EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1147
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18330 Posts
On February 26 2019 04:00 xDaunt wrote: No, it's not just nonsense about semantics. MoUs have no effect. They are merely expressions of general intent. MoU's aren't designed to serve as actual agreements because they lack the detail that actual agreements have. Trump knows this, which is why he wants get past the MoU and get an actual agreement in place. A full fledged trade agreement is obviously the end goal here. But yelling that you should skip the MoU because it's meaningless is about as useful as me yelling that I don't want to walk home. Unless blink finishes researching in my version of this world, I'm stuck walking home: it's a means to an end: I have to place one foot in front of the other and approach my goal. In this case the MoU is a step to establishing common goals and trust in the other party to work towards them. A necessary step in the long and slow process of working out a trade agreement. And without establishing trust and common goals, it'll just be that much harder to reach any kind of agreement. | ||
KwarK
United States44127 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
Was this a treats, a MoU or even weaker? Because I recall this was a great success, and NK was basically entirely disarmed hours later, and Kim Jong Un a nice guy anyway and Donald a master negotiator. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
It's just another showing of the chaos in the WH, like pulling out of Syria without informing and contemplating with a single general. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
But hey maybe it's just that we don't like Trump. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 26 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote: Sent is correct on all of these points. There's a huge difference between an MoU and an actual treaty. Likewise, withdrawals from, and renegotiations of, treaties aren't the same as breaking treaties. I'm not entirely sure why so many of you are criticizing Trump for not knowing what he is doing (which he clearly does) when you don't understand these basic tenets of foreign policy. By that logic why aren't you criticising Trump when multiple (read: dozens and dozens and dozens) foreign politics experts have criticised Trump's handling of foreign policy? It's extraordinarily low hanging fruit to lean on the expertise of a forum poster on a matter such as this one. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 26 2019 05:08 iamthedave wrote: By that logic why aren't you criticising Trump when multiple (read: dozens and dozens and dozens) foreign politics experts have criticised Trump's handling of foreign policy? It's extraordinarily low hanging fruit to lean on the expertise of a forum poster on a matter such as this one. There's a huge difference between criticizing someone over a substantive policy difference and criticizing someone over something petty that betrays glaring ignorance on the topic. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 26 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote: There's a huge difference between criticizing someone over a substantive policy difference and criticizing someone over something petty that betrays glaring ignorance on the topic. Why was Lighthizer doing it then? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
We weren't talking about Lighthizer. We were talking about other posters in here. As for Lighthizer, I have no idea what he thought it necessary to open his mouth, especially given that Trump was right. Regardless, at the end, he and Trump are on the same page, so it doesn't really matter. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 26 2019 06:19 xDaunt wrote: We weren't talking about Lighthizer. We were talking about other posters in here. As for Lighthizer, I have no idea what he thought it necessary to open his mouth, especially given that Trump was right. Regardless, at the end, he and Trump are on the same page, so it doesn't really matter. Do you want us to go through the video together? First Lighthizer corrects him that the plan isn't to go further than the MoU when Trump says he wants to go further. Trump, having been corrected, doubles down that he doesn't just want the MoU, and Lighthizer is so preoccupied with not having that idea out there that he goes "We'll stop calling it a MoU, we'll call it something else to make you happy" (I'm paraphrasing). This is not the discourse of two people who agree, nor is it the discourse of someone who thinks that this point is petty. If you want that narrative out there to attack forum posters with, you're going to need a better explanation for Lighthizer than "we weren't talking about him". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 26 2019 04:16 KwarK wrote: Meanwhile the balance of trade deficit with China, the defining figure in his economic vision for America, continues to rise. I bet he wishes he’d promised to increase it now. If the trade deficit with China doesnt go down, trump's efforts w/r/t China are a failure. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 26 2019 06:27 Nebuchad wrote: Do you want us to go through the video together? First Lighthizer corrects him that the plan isn't to go further than the MoU when Trump says he wants to go further. Trump, having been corrected, doubles down that he doesn't just want the MoU, and Lighthizer is so preoccupied with not having that idea out there that he goes "We'll stop calling it a MoU, we'll call it something else to make you happy" (I'm paraphrasing). This is not the discourse of two people who agree, nor is it the discourse of someone who thinks that this point is petty. If you want that narrative out there to attack forum posters with, you're going to need a better explanation for Lighthizer than "we weren't talking about him". First off, I was asked about who I was referring to in my posts, and it is abundantly clear that I was not talking about Lighthizer. It's pretty obvious that I was talking all of the posters who don't know what an MoU is or otherwise fail to appreciate what Trump is arguing with Lighthizer about. So get rid of your misplaced revisionism and pay more attention to the conversation. Second, it's clear what happens between Trump and Lighthizer in the video. Regardless of whatever Lighthizer meant by using the term "MoU" (and he used it incorrectly, let's be very clear about that), Trump made it explicitly clear that he wanted an actual deal with the Chinese as opposed to a non-binding MoU. Trump pressed Lighthizer until Lighthizer agreed that that was going to be result of the negotiations. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 26 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote: First off, I was asked about who I was referring to in my posts, and it is abundantly clear that I was not talking about Lighthizer. It's pretty obvious that I was talking all of the posters who don't know what an MoU is or otherwise fail to appreciate what Trump is arguing with Lighthizer about. So get rid of your misplaced revisionism and pay more attention to the conversation. Second, it's clear what happens between Trump and Lighthizer in the video. Regardless of whatever Lighthizer meant by using the term "MoU" (and he used it incorrectly, let's be very clear about that), Trump made it explicitly clear that he wanted an actual deal with the Chinese as opposed to a non-binding MoU. Trump pressed Lighthizer until Lighthizer agreed that that was going to be result of the negotiations. If only he'd thought to press the Chinese until they agreed that would be the result of the negotiations instead of arguing with his own guys. However you twist it, this looks like team Trump isn't talking to each other and getting their terms straight. It's kind of ridiculous for the President of the United States to be arguing with his official while the Chinese official is sitting there, probably wondering WTF he is witnessing. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 26 2019 06:56 iamthedave wrote: If only he'd thought to press the Chinese until they agreed that would be the result of the negotiations instead of arguing with his own guys. However you twist it, this looks like team Trump isn't talking to each other and getting their terms straight. It's kind of ridiculous for the President of the United States to be arguing with his official while the Chinese official is sitting there, probably wondering WTF he is witnessing. Again, that's on Lighthizer for opening his mouth. Contradicting the president openly in a press conference is stupid by any definition. As for the Chinese, I'm sure that they're amused, but they don't really care. Their goal is to ward off additional sanctions/tariffs for as long as possible, which they seem to be succeeding in doing. The real question is how much progress has there been on an actual deal. Trump has certainly been successful in engaging the Chinese (and it's unquestionably the right thing to do), but he does need to get a deal out of this, or he's going to have to drop the hammer on the Chinese for their unfair trade practices. There's no middle ground. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 26 2019 07:07 Plansix wrote: I’m waiting to see what hammer dropping on China looks like. Maybe Trump screws over the farming industry more than he already has. You don’t actually think that China is escaping the trade war unscathed, do you? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 26 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote: First off, I was asked about who I was referring to in my posts, and it is abundantly clear that I was not talking about Lighthizer. It's pretty obvious that I was talking all of the posters who don't know what an MoU is or otherwise fail to appreciate what Trump is arguing with Lighthizer about. So get rid of your misplaced revisionism and pay more attention to the conversation. Second, it's clear what happens between Trump and Lighthizer in the video. Regardless of whatever Lighthizer meant by using the term "MoU" (and he used it incorrectly, let's be very clear about that), Trump made it explicitly clear that he wanted an actual deal with the Chinese as opposed to a non-binding MoU. Trump pressed Lighthizer until Lighthizer agreed that that was going to be result of the negotiations. Yeah, you were talking about something else, but I didn't find that particular conversation interesting and I had nothing to add to it. Instead I was interested in your take on Lighthizer since his behavior contradicts your interpretation that this is all petty and we're making a fuss of it because we hate Trump. Which is why I asked about Lighthizer, changing the topic of the conversation. Are you okay? It's clear what happens in the video but it's not clear in the way you describe. Trump doesn't press Lighthizer until Lighthizer "agrees that that was going to be the result of the negotiations", he presses him until Lighthizer changes the name of the agreement they reached. The agreement stays the same, it just has a different name so that Trump shuts up about it. To an ignorant forum poster like me, it looks like Lighthizer is trying to salvage the agreement he got. Like you said (and is obvious to everyone here), it looks really bad when he disagrees with Trump in public, so he needs to have a good reason to do it, not only once but twice. The only good reason I can see is that Trump's rhetoric of "going further than the MoU" is undermining the discussions they had in a massive way. | ||
| ||
