "pain tolerance" than the United States. If the economy softens, Trump's reelection chances evaporate. Meanwhile Xi could probably run the Chinese economy into the ground and hold onto power.
Have any other candidates expressed support for hardline Chinese policies? Trump easily has 4 more years, but I'm not sure who can successfully keep this going after that. I haven't paid much attention to the field, but I haven't seen any news on anyone else making statements on the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, you know, look at the stock market to see if that's true, instead of just believing Trump's tweets about it...
You should probably look yourself. From what I've been reading from financial postings, the Trump administration has done many good things for the stock market (for the people however is a different story) Usually whoever keeps the economy going and doesn't harm it in anyway gets re-elected for a second term.
Since his inauguration, the S&P500 is up 27.37%. At this point during Obama's first term, the S&P500 was up 65.19%. Apples and oranges, true. Let's look at the preceding 46 months before Trump's inauguration. Over that time, the market rose 26.69%.
Anyone pretending the market under Trump is anything but "normal" is participating in partisan hackery. Don't do it.
The US claims that this blacklisting is unrelated to trade negotiations, but one has to wonder -- why did we wait until now? And if this is just a way to create leverage during trade negotiations, how would the administration gracefully reverse these blacklisting actions in exchange for something unrelated without it being patently clear that this was never about human rights?
> how would the administration gracefully reverse these blacklisting actions Why should they reverse these?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TPP was bad idea, it was so anti-worker I am surprised that a Democrat is supporting it. I do not have to say about the settlement system of TPP. It was stupid, literally having parallel legal system outside of all the current legal system. TPP died for good reasons because it for technocrats by technocrats.
Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
- would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america
- would have moved jobs to vietnam (lower min. wage than china) instead of back to US, putting downward wage pressure on US manufacturing workers
- protect more investments in offshoring than NAFTA does (read: incentivize offshoring) in both manufacturing and services
Actual ban document.
The art of caption… > [..] some of China’s top artificial intelligence startups, punishing Beijing for its treatment of Muslim minorities [..] > The decision, which drew a sharp rebuke from Beijing, targets 20 Chinese public security bureaus and eight companies including video surveillance firm Hikvision, as well as leaders in facial recognition technology SenseTime Group Ltd and Megvii Technology Ltd. So Chinese pal…
Human rights? How about the cruel family/child separation camps at our southern border?
The families should not have been separated but how else is the US supposed to handle a surge of asylum seekers? The camps seem lightweight and able to grow or shrink as needed. I might even agree with just allowing them all in to wait for asylum, it's the US' failure to accommodate afterall.
There's no easy answer for how to handle large numbers of asylum seekers, but intentionally separating families as a way to inflict pain and deter further immigrants is a horrific policy.