America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

I do not think China should be permitted to attack Taiwan either. I see it very similar to Russia/Ukraine, where we pushed back hard when Russia attacked. We did not go to war with Russia over it, but I don't know all of the nuances between US-Ukraine and US-Taiwan relations so I can't say exactly what an appropriate response is.

The US didn't have the same sort of agreement with Ukraine as it does with Taiwan as far as I know. With Taiwan, we have the Taiwan Relations Act, which spells out how much support we need to give Taiwan.

Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is not really what was asked. What was asked was whether they were engaging in misinformation during the Obama admin. You were citing misinformation, I'm asking that we differentiate between China's actions pre-Trump and post-Trump.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you were asking. You asked whether it was now or before Trump that China was committing genocide, destabilizing the West, and not respecting the sovereignty of nations. The answer is, both. It's doing it now and it was doing it before Trump. The issue is that many of China's more recent issues are the result of Xi's policies and agenda. He took office in 2012 and sort of hit full stride about the time Trumpism became rampant. So, while Trump didn't do any favours with relations regarding China, China was well on its way to being a problem. I don't think that would've changed even if Clinton had been elected.

During COVID, the Trump admin actively attempted to suppress our case reporting. In his view, if we didn't report cases, we didn't have cases, or a pandemic.

Attempted yes, but didn't succeed because we have open media that is harder to suppress. We were all well aware that cases were being suppressed, some just chose to believe Trump's BS instead of what was actually going on. But if you wanted to know the truth, it wasn't terribly difficult to find it.

You were using COVID as a way to establish that they're an enemy.

They suppressed COVID information and didn't allow an investigation because they're the enemy. If we were allies or at least on decent terms, they would've worked with us.

Here's my point. If you want to establish that China was an enemy before Trump, we should be looking at US-China relations before Trump. Not after or during.

Well, the CCP actively fought US forces during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Our relations were completely frozen between 1949 and 1971. JFK thought China was at least, if not more dangerous, than the Soviet Union. Chinese relations sort of normalized, but almost every president had a rather negative outlook on China. US-Chinese relations took a big hit in 1989 with the Tiananmen Square massacre. Things have been relatively frosty since, too, especially with the defense and arms sales to Taiwan. It's a simplified view of the whole thing, but China has been an adversary of the US since at least the 1940s when the CCP really took hold of the country. It's not exclusively a Trump thing, although like I've said, Trump didn't do anything to repair relations either and in some ways made it worse. But Xi did his share of contributing to poor relations too.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you were asking. You asked whether it was now or before Trump that China was committing genocide, destabilizing the West, and not respecting the sovereignty of nations. The answer is, both. It's doing it now and it was doing it before Trump. The issue is that many of China's more recent issues are the result of Xi's policies and agenda. He took office in 2012 and sort of hit full stride about the time Trumpism became rampant. So, while Trump didn't do any favours with relations regarding China, China was well on its way to being a problem. I don't think that would've changed even if Clinton had been elected.

They suppressed COVID information and didn't allow an investigation because they're the enemy. If we were allies or at least on decent terms, they would've worked with us.

Well, the CCP actively fought US forces during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Our relations were completely frozen between 1949 and 1971. JFK thought China was at least, if not more dangerous, than the Soviet Union. Chinese relations sort of normalized, but almost every president had a rather negative outlook on China. US-Chinese relations took a big hit in 1989 with the Tiananmen Square massacre. Things have been relatively frosty since, too, especially with the defense and arms sales to Taiwan. It's a simplified view of the whole thing, but China has been an adversary of the US since at least the 1940s when the CCP really took hold of the country. It's not exclusively a Trump thing, although like I've said, Trump didn't do anything to repair relations either and in some ways made it worse. But Xi did his share of contributing to poor relations too.

Between Tienanmen Square and 2016, Chinese-US relations were, especially during the early 2000s and early 2010s, pretty decent. There was a ton of trade, international travel, and very little saber rattling. US companies began to open offices in China, and directly appeal to Chinese markets, and our cultures were becoming intermingled. The use of Chinese goods and manufacturing created some resentment among Americans, some of whom found their jobs and products being outsourced to the Chinese. This was a big part of the rise of Trump, who promised to fight trade with China.

You describe Xi as someone who was basically going to do what he's done in a vacuum since he took office, and having hit his stride alongside Trump. Isn't it possible that Trump's pandering to US grumblings with anti-Chinese policy influenced Xi? Doesn't it make sense that this would be the case?

I do not think that it's reasonable to declare US-Chinese relations for the quarter century before Trump as being anywhere near as bad as it is today. If we're going back to the 1940s, we had bad relations with Japan at the time too.

 

[CTznOfTime]

China will do the soft incursions first:
back door under the table assimilation as much as they can get away with it...

Vietnam, Thailand,

Of course Hong Kong is practically a done deal.

They will infiltrate said country, pour in as much Chinese products and make the people depend materialistically and financially.

It is essentially an economic take over, the Chinese are heavily investing on Africa, providing them with the products they need, in exchange for access to their favors and country foothold.

That's is why they are able to get the Bricks effort going, those countries have nothing to lose going with them...

Vietnam being so close to China, is basically in bed with China, being their puppets, despite any denial.
China is fine with it, as long as they can control that country, manipulate it to their advantage.


The tarrifs on China, they don't care, they are shipping the goods to Mexico, or Canada, they those goods will just end up in the US via trucks/rails... Avoiding arriving by boat.

 

[Joey D]

Between Tienanmen Square and 2016, Chinese-US relations were, especially during the early 2000s and early 2010s, pretty decent. There was a ton of trade, international travel, and very little saber rattling. US companies began to open offices in China, and directly appeal to Chinese markets, and our cultures were becoming intermingled. The use of Chinese goods and manufacturing created some resentment among Americans, some of whom found their jobs and products being outsourced to the Chinese. This was a big part of the rise of Trump, who promised to fight trade with China.

You describe Xi as someone who was basically going to do what he's done in a vacuum since he took office, and having hit his stride alongside Trump. Isn't it possible that Trump's pandering to US grumblings with anti-Chinese policy influenced Xi? Doesn't it make sense that this would be the case?

I do not think that it's reasonable to declare US-Chinese relations for the quarter century before Trump as being anywhere near as bad as it is today. If we're going back to the 1940s, we had bad relations with Japan at the time too.

Economically, our ties were good because they were mutually beneficial. Diplomatically though, China was still very much an adversary. In 1995, we nearly entered a conflict with China during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. We "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which further hurt relations. Also, in 1999, we caught two Chinese nationals stealing nuclear secrets from Los Alamos. In 2001, there was the Hainan Island incident where China attempted to down one of our aircraft, and when the Chinese plane damaged it and forced it to land, they captured all 24 crewmen aboard.

While Obama made strides to strengthen our economic ties, there were still conflicts between the two nations. The US doesn't recognize China's expansion in the South China Sea, which has caused issues, especially around Paracel Island. China also suspended several cooperative operations over the sale of weapons to Taiwan in 2010.

As I said, Trump didn't help the situation, but we've never really been friends with China in the way that we're friends with the UK, Canada, etc. We tolerate China because they build our stuff cheaply.

Xi was likely always going to push forward with his plans, too. I'm sure Trump's pushing back helped Xi strengthen his position and get buy-in from his government to push forward his policies. Xi's goal was always to make China the number one nation and take over America and do it through fascism. His "Chinese Dream" is at odds with America's policies. They were always going to clash.

 

[Danoff]

Economically, our ties were good because they were mutually beneficial. Diplomatically though, China was still very much an adversary. In 1995, we nearly entered a conflict with China during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. We "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which further hurt relations. Also, in 1999, we caught two Chinese nationals stealing nuclear secrets from Los Alamos. In 2001, there was the Hainan Island incident where China attempted to down one of our aircraft, and when the Chinese plane damaged it and forced it to land, they captured all 24 crewmen aboard.

While Obama made strides to strengthen our economic ties, there were still conflicts between the two nations. The US doesn't recognize China's expansion in the South China Sea, which has caused issues, especially around Paracel Island. China also suspended several cooperative operations over the sale of weapons to Taiwan in 2010.

As I said, Trump didn't help the situation, but we've never really been friends with China in the way that we're friends with the UK, Canada, etc. We tolerate China because they build our stuff cheaply.

Ok, none of that strikes me as similar to where we are now. No, we weren't friends with China the way we are with our very closest allies. Of course not. That's obviously not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we weren't anywhere nearly as at odds with each other before 2016. If your thesis is that trade was the only thing keeping us from pointing guns at each other, then what does it mean that Trump comes along and undermines trade?

Diplomatically, China used to be a mixed bag. Not anymore.

Xi was likely always going to push forward with his plans, too. I'm sure Trump's pushing back helped Xi strengthen his position and get buy-in from his government to push forward his policies. Xi's goal was always to make China the number one nation and take over America and do it through fascism. His "Chinese Dream" is at odds with America's policies. They were always going to clash.

I don't see anything in that article suggesting that China wanted to take over America. I suspect you meant something else. An article about what Xi thinks from 2024 is difficult to assess against pre-Trump China, or pre-Trump Xi.

Mostly, our conflict with China right now is rhetorical. There are tariffs, there are discussions about more. There is US policy favoritism in industries that China would like to be more dominant in. There is tension over Taiwan. But mostly, our tension is stated - they're the enemy. Why? No real reason, just because we seem to need an enemy to be angry at. Ok sure, if Trump were going on and on about the Uyghurs or Tibet or Hong Kong or whatever, then we could talk about some kind of reason to be angry at China. But he's not.

We have no blood feud with China. We have no real axe to grind. We have no painful history to overcome. In fact, we have a decent history of peace and mutually beneficial trade. We just, as best I can tell, need to call someone an enemy. Is it helping the Uyghurs? Not a chance.

 

[GBO Possum]

What surprises me is not that Trump is popular among the masses. There is SOME sense in the logic that stupid people would rather be ruled by someone stupid than by someone intelligent.

No, what surprises me is that the Republican Party has let him hijack them and completely destroy them, to the point that all their intellectuals have been bullied away and they are now practically endorsing Hitler.

To date, this podcast by Ezra Klein is the best explanation of Donald Trump I've encountered

 

[UKMikey]

To date, this podcast by Ezra Klein is the best explanation of Donald Trump I've encountered

If anyone is pressed for time here's the transcript:

Opinion | What’s Wrong With Donald Trump?

I think there’s an answer. But it’s not age — or, at least, it’s not just age.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Keef]

I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that Xi became an expansionist because of Trump, or that China's military development, or infrastructure, were a direct result of Trump administration policies. Though it is an open question how much Chinese authoritarianism was spurred by conflict with the US.

I'm saying that China-US relations deteriorated because Trump was an asshole to them both in rhetoric and in policy. We had a good relationship with China prior to 2016. Not perfect, good. It's not good now.

We had an effective relationship economically but that was it. That was enough to pacify Americans and make them not worry about it. Strategically, China has been a problem since at least when Xi became president and enacted his policies, but he's held high offices since at least 2008 when he became VP. You may be looking at this issue as an economic consumer but I'm trying to view it as a government official developing contingency plans decades into the future. It's likely we've known about Xi and his mindset for at least 20 years already, well before China's official policies evolved outward.

I don't know why so many Americans feel threatened by this. Of course they will try - they are an ambitious group of people. But China is not 10 feet tall. Even if they manage to hold things together long enough become the largest nation by GDP in the world, it won't be sustainable. There's clear evidence that the young people of China are becoming burned out (just like Japan from the mid-90s to now) and they are facing structural long term problems. China has had the monetary policy foot to the floor for decades now, and they have a population problem that isn't easily fixable because nobody other than Chinese people in other countries want to immigrate there. China would have to become a lot more like the USA (more free & open, less culturally xenophobic) to become "greater" than the USA in the long term. Being a welcoming & diverse country is not some wokey trope - it's a genuinely useful statecraft advantage. People want to be here*, and until that stops being the case, it will continue to be our most strategic asset.

*I'm not saying everyone wants to be here - I'm not sure even I want to be here sometimes - but the USA for me is unique in that it doesn't have a specific culture other than that it's relatively free and opportunity rich. Anyone can be an American in a way that few other countries (Australia & Canada I think are similar) manage.

The biggest threat from China is that they don't follow rules. As a cultural value, they simply do not follow basic core concepts that we do in the West, something like copyrights or property. Obviously their government has heavily influenced that over time. I'm not worried about nonsense textbook metrics like GDP, I'm worried about the quality of life I would have under their leadership, the type of human they would tell me I am, and their willingness to ignore everybody else's rules to make sure it happens. I'm very confident the Western way of life is the most stable method but China's willingness to cause us tremendous hardship is very realistic. Ignoring that is so incredibly naive. You mention that China has very serious economic and demographic problems - those are backing them into an ever tightening corner, and they know it, and who knows what they'll do in times of desperation. Historically, that causes bad situations.

If China were to invade Taiwan, that would be the time to become adversarial.

Did you ignore the part where we already have a treaty to protect Taiwan? Taking steps to prevent that is by definition adversarial. As I've stated, China is not pacified by economic cooperation anymore. They expect us to cooperate with them, and due to their international lawlessness that will not happen. @Joey D gave it 25 years for war to break out in the SCS, I give it 10. Twenty five years from now, China will already be sliding steeply into a demographic crisis. They will definitely try to bolster their position before that happens.

 

[UKMikey]

If anyone is pressed for time here's the transcript:

Opinion | What’s Wrong With Donald Trump?

I think there’s an answer. But it’s not age — or, at least, it’s not just age.

www.nytimes.com

I just listened to the podcast and read the article and the thrust of Klein's argument is that not only does Trump have no filter, no inhibitions on his behaviour, but that the only thing that prevented his first term from being a disaster, and resulted in the achievements his supporters provide as a justification for voting for him again, simply will not exist in a second administration.

The "disloyal" staffers who acted as checks and balances on his most crazy and extreme behaviour will all be vetted and prevented from serving under him, to be replaced by a bunch of Don Jr. appointed yes men, like JD Vance who would have refused to certify the election he lost, as Mike Pence would not do. People who think as he does, that their leader's first impulse is always right and that there's no room for consideration.

You can see this demonstrated in the spokesmen he chooses, monsters like Steven Cheung, who baselessly asserted that an Arlington Cemetery employee who was roughly shoved aside when she tried to prevent them from filming the graves of dead veterans without their families' permission was "suffering from a mental health episode" and accused her of TDS when she refused to press charges for fear of running afoul of the thugs in Trump's campaign team.

And Jason Miller, a man who slipped one of his many mistresses an abortion smoothie and refuses to pay for the education of a child he fathered by another woman he wasn't married to.

You can hear it in the sneering contempt embodied in every word they speak. And those people who feel like he embodies their own values, who says the things they wish they could say, who "tells it like it is", are the people who will vote for him in their millions and celebrate as he proceeds to dismantle everything America has achieved in the last two and a half centuries in terms of enlightenment and social progress.

Because they just want to watch the world burn.

 

[Danoff]

We had an effective relationship economically but that was it. That was enough to pacify Americans and make them not worry about it. Strategically, China has been a problem since at least when Xi became president and enacted his policies, but he's held high offices since at least 2008 when he became VP. You may be looking at this issue as an economic consumer but I'm trying to view it as a government official developing contingency plans decades into the future. It's likely we've known about Xi and his mindset for at least 20 years already, well before China's official policies evolved outward.

The biggest threat from China is that they don't follow rules. As a cultural value, they simply do not follow basic core concepts that we do in the West, something like copyrights or property. Obviously their government has heavily influenced that over time. I'm not worried about nonsense textbook metrics like GDP, I'm worried about the quality of life I would have under their leadership, the type of human they would tell me I am, and their willingness to ignore everybody else's rules to make sure it happens. I'm very confident the Western way of life is the most stable method but China's willingness to cause us tremendous hardship is very realistic. Ignoring that is so incredibly naive. You mention that China has very serious economic and demographic problems - those are backing them into an ever tightening corner, and they know it, and who knows what they'll do in times of desperation. Historically, that causes bad situations.

Did you ignore the part where we already have a treaty to protect Taiwan? Taking steps to prevent that is by definition adversarial. As I've stated, China is not pacified by economic cooperation anymore. They expect us to cooperate with them, and due to their international lawlessness that will not happen. @Joey D gave it 25 years for war to break out in the SCS, I give it 10. Twenty five years from now, China will already be sliding steeply into a demographic crisis. They will definitely try to bolster their position before that happens.

I didn't ignore anything.

Ok, you and @Joey D believe that China has had it out for the US geopolitically and militarily (because of Taiwan?) for decades. Fine. I admit that I cannot unseat that conviction. But at the very least, trading with China, intermingling our companies and economies, was keeping the peace. It was putting pressure on making concessions, to prevent conflict. It may have even been protecting Taiwan.

Where are we now? Now that Trump has gone after trade with China, how's it going? Better? We feeling good about how we sit with China now compared to 10 years ago? I'm not. I don't see why anyone else would either.

 

[Joey D]

Where are we now? Now that Trump has gone after trade with China, how's it going? Better? We feeling good about how we sit with China now compared to 10 years ago? I'm not. I don't see why anyone else would either.

From a geopolitical perspective, I feel the same about China as I did 10 years ago. Economically, the relations are worse due to Trump's trade war. So yes, Trump harmed our economic relationship with China, but I don't think he altered the diplomatic course much. We've been edging towards conflicts with China since at least the 1950s, and I don't think that will stop no matter who's in the White House. It won't let up until China reaches the number one status and bumps America as the world's gold standard. Even though America has problems, I'd much rather have us influencing the globe over a bunch of outright fascists. That's why China is a rival in my opinion. They want to usurp America's status around the world and replace it with themselves.

Economic ties with China need to be severed, but not through tariffs and government intervention. People should realize they're buying goods made by what's effectively slave labor and controlled by fascists. Buying Chinese goods should be seen in the same way as buying goods from Nazi Germany. It's just something that we should avoid. But we need to let the free market sort it out. Trump's plan with tariffs is just going to ruin the US economy along with the Chinese economy. By letting the free market figure it out, in theory it should only sink China or force them to reconsider their policies to attract new businesses.

As for Xi's plans, he's said since he took office that his plans were to elevate China to the number one status. He's similar to Trump in that he wants to "Make China Great Again", but unlike Trump, Xi isn't a bumbling idiot with dementia and who poops himself. He's smarter and has a much larger cult of personality (also, presumably, better control of his bowels).

 

[Liquid]

Buying Chinese goods should be seen in the same way as buying goods from Nazi Germany. It's just something that we should avoid. But we need to let the free market sort it out.

Not to derail the rest of your post, which makes many good points, but as long as Chinese slave labour generates more capital (i.e. is cheaper to produce) than domestic production, 'free market business' will continue to outsource to this horrible institution. The situation is unlikely to change unless the change comes from within China, rather than US free market economics balancing out.

 

[Danoff]

From a geopolitical perspective, I feel the same about China as I did 10 years ago. Economically, the relations are worse due to Trump's trade war. So yes, Trump harmed our economic relationship with China, but I don't think he altered the diplomatic course much. We've been edging towards conflicts with China since at least the 1950s, and I don't think that will stop no matter who's in the White House. It won't let up until China reaches the number one status and bumps America as the world's gold standard. Even though America has problems, I'd much rather have us influencing the globe over a bunch of outright fascists. That's why China is a rival in my opinion. They want to usurp America's status around the world and replace it with themselves.

Economic ties with China need to be severed, but not through tariffs and government intervention. People should realize they're buying goods made by what's effectively slave labor and controlled by fascists. Buying Chinese goods should be seen in the same way as buying goods from Nazi Germany. It's just something that we should avoid. But we need to let the free market sort it out. Trump's plan with tariffs is just going to ruin the US economy along with the Chinese economy. By letting the free market figure it out, in theory it should only sink China or force them to reconsider their policies to attract new businesses.

As for Xi's plans, he's said since he took office that his plans were to elevate China to the number one status. He's similar to Trump in that he wants to "Make China Great Again", but unlike Trump, Xi isn't a bumbling idiot with dementia and who poops himself. He's smarter and has a much larger cult of personality (also, presumably, better control of his bowels).

Not buying from Nazi Germany isn't just a good idea or whatever, it's a national security issue. The government steps in and prevents trade with countries we're at war with for precisely this point - because it recognizes that American citizens will generally follow what's in their own best interest, and some times that can end up helping a country that is actively fighting the US.

You're kinda playing both sides of that now. You're assuming that we'll be at war, or that war is somehow inevitable, with China. And so you're saying that US citizens should take it upon themselves to not trade with China. Not only can you not rely on people to do that, but it's pretty much the opposite of the point I'm making. If you believe war with China is inevitable, we should prevent trade with them to hamper their economy.

I do not believe war with China is inevitable, and so I think open trade with them is good, because it is one of the greatest mechanisms for international peace that we have.

If goods are truly sourced unethically. I don't mean that people aren't paid $15/hr or whatever, I mean people are enslaved and producing goods in camps or whatever. Then those goods can be banned from sale in the US on that basis, and that's basically the only way to make sure that they aren't bought. Because people will turn a blind eye and buy them.

 

[Keef]

You mean now? Or before Trump? How much misinformation was China pushing during the Obama admin?

At that time and even earlier, China's policies were focused inward and Western media didn't care about them beyond a few Hong Kong stories here and there. They certainly had a strong internal propaganda machine as they struggled to wrangle HK. Who knows how long they'd been mistreating Uyghers but we didn't learn about it until Xi made it policy in 2014. For the most part, China wasn't ready to push outward yet.

I didn't ignore anything.

Ok, you and @Joey D believe that China has had it out for the US geopolitically and militarily (because of Taiwan?) for decades. Fine. I admit that I cannot unseat that conviction. But at the very least, trading with China, intermingling our companies and economies, was keeping the peace. It was putting pressure on making concessions, to prevent conflict. It may have even been protecting Taiwan.

Where are we now? Now that Trump has gone after trade with China, how's it going? Better? We feeling good about how we sit with China now compared to 10 years ago? I'm not. I don't see why anyone else would either.

Like Joey says, I don't think Trump altered the course much. I consider his annoying trade war a speedbump. The thing that happened during Trump's presidency that really brought to light our dependency on Chinese manufacturing and spurred the ongoing mass exodus to other nearby nations as well as reshoring was Covid.

But regardless of those events, China's belt-and-road and string of pearls projects started well before that. Belt-and-road became official Xi policy in 2013, and the string of pearls idea was first identified in the 2000s. China has been planning for these expansion efforts for decades. Their mistreatment of Hong Kong has been parallel and aligned to this as well. China is simply getting to their end goal of reuniting with Taiwan and curbing Western dominance, it was always going to happen, just a matter of when.

 

[Danoff]

Like Joey says, I don't think Trump altered the course much. I consider his annoying trade war a speedbump. The thing that happened during Trump's presidency that really brought to light our dependency on Chinese manufacturing and spurred the ongoing mass exodus to other nearby nations as well as reshoring was Covid.

"Dependency" - benefiting from.

But regardless of those events, China's belt-and-road and string of pearls projects started well before that. Belt-and-road became official Xi policy in 2013, and the string of pearls idea was first identified in the 2000s. China has been planning for these expansion efforts for decades.

Honestly, I don't know why you think these are problems or why you think the US doesn't do the same kind of thing.

Their mistreatment of Hong Kong has been parallel and aligned to this as well. China is simply getting to their end goal of reuniting with Taiwan and curbing Western dominance, it was always going to happen, just a matter of when.

Somehow it's always about "dominance".

 

[Keef]

"Dependency" - benefiting from.

That's the libertarian talking. While this globalism has helped most of us live comfy lives, it's also left our nation incapable of supporting ourselves in a time of crisis, unlike we were able to do during WW2 for example. One of our reshoring projects, Intel's Ohio campus, won't be complete until 2028 after delays and corporate struggles. We're in a situation where we simply can't depend on Taiwan for anything, and yet we currently depend on them for the most important thing behind water and food.

Honestly, I don't know why you think these are problems or why you think the US doesn't do the same kind of thing.



Somehow it's always about "dominance".

War never changes. If it isn't us, it's them, and they don't seem very willing to play by international law, much less basic morality. I believe China is 100% willing to engage in a WW3 scenario to secure what they want and I think they'd rather do that than cooperate/submit to the status quo. I also don't believe they have any intention of being a fair and lawful global power. There is zero evidence that they would do any of that.

 

[Joey D]

Not buying from Nazi Germany isn't just a good idea or whatever, it's a national security issue. The government steps in and prevents trade with countries we're at war with for precisely this point - because it recognizes that American citizens will generally follow what's in their own best interest, and some times that can end up helping a country that is actively fighting the US.

You're kinda playing both sides of that now. You're assuming that we'll be at war, or that war is somehow inevitable, with China. And so you're saying that US citizens should take it upon themselves to not trade with China. Not only can you not rely on people to do that, but it's pretty much the opposite of the point I'm making. If you believe war with China is inevitable, we should prevent trade with them to hamper their economy.

I do not believe war with China is inevitable, and so I think open trade with them is good, because it is one of the greatest mechanisms for international peace that we have.

If goods are truly sourced unethically. I don't mean that people aren't paid $15/hr or whatever, I mean people are enslaved and producing goods in camps or whatever. Then those goods can be banned from sale in the US on that basis, and that's basically the only way to make sure that they aren't bought. Because people will turn a blind eye and buy them.

Perhaps I'm too much of a free-market libertarian, but I'm wary of the government outright banning trade with a nation. You and @Liquid make the point that people would likely just ignore it, and that's likely true. I just have a hard time accepting the government getting involved too much in trade. I also realize that it takes a long time to switch manufacturing. If we banned trade tomorrow, it would take years for companies to setup production elsewhere. It's part of the reason Trump's tariffs won't accomplish what he says it will do.

I do believe war with China is inevitable. Xi even pointed blankly and said they wanted to reunify Taiwan. If the Chinese attempt to take Taiwan, the US will have no choice but to go to war.

And some goods from China, not all, are definitely made unethically:

List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor

www.dol.gov

 

[Danoff]

That's the libertarian talking. While this globalism has helped most of us live comfy lives, it's also left our nation incapable of supporting ourselves in a time of crisis, unlike we were able to do during WW2 for example. One of our reshoring projects, Intel's Ohio campus, won't be complete until 2028 after delays and corporate struggles. We're in a situation where we simply can't depend on Taiwan for anything, and yet we currently depend on them for the most important thing behind water and food.

I understand the desire to "reshore" projects to protect supply chains and maintain some level of domestic independence. It does not mean that we don't benefit from trade with China. In fact, those benefits can help us achieve independence in other areas.

War never changes. If it isn't us, it's them, and they don't seem very willing to play by international law, much less basic morality. I believe China is 100% willing to engage in a WW3 scenario to secure what they want and I think they'd rather do that than cooperate/submit to the status quo. I also don't believe they have any intention of being a fair and lawful global power. There is zero evidence that they would do any of that.

I do believe war with China is inevitable. Xi even pointed blankly and said they wanted to reunify Taiwan. If the Chinese attempt to take Taiwan, the US will have no choice but to go to war.

You two make me sound like such a hippie. Give peace a chance. War is nasty business - terrible for people in so many ways. It should occur to you that peace is an option.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Arguing with a bunch of idiots is really a lost cause...
And to think there are hundreds of millions like that...
This country is lost ....




All I can do is just laugh.

 

[Joey D]

You two make me sound like such a hippie. Give peace a chance. War is nasty business - terrible for people in so many ways. It should occur to you that peace is an option.

Given the state of the world, I don't think we're in a very peaceful time. Fascism and authoritarianism are growing at an alarming rate and being more and more accepted by the day. Hell, the US could go that way next week. There's also the ever-looming climate disaster that will be upon us before we know it, and it will displace millions of people, and lead to a massive power struggle. In addition to that, resources, especially resources pertaining to energy are finite and with more and more nations becoming developed, that quest for energy only grows. I don't really have confidence in peace playing out.

We also have incredibly wealthy and influential people using their wealth and influence for evil instead of good. Look at Elon Musk. The dude has more money than god but chooses to support outright fascism. We've already seen it with how he's using his wealth and influence to help Russia and to support American authoritarianism. He's completely unchecked and will undoubtedly use his wealth and influence to push countries to war if it benefits him in someway.

Peace is an option for sure, but I don't think it's realistic right now. The whole world view of things would need to shift but we'd need some catalyst to do that. COVID wasn't severe enough to cause humankind to band together, but my hope is that climate change is.

 

[Danoff]

Given the state of the world, I don't think we're in a very peaceful time. Fascism and authoritarianism are growing at an alarming rate and being more and more accepted by the day. Hell, the US could go that way next week. There's also the ever-looming climate disaster that will be upon us before we know it, and it will displace millions of people, and lead to a massive power struggle. In addition to that, resources, especially resources pertaining to energy are finite and with more and more nations becoming developed, that quest for energy only grows. I don't really have confidence in peace playing out.

We also have incredibly wealthy and influential people using their wealth and influence for evil instead of good. Look at Elon Musk. The dude has more money than god but chooses to support outright fascism. We've already seen it with how he's using his wealth and influence to help Russia and to support American authoritarianism. He's completely unchecked and will undoubtedly use his wealth and influence to push countries to war if it benefits him in someway.

Peace is an option for sure, but I don't think it's realistic right now. The whole world view of things would need to shift but we'd need some catalyst to do that. COVID wasn't severe enough to cause humankind to band together, but my hope is that climate change is.

Well I'd rather take steps today to try to bring about peace than to march us toward war out of a sense that it is somehow inevitable.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Given the state of the world, I don't think we're in a very peaceful time. Fascism and authoritarianism are growing at an alarming rate and being more and more accepted by the day. Hell, the US could go that way next week. There's also the ever-looming climate disaster that will be upon us before we know it, and it will displace millions of people, and lead to a massive power struggle. In addition to that, resources, especially resources pertaining to energy are finite and with more and more nations becoming developed, that quest for energy only grows. I don't really have confidence in peace playing out.

We also have incredibly wealthy and influential people using their wealth and influence for evil instead of good. Look at Elon Musk. The dude has more money than god but chooses to support outright fascism. We've already seen it with how he's using his wealth and influence to help Russia and to support American authoritarianism. He's completely unchecked and will undoubtedly use his wealth and influence to push countries to war if it benefits him in someway.

Peace is an option for sure, but I don't think it's realistic right now. The whole world view of things would need to shift but we'd need some catalyst to do that. COVID wasn't severe enough to cause humankind to band together, but my hope is that climate change is.

Banding together during COVID is really not a good use of words...



Elon lived and grew up in the "right" side of Apartheid, therefore he has no problem with division And separation...


Wrong philosophy for the richest man on planet, will not help us to band us together in the coming earthly struggles coming at us....

Sadly it will be back to the savage primal "less-human" way of every man for himself.... Zombie apocalypse...

Some will take advantage to do their own cleaning on the side....

So the question:
As human on this planet,
Are we ready to bring the worst of us out or the best of us?

For those of you with trumpism mindset and logic: The best of us at being the worst is still being the worst...try not to twist my words and be a smart ass, you would still not be a decent human being in my eyes, like any bullies).


Being macho doesn't mean you have to be a bully....

 

[DK]

Let me play Devil's Advocate regarding Musk going mask-off: he may see his support of Trump as "banding together", but in the sense that it's the (mostly white) developed world banding together to raise the drawbridge against the "hordes" of the developing world that is much less capable of adapting to climate change. It's just apartheid but on a global scale.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Let me play Devil's Advocate regarding Musk going mask-off: he may see his support of Trump as "banding together", but in the sense that it's the (mostly white) developed world banding together to raise the drawbridge against the "hordes" of the developing world that is much less capable of adapting to climate change. It's just apartheid but on a global scale.

I didn't want to say it, I wanted to leave some space for some of you to speak, and that's where I was pretty leading on to:

They don't care about anything but themselves.
For them, it's a question of survival of the fittest.
They made it, and so they don't care about anyone else Indonesian or not, as long as they can separate themselves from the "weak" poor and dependents of the world...

They only want the elite rich with the "gene" vs the rest of the 3rd world...

It's an Zombie apocalypse in their eyes.

And so they absolutely don't care (crocodile tears) if you call them garbage, they almost are proud of it as long as the separation is working....
They don't care what and how we view them

So they absolutely have been doubling down since 2016...
Our real fears is feeding on their fake fears...

That's why the Maga movement is reaching other part of the world

It affects people who have their own self illusion of grandeur regardless whether they'd are rich or poor, but if they have aspirations to be better than anyone else, trumpists will resonate with them...



That is my best explanation for this fake phenom

 

[AerodyManiac]

I don't know why so many Americans feel threatened by this. Of course they will try - they are an ambitious group of people. But China is not 10 feet tall. Even if they manage to hold things together long enough become the largest nation by GDP in the world, it won't be sustainable. There's clear evidence that the young people of China are becoming burned out (just like Japan from the mid-90s to now) and they are facing structural long term problems. China has had the monetary policy foot to the floor for decades now, and they have a population problem that isn't easily fixable because nobody other than Chinese people in other countries want to immigrate there.

I agree with most of the things you say, except the bolded part. To me it feels like America’s all-encompassing culture is not, for the most part, what made it the singular world superpower, as much as the American rhetoric would want me to believe. Instead, it feels like whether China gets to retain its global dominance, if achieved (which I’d argue is more probable than not, looking into the crystal ball), would more or less depend on whether China can contain the next nascent superpower quickly and effectively enough. Nations rise and fall, and just like the UK before it (and France before the Brits too), the US seems to be able to get into this dominating position by a mixture of various economical factors (not ravaged domestically by war, plenty of valuable resources at its disposal, yada yada), with the added method of containing a quickly rising nation’s economy before it supplants the US (think Japan in late 20th century). But the US, should China supercede it as the dominant superpower, would be failing to contain China because it’s bound by its observation of its obligations internationally*, whereas China is already attempting to redefine basic concepts as interpreted by the UN.



*and also failure to team up with its allies to contain China, which is pretty much guaranteed if Trump is elected.

 

[Fezzik]

After 250 years you got yourself a King again. Congrats America!
Think you would have been better off sticking with the original lot though - we just let them dodge their taxes and cut a few ribbons, not actually rule the country anymore.

 

[Danoff]

After 250 years you got yourself a King again. Congrats America!
Think you would have been better off sticking with the original lot though - we just let them dodge their taxes and cut a few ribbons, not actually rule the country anymore.

I think we're partly to blame for the evolution of your monarchy though.

 

[Keef]

All four important parts of government are controlled by the same party. Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court.

There's not much stopping them from passing anything. Senate fillibusters are about it.

This is far too complex a time on the globe to have a chaotic moron leading the US. This is bad news for us internationally and for others who rely on us.

 

[Danoff]

Senate fillibusters are about it.

That's only a thing to use against democrats. They literally just need a majority to eliminate it. It was Manchin and Sinema who prevented that early in the Biden admin.

 

[Keef]

That's only a thing to use against democrats. They literally just need a majority to eliminate it. It was Manchin and Sinema who prevented that early in the Biden admin.

Cloture requires 60 votes though which is where the fillibuster comes from. Democrats will have to fillibuster literally everything, including a Republican measure to eliminate the fillibuster. I don't think that's a rule that changes when they vote on new rules but I guess it could be.