|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas?
Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally.
The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does).
|
On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusional to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, however bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas?
Do you think Trump purposefully made this move or do you think he was unaware of the situation and how to handle it?
I believe this issue is not so much about China being a little pissed of that he talked to Taiwan. But entirely about him not knowing what he is doing and that it is waiting for something actually critical and damaging to happen.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does).
I think it disingenuous to defend the policy itself as if it's something so good that a deviation from it is simply unthinkable. Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo.
On December 04 2016 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusional to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, however bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do you think Trump purposefully made this move or do you think he was unaware of the situation and how to handle it? I believe this issue is not so much about China being a little pissed of that he talked to Taiwan. But entirely about him not knowing what he is doing and that it is waiting for something actually critical and damaging to happen.
I absolutely think he didn't think too much about it all. However, I would not be surprised if he simply chose to roll with it and take a more pro-Taiwan stance to follow up on this.
My problem is that the criticisms seem to center not on Trump and his recklessness, but on the One China policy and Trump's perceived deviation from it. This agenda pushing in the name of defeating Trump is a major hallmark of this entire election season.
|
On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does).
Trump doesn't so much need advisors who inform him constantly. He needs a babysitter who is always within earshot because he doesn't ask his advisors what to do before he starts tweeting the moment he hangs up the phone.
|
On December 04 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does). I think it disingenuous to defend the policy itself as if it's something so good that a deviation from it is simply unthinkable. Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo. Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusional to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, however bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do you think Trump purposefully made this move or do you think he was unaware of the situation and how to handle it? I believe this issue is not so much about China being a little pissed of that he talked to Taiwan. But entirely about him not knowing what he is doing and that it is waiting for something actually critical and damaging to happen. I absolutely think he didn't think too much about it all. However, I would not be surprised if he simply chose to roll with it and take a more pro-Taiwan stance to follow up on this. My problem is that the criticisms seem to center not on Trump and his recklessness, but on the One China policy and Trump's perceived deviation from it. This agenda pushing in the name of defeating Trump is a major hallmark of this entire election season.
Because a questionable status quo may well be preferable to the reckless flailing about of a President-elect who does not know what he is doing.
If this was part of a big policy shift by the Trump administration that is one thing. But that is far from certain, esp when he is not even in office yet.
Edit:So the US should let their major geopolitical policy be decided by 'Damn I made a gaff, better roll with it and go pro-Taiwan now'.
Do you see the horrible situations this can create and the long term damage it can do to US relations?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 04 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does). I think it disingenuous to defend the policy itself as if it's something so good that a deviation from it is simply unthinkable. Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo. Because a questionable status quo may well be preferable to the reckless flailing about of a President-elect who does not know what he is doing. If this was part of a big policy shift by the Trump administration that is one thing. But that is far from certain, esp when he is not even in office yet.
Again, do you think the policy is of such unquestionable wisdom that no one should deviate from it?
If not, then the defense of the policy rather than an attack on Trump's recklessness is unwarranted.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 04 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does). I think it disingenuous to defend the policy itself as if it's something so good that a deviation from it is simply unthinkable. Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo. On December 04 2016 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusional to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, however bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do you think Trump purposefully made this move or do you think he was unaware of the situation and how to handle it? I believe this issue is not so much about China being a little pissed of that he talked to Taiwan. But entirely about him not knowing what he is doing and that it is waiting for something actually critical and damaging to happen. I absolutely think he didn't think too much about it all. However, I would not be surprised if he simply chose to roll with it and take a more pro-Taiwan stance to follow up on this. My problem is that the criticisms seem to center not on Trump and his recklessness, but on the One China policy and Trump's perceived deviation from it. This agenda pushing in the name of defeating Trump is a major hallmark of this entire election season. Edit:So the US should let their major geopolitical policy be decided by 'Damn I made a gaff, better roll with it and go pro-Taiwan now'. Do you see the horrible situations this can create and the long term damage it can do to US relations?
I never said it would be that way. Just that the way these situations develop, it could lead that way in a chain reaction.
Just look what a minor praise of Putin's "strong leader" quality turned into after a lot of back and forth. Or Biden's "perfectly comfortable with gay marriage" comment a few years ago, for a non FP example.
|
On December 04 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:
"Anti-intellectualism" exists, although on top of that there is absolutely a tendency for people who disagree with an obviously agenda-driven "expert" class to also be labeled as anti-intellectual.
The same argument has been made here, often enough, about the use of the term "racism" in a similar manner.
I'd certainly expect that (second half of first sentence) to happen some; there's always some people who misuse terms, and apply them overbroadly or overnarrowly.
though sound critiques of experts don't seem to often get the anti-intellectualism claim, at least from what I've seen; but I may've missed them.
and on the other topic, I'm not seeing what you're seeing;
"Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo."
mostly I'm just seeing a critique of trumps recklessness. I'm not seeing a defense of the policy because it's status quo; i'm seeing a defense of the policy because it's an understandable, longstanding, well thought-out policy (and some people might not know the basis for the policy, so it's explained); and if it's to be changed, it should be changed with a goal and plan in mind.
|
On December 03 2016 15:24 Falling wrote:Okay for those of you interested in that psychology study talked about by Dr Peterson, I don't have the actual study, but I do have him talking about the methodology behind the study and its findings. + Show Spoiler +Starts at 37:00 or so. Peterson is from the University of Toronto, and he is speaking with Gad Saad of John Molson School of Business.
Just today I read an interesting article in the German speaking dasmagazin.ch where they concentrate on the research of Dr. Michal Kosinski about psychometrie and big data.
In short he used data available freely on the internet for example facebook likes to classify people according to 5 different metrics. The so-called OCEAN model:
Openness - How open you are to new experiences (research, development,...)
Conscientiousness - How much you like order and planning in your life
Extraversion - How much you enjoy time spent with others
Agreeableness - How high you value the needs of others (society, community) compared to your own needs
Neuroticism - How much you tend to worry
This research is for example used by Cambridge Analytics to help political parties/organisations with their campaigns. Here is a talk of their CEO at Concordia 2016 + Show Spoiler +.
What I find really interesting is how well this seems to work: This company supported the Brexit "leave.eu" campaign of Michael Farage, the primaries campaign of Senator Ted Cruz and afterwards the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.
For me it's frightening how people don't care about the data they leave on the internet and how this information is already used for sophisticated manipulation. Data protection/data austerity is massively undervalued.
|
On December 04 2016 03:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does). I think it disingenuous to defend the policy itself as if it's something so good that a deviation from it is simply unthinkable. Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo. Because a questionable status quo may well be preferable to the reckless flailing about of a President-elect who does not know what he is doing. If this was part of a big policy shift by the Trump administration that is one thing. But that is far from certain, esp when he is not even in office yet. Again, do you think the policy is of such unquestionable wisdom that no one should deviate from it? If not, then the defense of the policy rather than an attack on Trump's recklessness is unwarranted.
Is it really a defence of the policy? or is it an explanation of the policy to show why Trump actually made a gaff?
I cant talk for other people or the news. For me its not about defending the policy, It might be time to change it but the problem is that this is most likely an gaff and shows one of the issues with Trump.
Diplomacy is a very subtle game and Trump needs to learn a LOT on that front. (and history would seem to indicate that is not likely.).
|
On December 04 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:58 ChristianS wrote:On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Do we think Trump deviated from that commitment intentionally? It certainly seems like he just barged onto the dance floor and just stepped on someone's toe accidentally. The tweet I saw about it being either a big gaffe, or the biggest change in US foreign policy toward China since Nixon seemed spot on. If it's intentional, let's talk about whether it's a good change in policy. If not, let's talk about how Trump's advisers failed to inform him how significant this would be, and how many more toes Trump will step on before he learns the steps of this dance (if he ever does). I think it disingenuous to defend the policy itself as if it's something so good that a deviation from it is simply unthinkable. Instead of critiquing Trump's general recklessness in decision making I see an implicit defense of a questionable policy on the grounds that it's the status quo.
But it's not even about defending the policy. It's just noting that it has been the policy for 40 years now. Trump is gonna be president, so he can deviate from that policy if he wants to, but it doesn't really look like he made a deliberate decision to piss off China because he doesn't want to support the One China policy any more. He just didn't realize that talking with a foreign leader could cause this kind of uproar.
To go back to what we were talking about a few pages ago, if Obama wanted to signal minor disrespect for Ukraine sovereignty, saying "the Ukraine" would be a decent way to do it. If he wanted to implicate Poland in responsibility for WW2 death camps, saying "Polish death camps" wasn't a gaffe. But he didn't want to signal those things, so when he did so he did it accidentally. That's a mistake.
If it turns out Trump is intentionally antagonizing China because he wants to challenge One China policy, this is an effective way to do it. But for the moment it seems far more likely he just didn't know that he was doing it. That's a mistake.
|
On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the statu quo. The problem is that the statu quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the statu quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Just like 1789, am I right?
|
On December 04 2016 03:41 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the statu quo. The problem is that the statu quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the statu quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse. Just like 1789, am I right?
So you think the situation is bad enough to deserve an a-la-1789 scenario? Personally, i'd rather avoid a bloodbath and decades of turmoil.
|
On December 04 2016 03:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 03:41 Incognoto wrote:On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the statu quo. The problem is that the statu quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the statu quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse. Just like 1789, am I right? So you think the situation is bad enough to deserve an a-la-1789 scenario? Personally, i'd rather avoid a bloodbath and decades of turmoil.
I don't think so either, I'm just pointing out that often when you get rid of the status quo, you need some degree of chaos. A guess a less extreme example would be the civil rights movement.
|
Canada11343 Posts
@Banaora
Yes, it's also called Big Five personality traits or the five factor model, which is the same model that Dr Peterson's student was using for her master's thesis.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The French Revolution of 1789 was truly an experiment in remaking social fabric via certain thought processes of the enlightenment. It was a giant leap into liberal theory of the time. It was a true revolution that most institutions of France were challenged.
In contrast the American revolution was rather conservative, preserving all of English common law, local institutions, and local elites while swapping out the agents of the British crown with locally elected administration.
Trump won't bring all that much new ideas. "Make America Great Again" is reactionary in its tone. The direction to return to a proven, older order of the past where "America was great" exudes nostalgia. Whether or not that old order plays well with the new reality is a different matter. Compared to the completely unproven social model of French Revolution, Trump's shakeup is more dependent on delusion and lack of competence.
|
On December 04 2016 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
Again, do you think the policy is of such unquestionable wisdom that no one should deviate from it?
If not, then the defense of the policy rather than an attack on Trump's recklessness is unwarranted.
The way I view the US stance toward the One China Policy is something along the lines of "we don't like the status quo, but insofar as China is a major power and destabilization of the region could have unpredicted ramifications, it's better not to rock the boat until we have a better plan for how things are going to play out". Put differently, the China situation is akin to a geopolitical time bomb. You can't leave the bomb there and eventually have to do something about it, but that doesn't mean kicking the bomb is a good idea.
In this instance, Trump has basically rocked the boat without a plan. I don't think deviation from the policy is necessarily bad in and of itself, but deviation without any prior planning is definitely very bad.
|
Weeks before President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial phone call with Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, a businesswoman claiming to be associated with his conglomerate made inquiries about a major investment in building luxury hotels as part of the island’s new airport development.
The woman, known only as Ms Chen arrived from the US in September to meet the mayor of Taoyuan, Cheng Wen-tsan, one of the senior politicians involved in the Aerotropolis project, a large urban development being planned around the renovation of Taiwan’s main airport, Taoyuan International.
“She said she was associated with the Trump corporation and she would like to propose a possible investment project in the future, especially hotels,” said an official familiar with the project, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official described the talks, conducted in both English and Mandarin, as a routine meeting with a potential investor. It took place in Taoyuan city hall, on the outskirts of the capital, Taipei, and lasted 15-20 minutes. Chen had not been in touch since.
“One thing quite sure from her side was that she would like to bring the Trump corporation here to build the hotel,” said the official, who did not know if Chen had a Trump Organization business card.
The claims about Chen’s visit, which were confirmed by the mayor’s spokesman and the Aerotropolis corporation, add to growing concerns about potential conflicts of interest between Trump’s business empire and US foreign policy.
Although the president-elect has confirmed he will leave his conglomerate once he takes office, the decision to turn over the business to his children has raised fears that the family’s financial ties with foreign players could shade US policy.
The Aerotropolis project is in the early stages of planning, with consultations continuing with residents who live close to the airport. The area marked out for development is largely made up of fields and small settlements. Building contracts are not expected to be granted for at least two years.
Source
|
On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas?
Yes, it's pretty much the basis of US/China normalisation in the 70's and you can't just unilaterally start to negotiate with Taiwan. If the US wants to influence the Chinese-Taiwanese relationship they need to talk to China.
|
On December 04 2016 06:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good."
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse.
Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? Yes, it's pretty much the basis of US/China normalisation in the 70's and you can't just unilaterally start to negotiate with Taiwan. If the US wants to influence the Chinese-Taiwanese relationship they need to talk to China.
Based on China's response, this isn't as big of a deal as corporate media is making it out to be.
China's Foreign Ministry said it had lodged "stern representations" with what it called the "relevant U.S. side", urging the careful handling of the Taiwan issue to avoid any unnecessary disturbances in ties.
"The one China principle is the political basis of the China-U.S. relationship," it said.
The wording implied the protest had gone to the Trump camp, but the ministry provided no explanation.
Speaking earlier, hours after Friday's telephone call, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi pointedly blamed Taiwan for the exchange, rather than Trump, a billionaire businessman with little foreign policy experience.
"This is just the Taiwan side engaging in a petty action, and cannot change the 'one China' structure already formed by the international community," Wang said at an academic forum in Beijing, China's Foreign Ministry quoted him as saying.
"I believe that it won't change the longstanding 'one China' policy of the United States government."
In comments at the same forum, Wang noted how quickly President Xi Jinping and Trump had spoken by telephone after Trump's victory, and that Trump had praised China as a great country.
Wang said that exchange had sent "a very positive signal about the future development of Sino-U.S. relations", according to the ministry's website. Taiwan was not mentioned in that call, according to an official Chinese transcript.
Source
I don't know what other metric to go by besides China's reaction, but it's certainly less dramatic than their response to Obama selling Taiwan weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
