←back to thread

China

(drewdevault.com)
847 points kick | 2 comments | 20 Nov 19 15:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mc32 ◴[20 Nov 19 16:11 UTC] No.21585110[source]▶
>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...”

So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar worker on America with the full complicity of Democrats, Republicans and most of Industry and even unions who didn’t oppose their cozy politicians. They all only saw starry dollar signs...

That’s where we are now. People have had enough. That’s why they put up with the guy no one likes because he’s willing to sever that codependent relationship.

Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...

replies(15): >>21585140 #>>21585157 #>>21585158 #>>21585323 #>>21585326 #>>21585341 #>>21585355 #>>21585449 #>>21585659 #>>21585680 #>>21586024 #>>21586078 #>>21586407 #>>21586727 #>>21587541 #
kick ◴[20 Nov 19 16:16 UTC] No.21585158[source]▶
The guy "no one likes" isn't innocent of China-worship. Guiltier than most. On Jinping: "He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a 'tough business.'"

Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-serving.

replies(10): >>21585320 #>>21585334 #>>21585391 #>>21585579 #>>21585611 #>>21585682 #>>21585703 #>>21586182 #>>21586941 #>>21588513 #
1. cabaalis ◴[20 Nov 19 16:36 UTC] No.21585391[source]▶
> and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-serving.

I think what we're seeing is a president who is at odds with the intelligence and diplomatic communities. It's truly testing the ideas of who's actually in charge.

The president assumes since he was elected and runs the executive branch that he has the final say on what will be done, and will go "off-script" in direct communications with other leaders to forward his agenda. The diplomats/intelligence have long-established precedents and procedures and want everyone, including the president, to not rock their boat.

When they are unable to work together, you will see these inconsistent decisions being made.

replies(1): >>21586990 #
2. jimbokun ◴[20 Nov 19 18:43 UTC] No.21586990[source]▶
Every US President has had the final say on what will be done, within the laws established by Congress. Including this President.

The problem is this President does not take into account the knowledge and capabilities of his intelligence and diplomatic communities, leading to stupid and naive decisions because the other heads of state are better informed and are better negotiators than him.

The intelligence and diplomatic communities are resources at his disposal he often chooses to ignore, so his screw ups are squarely his own with no one else to blame.