151–160 of 242 posts
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize Barack Obama fucked his wife right? Multiple times as they have 2 children. They probably talk dirty to each other when they're alone, like almost every other couple that exists. Should I now think less of Obama on the off chance he secretly spanks his wife in bed? My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a countr…
Why are you focusing on the vulgarity of the comments and not the fact that it would be non-concensual? > I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything. Those very heavil…
>Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
I'd rather not have a discussion on the ethics of gossip, as it would achieve absolutely nothing
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
The US must be viewed as an empire not just any country. If the empire sees something as a threat, it will find legal justifications for doing anything and it will absolutely make distinctions between local corporations or ones with too many ties to rival geopolitical states.
What does that have to do with empires? An empire rules over others, while any country will take care of its own.
Even if Kevin was to stay as TikTok CEO, he would have to leave his role as the COO of ByteDance. It’s totally understandable that he would want to leave given the reduced scope (no more head of a global company etc.). What seems suspicious however is why he would leave prior to an acquisition. As a CEO, that won’t reflect too good on his reputation... so there’s gotta be a tradeoff somewhere. Wait & see!
Previously there was still hope of selling TikTok globally.
More importantly it seems that Kevin/TikTok has no influence at all in the negotiations - it is purely between Bytedance and the relevant companies. This is probably the real reason he's leaving - he's in no position to shape the deal and it isn't looking good for him right now.
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.
If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them.
To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The joke is, kids/K-Pop fans communicated on TikTok to "prank" Trump by buying tickets to his rally and not showing up, making him look bad, and 10 days later Trump started roaring about the app. Of course Fox News, etc, claim "this Chinese app is subverting democracy", etc, but IMHO they were just using it to communicate...
I would hope the majority of people who are aware of international affairs do not think so lowly of the American people, so dimly of American government, and so shallowly of international politics, that they'd believe our president would (or be allowed to, for that matter) coordinate a government-wide subversion campaign with far-reaching consequences over a prank
But on being "allowed to", incredibly Trump is surrounded by Yes-Men, and it seems only fools dare accept his appointment, even fools whose reputation was great so far in their lives: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/10/john-kelly-le... . Of course there are a lot things Congress and Senate can do to block him (but Mitch McConnell is another Yes-men, what is it with conservatives and their lack of spines?), but in the example of TikTok, he used executive order to demand the stuff.
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.
If this is the case, why are they forcing them to sell specifically to a US company rather than any non-Chinese company with less draconian laws (EU, etc).
What I still don't understand is why European governments haven't made tit for tat measures against China in corporate law. Why do we allow free market access to chinese companies when they don't? Are we crazy? Why not give the keys to our factories/companies while we are at it?
I'm confused on why he's leaving. Is the political scope of the role too much for him and/or is this not the role he intended to occupy?
I would personally be afraid of being declared persona non grata by other companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.
It's easy to forget that China is still a developing nation (~$10k gdp/capita) and protectionist policy is designed to allow developing nations to strengthen domestic industries. If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. To build se…
I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.