111–120 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to imagine a trade deal where sanctions against Chinese companies are upheld.
There is bipartisan support for the sanctions against Chinese SOE's. If POTUS were to waiver congress would act instead.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it was certainly anti american worker. here are some reasons why: - 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 htt…
Those aren’t necessarily bad for American workers. American manufacturing is high skill and involves precision equipment and manufacturing. What would have moved to Vietnam would have been more basic textiles and cnc/molding. Not sure why everyone glorifies basic manufacturing work like it’s the pinnacle of American labor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The polls got his popular vote margin correct. They also got the Democratic generic ballot correct in 2018.
Yes, but they completely missed the point of the data. Popular vote is relatively easy to predict, but Trump's campaign reached really deep into quiet conservatives who wouldn't vote otherwise. Those people are still not going to respond to polls, and since they live in low-population areas, they won't affect the popular vote much, but they hit the electoral college hard. The Dem voters in the primaries are a predict…
There's really not any evidence of this. In the rust belt states he won that turned the tide of the election, there was less turnout on both sides than previous elections. It's just that Democrat voting turnout was down even more than Republican voting turnout.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama and Trump administration demands are pretty much similar, but when China said NO, their responses are totally different. Trump is taking China to the mat which Obama did not (what ever the reason may be).
Obama's response to contain China was the TPP. It could have been more (or less--no way to know) effective than Trump's, Obama just didn't tweet about it.
Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP.
The next RCEP meeting is next month and it will be interesting to see what comes from 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?
Has this kind of strategy ever worked, in trade negotiations? It seems about as likely to be effective as a bombing campaign: It'll reduce the other side's effectiveness, but from a negotiation perspective it'll only cause them to dig in harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw
it was certainly anti american worker. here are some reasons why: - 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 htt…
Maybe we'd actually have cost-effective mass transit then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama's response to contain China was the TPP. It could have been more (or less--no way to know) effective than Trump's, Obama just didn't tweet about it.
Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it. Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP. The nex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think this is a coincidence that tension between the US and China raises every time Trump has political issues, just like Russia suddenly finds ennemies when Putin faces discontent, or that Turkey fights kurds 10 times stronger when Erdogan feels threatened. Pointing an ennemy is a great way to get away with many things, and works very well with all kinds of publics.
Obviously he wants to finish a deal w/ China before the elections so he can use it as an example. Not everything is a conspiracy. Not to mention he seems to permanently be in a state of political crisis with his adversaries in the US. They've been rattling the impeachment sword since he got in power.
But it's so much less fun to debate normalcy on HN.