|
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 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 06:21 Nyxisto 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? 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. Show nested quote +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.
SourceI 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.
Well I guess they've already internalised the 'don't take Trump seriously' doctrine by putting this on Taiwan. It's the best adjustment we can hope for on the international stage I guess. Ideologically speaking supporting Taiwan's political sovereignty is definitely a bigger issue than a few arms deals. What are they gonna do, invade the People's Republic?
|
On December 04 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2016 06:21 Nyxisto 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? 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.
SourceI 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. Well I guess they've already internalised the 'don't take Trump seriously' doctrine by putting this on Taiwan. It's the best adjustment we can hope for on the international stage I guess. Ideologically speaking supporting Taiwan's political sovereignty is definitely a bigger issue than a few arms deals. What are they gonna do, invade the People's Republic?
The same word games mean that they haven't ruled it out. Maybe a madman at the helm is just what the US needs to get foreign governments to try to reach out to reasonable US policy makers, maybe it starts WWIII, we'll see.
Point being that corporate media made this into a way bigger deal than it actually is and it betrays their bias when they act as if China was fine with the weapons deals but this was way over the line. I don't blame you personally, but they convinced you of the same thing.
|
Could you stop acting like you have obtained transcendent truth and repeat 'corporate media' as if it constitutes an argument? You sound like some kind of cult member. Unpredictable behaviour in foreign policy is dangerous, that's not some invention of the corporate media but a basic principle of diplomacy.
|
On December 04 2016 07:41 Nyxisto wrote:
Could you stop acting like you have obtained transcendent truth and repeat 'corporate media' as if it constitutes an argument? You sound like some kind of cult member. Unpredictable behaviour in foreign policy is dangerous, that's not some invention of the corporate media but a basic principle of diplomacy.
I'm not saying they invented it, I'm saying they overreacted and didn't place the weapons deals in appropriate context.
|
On December 04 2016 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote:On December 04 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2016 06:21 Nyxisto 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? 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.
SourceI 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. Well I guess they've already internalised the 'don't take Trump seriously' doctrine by putting this on Taiwan. It's the best adjustment we can hope for on the international stage I guess. Ideologically speaking supporting Taiwan's political sovereignty is definitely a bigger issue than a few arms deals. What are they gonna do, invade the People's Republic? The same word games mean that they haven't ruled it out. Maybe a madman at the helm is just what the US needs to get foreign governments to try to reach out to reasonable US policy makers, maybe it starts WWIII, we'll see. Point being that corporate media made this into a way bigger deal than it actually is and it betrays their bias when they act as if China was fine with the weapons deals but this was way over the line. I don't blame you personally, but they convinced you of the same thing.
all media oversells everything; that's nothing new.
their primary bias is toward selling papers; which is done by sensationalizing things, which has been known about for aaaaaages.
we don't yet know how big of a deal this is; as leaders, especially in less free countries, may not be open about their responses to things.
I wouldn't expect it to be a humonginormous thing or anything; but it's not a total nothing either.
It's also not really a thing for corporate media specifically, so much as all media in general.
|
It is a significant deal as far as symbolic statements from a president-elect go (and this includes his later reaction on twitter), and no, "ze corporate media" did not overreact. Obviously, we'll have to see how the PRC takes the incident into account (beyond their immediate blaming of Taiwan), but it has undoubtedly been seen by them as a negative sign, to be interpreted as incompetence/unpredictability from Trump and/or possibly as a first step in a strategic shift from the US (wanted by some FP hawks in conservative circles). Three reads on the issue: link 1, link 2, link 3. See also these short comments.
|
On December 04 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 06:21 Nyxisto 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? 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. Show nested quote +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.
SourceI 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.
I don't know how you're reading that response from China to be nbd. They warned Trump this goes against the longstanding One China policy, and indicated clearly that if he continues to go against the policy it will damage US-China relations, which are the basis of peace in the region. Then Trump backed off on Twitter saying Taiwan called him, not the other way around, as if to say "blame them, not me!" Chinese aggression toward Taiwan is, of course, what this whole system is designed to prevent.
But again, the bigger issue to me is that it doesn't seem to be consistent, well-planned, or even intentional on Trump's part. When Obama sold weapons to Taiwan that pissed off China, of course, but it was a planned foreign policy that weighed the costs in loss of Chinese trust and diplomatic smoothness against the benefits in Taiwan defensive capabilities (plus we get paid). You can agree or disagree, but it's an intentional foreign policy which weighs the costs and benefits.
Trump's phone call doesn't get us paid, doesn't secure Taiwan, and doesn't have any other obvious payoff. Maybe the idea is to project strength by no longer kowtowing to their supposed ownership of Taiwan, but that's pretty severely undercut by the defense on Twitter, which doesn't reaffirm the signal that Taiwan is its own sovereign state, but instead tries to pass blame and backpedal.
|
I'm pretty sure it boils down to Taiwan seeing an opportunity to embarrass China by calling a guy in a gold tower who couldn't find Taiwan on a map, and as always it worked because Trump speaks before he thinks. If this continues the American institutions really need to figure out how they control a person that is fundamentally not qualified to hold the office he has been put in.
|
Let's put aside this issue of whether Trump's telephone chat with the Taiwanese president was intentional or not (I think it was) and focus on the wisdom of the chat itself. Every article that I read on this that thinks that Trump committed a major faux pas is hilariously backwards in its thinking. This isn't the 1970s anymore. The same conditions that gave rise to America's strict adherence to the One China Policy no longer exist. Hell, the same is true of many of America's current international commitments and relationships. With regards to China in particular, America very much should looking to change the dynamics of the current Chinese-American diplomatic relationship so as to force additional concessions from Beijing on things like trade. I'm glad that a shot was fired across the Chinese bow, and I hope that Trump continues down this course of shaking things up.
|
Undermining China's stability by doing this stuff will probably not prompt a nice reaction in form of improved trade relations, China is not really going to reward Trump for embarrassing them on the international stage. You are right that this isn't the 70's any more, which also means that the US isn't the sole economic superpower around either.
It's a pretty good way of pushing China into alliances with Russia and the emerging economies, cancelling TPP is another move that will enable China to step into the Pacific Rim economy. If you want to contest China literally nothing of this makes sense.
|
On December 04 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Undermining China's stability by doing this stuff will probably not prompt a nice reaction in form of improved trade relations, China is not really going to reward Trump for embarrassing them on the international stage. You are right that this isn't the 70's any more, which also means that the US isn't the sole economic superpower around either.
It's a pretty good way of pushing China into alliances with Russia and the emerging economies, cancelling TPP is another move that will enable China to step into the Pacific Rim economy. If you want to contest China literally nothing of this makes sense.
Are you kidding? The current status quo policies are already resulting in China aligning with Russia and other countries in the area. Those policies aren't working.
|
On December 04 2016 13:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Undermining China's stability by doing this stuff will probably not prompt a nice reaction in form of improved trade relations, China is not really going to reward Trump for embarrassing them on the international stage. You are right that this isn't the 70's any more, which also means that the US isn't the sole economic superpower around either.
It's a pretty good way of pushing China into alliances with Russia and the emerging economies, cancelling TPP is another move that will enable China to step into the Pacific Rim economy. If you want to contest China literally nothing of this makes sense. Are you kidding? The current status quo policies are already resulting in China aligning with Russia and other countries in the area. Those policies aren't working.
"status quo" policies weren't very status quo at all, Obama after all started the pivot to Asia which is a fairly new direction in US policies. China until now has actually stayed pretty neutral and pragmatic on the international stage, obviously they've more in common with Russia than with the US or the EU, but the Trump behaviour isn't helping, and his weakness and lack of confidence in NATO and US military partners in Asia are only going to embolden China to move away faster.
You haven't responded to Trump's stance on TPP which exacted precisely to combat China's influence in the region, why would Trump drop out of it if he wants to challenge China?
|
The Chinese probably aren't really that offended, they know Trump is a know nothing. Just gives them an excuse to lodge a complaint.
I'm also kinda confused as to where this confidence in Trump's savy in FP comes from to consciously pull off such a thing that XDaunt attributes to him.
|
On December 04 2016 13:49 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On December 04 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Undermining China's stability by doing this stuff will probably not prompt a nice reaction in form of improved trade relations, China is not really going to reward Trump for embarrassing them on the international stage. You are right that this isn't the 70's any more, which also means that the US isn't the sole economic superpower around either.
It's a pretty good way of pushing China into alliances with Russia and the emerging economies, cancelling TPP is another move that will enable China to step into the Pacific Rim economy. If you want to contest China literally nothing of this makes sense. Are you kidding? The current status quo policies are already resulting in China aligning with Russia and other countries in the area. Those policies aren't working. "status quo" policies weren't very status quo at all, Obama after all started the pivot to Asia which is a fairly new direction in US policies. China until now has actually stayed pretty neutral and pragmatic on the international stage, obviously they've more in common with Russia than with the US or the EU, but the Trump behaviour isn't helping, and his weakness and lack of confidence in NATO and US military partners in Asia are only going to embolden China to move away faster.
Obama's aborted Asian Pivot is worthy of a separate rant and it's own special disdain.
You haven't responded to Trump's stance on TPP which exacted precisely to combat China's influence in the region, why would Trump drop out of it if he wants to challenge China?
The TPP as currently constituted is the wrong vehicle for that objective. Maximal preservation of the American economy and its industrial base is a higher priority,
|
On December 04 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Let's put aside this issue of whether Trump's telephone chat with the Taiwanese president was intentional or not (I think it was) and focus on the wisdom of the chat itself. Every article that I read on this that thinks that Trump committed a major faux pas is hilariously backwards in its thinking. This isn't the 1970s anymore. The same conditions that gave rise to America's strict adherence to the One China Policy no longer exist. Hell, the same is true of many of America's current international commitments and relationships. With regards to China in particular, America very much should looking to change the dynamics of the current Chinese-American diplomatic relationship so as to force additional concessions from Beijing on things like trade. I'm glad that a shot was fired across the Chinese bow, and I hope that Trump continues down this course of shaking things up.
Of course it wasn't intentional. His camps reaction was to say "well they called us." Why get defensive? Funnily enough, even that was a lie. Taiwanese official says both sides agrees on the call.
|
On December 04 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Let's put aside this issue of whether Trump's telephone chat with the Taiwanese president was intentional or not (I think it was) and focus on the wisdom of the chat itself. Every article that I read on this that thinks that Trump committed a major faux pas is hilariously backwards in its thinking. This isn't the 1970s anymore. The same conditions that gave rise to America's strict adherence to the One China Policy no longer exist. Hell, the same is true of many of America's current international commitments and relationships. With regards to China in particular, America very much should looking to change the dynamics of the current Chinese-American diplomatic relationship so as to force additional concessions from Beijing on things like trade. I'm glad that a shot was fired across the Chinese bow, and I hope that Trump continues down this course of shaking things up.
A couple nitpicks: the conditions that gave rise to the One China policy were unstable diplomatic ties between China and other surrounding nations such that peace was difficult to maintain, and those conditions haven't gone away, especially in Taiwan. As for this earningbus concessions from China on trade, it's not clear how pissing them off earns us concessions on anything. If we'd scared them somehow maybe they'd want to appease us, but we didn't. We just insulted them. Insulting someone does not usually make them more eager to give you things. And trade concessions would usually involve us getting more stuff from them for less money, which goes against Trump's protectionist message anyway.
If you want to assume Trump actually has a master plan, I think a more plausible one based on his prior rhetoric is that he's trying to extract concessions from Taiwan. Accepting the call upsets the status quo which has been keeping Taiwan safe. Emphasizing afterwards that Taiwan called him directs China's anger more at Taiwan than him. Then bringing up our weapons sales emphasizes our role in ensuring Taiwan's ability to defend itself. Before long Taiwan is more scared than ever and willing to pay through the nose for our defense. Maybe then we can even get some money from China to sit it out once they actually invade Taiwan. And ta da, the only guys who would hold a grudge just got wiped off the map, and we got paid from both sides of the fight.
But still far more likely that Trump just refused to get intelligence briefings or discuss with the state department, and didn't realize a phone call from Taiwan was any different than a call from any other world leader. That's basically even the story he's given after the fact, by tweeting afterwards to the tune of "wtf all i did was pick up the phone nbd"
|
The concern isn't whether Trump suddenly pissed off the wrong people in Beijing, the concern is that China-US relations have some rather complicated implications for China-Taiwan relations, the ramifications of which aren't entirely clear. A lot of what defines the current status quo between China and Taiwan comes from what both sides believe the US's obligations to the other are, and if those become muddled, things could get messy very quickly. A breakdown in China-Taiwan relations that results in the US getting dragged into the mess is hardly good for US interests. The status quo needs to change, but the situation is one that is rather delicate, and requires an approach with more finesse, rather than a shot across the bow.
Now, if Trump wants to make clear to both sides that "whatever happens is your own mess to clean up", then that would be totally fine and certainly consistent with a greater America-first non-intervention foreign policy, but that's not what appears to be happening.
|
This thread became so sad. You guys trying to rationalize everything, still buying mainstream propaganda heavilly, bashing Trump and getting triggered at his every word/move, its so funny. Im enjoying it very much. You made this thread irrelevant.
Like this, everyone is outraged about Trump getting a call from Taiwan's president. Meanwhile, no one cares that Obama sold billions worth of weapons to Taiwan.
americanlookout.com
|
Recount:
Hasn't Trump been right on Stein? She grabbed the cash for recount, now not spending it (is she gonna keep it?)
Trump:
Trump will be the worst President still.. he has investemnts all around the globe and can shape his politics to maximise his fortune (even if his Consultantkids are controlling invests right now).
China:
With his plan to nuke NAFTA and TPP Trump literally gave up on US-leadership in the region, leaving it to the bigger player, china.
|
On December 04 2016 18:16 NukeD wrote:This thread became so sad. You guys trying to rationalize everything, still buying mainstream propaganda heavilly, bashing Trump and getting triggered at his every word/move, its so funny. Im enjoying it very much. You made this thread irrelevant. Like this, everyone is outraged about Trump getting a call from Taiwan's president. Meanwhile, no one cares that Obama sold billions worth of weapons to Taiwan. americanlookout.com
It's still better than r/politics on reddit, total joke over there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
