Senate The US Politics discussion

Well wearing a nose ring could be justified as well as a symbol of inclusiveness and what not, but it still begs the question - is wearing a nose ring "Presidential"? Mr44 I'm not sure why you don't get this?

 

Mr44, this is sad. There are two separate questions. Yes, an audience member opened the general topic of Twitter. But Tapper asked a specific, direct, question about yes or no question about standards of behavior. Conway consciously chose to respond that any and all behavior by a President-elect is necessarily Presidential. No one guided her down that route. No one made her say it. There were thousands of better ways to answer that question. This is the one she chose. Live with it.

 

President No Standards Trump.

 

You know how badly the world is screwed when the fascist getting "only" 47% of the vote comes across as a "better election outcome".

 

Yeah well, a month ago we thought that Donald Trump getting 47% of the vote would be pretty bad.

 

I think we're saying the same thing, actually

 

Allow me to paraphrase the following interview with pence, "We are going to lie to you, do it to your face, as often as we like, and there is nothing you are going to do about it."

Here ya go

Remember, facts don't matter anymore.

 

The interviewer should stop using so many words and just say it bluntly to his face: "You're lying".

 

Goose stepping is actually quite hard. I've been practising all day but still haven't quite got it right. How are you guys going with it? Also what is the best accelerant to burn crosses with? There's just so much to learn now if you want to fit in.

Edit: last question- was Jesus a fisherman or a carpenter?

 

I apologize if this is redundant, but I'm not sure about the media-hyped Trump/Taiwan thing. Admittedly I'm not so savvy about the political climate in the East, but it's my understanding that Taiwan isn't the only Chinese territory looking for its (arguably justified?) sovereignty. Moreover, has the US not treated these controversial territories in a manner that has consistently upset the rule of the People's Republic anyway (such as selling arms to Taiwan)?

How is what Trump did so disastrous?

 

Taiwan officially calls itself the Republic of China, because after the Chinese revolution in 48, members of the deposed government fled there and set up a provisional government. The US, because it refused to recognise the new communist government in the mainland as the official government of China, referred to Taiwan as China, and had no diplomatic relations with the People's Republic on the mainland. Since Nixon's re-engagement with the mainland, the US has recognised the PRC as the official government of China, and with that follows the implicit admission that Taiwan therefore does not represent China.

Taiwan's conflict with the PRC isn't that it wants sovereignty over itself. It already has. Their disagreement is in that they claim sovereignty over all of China. Therefore, Trump speaking with the leader of Taiwan while Kissinger is in the mainland meeting with their leader has a bad signaling effect.

 

Historically & culturally Taiwan has been different from the mainland. Maybe not as much as say Tibet but there are differences. If they want to become 100% independent they should.

 

I didn't think that the ROC had its own sovereignty. To my understanding, doesn't the PRC represent them in the UN? I thought it was the PRC that pushes for the One China idea (sovereignty over all of China)?

 

They have de facto full sovereignty.

 

The PRC took over their spot in the UN as "China", because prior to 1971, Taiwan claimed to be "China", and it still does. The island is a de facto sovereign state. The PRC claims it, but has no control over it. The island governs itself with its own state, government and military.

 

Again, I apologize for my ignorance on this subject, but which one is the greater offender to human rights/decency? The PRC has been pretty notorious on that front, as I recall.

 

yeah , Inferno , but I hear they changed it in the movie .

.

 

The PRC is worse. Taiwan didn't have a great record on human rights during the Cold War, but it was never anywhere as bad as the PRC, and it's much improved since becoming a democracy. And of course, today the PRC doesn't allow for any political rights while Taiwan does.

Basically, the PRC insists that Taiwan should be "reunified" with the mainland, while America quietly says the status quo ought to be maintained so as to avoid stoking tensions...or perhaps less charitably, to kick the can down the road. Apparently Donald Trump has dropped the "quietly" part, so that's a bit of a deviation from the script.

 

Today, Taiwan is without question better, but historically I honestly don't know, though I strongly suspect the PRC has always been worse. It's worth noting, however, that Taiwan was an authoritarian state prior to democratisation reforms in the late 70s / early 80s. Beyond that, I'm ignorant on the subject too, so I defer to Ender Sai's input.

Edit: Well, Alpha-Red clearly gave a better answer.

 

presumably America buys tons of goods from Taiwan tho - ?

 

I echo what Violent Violet Menace and Alpha-Red have said.

Current US policy is to maintain the current status quo which means letting China maintain that Taiwan is some sort of wayward piece of the PRC. It seems strange to us but that's how China and Taiwan seem to like it -- or at least, it seems to work. It doesn't mean that there aren't still tensions or that China won't push back against things like the recent weapon sales to Taiwan, but they've maintained that formal Taiwan independence is a complete non option -- it's basically a third rail in China-US-Taiwan relations.

That being said it's impossible to know just how big a problem Trump's phone call will be. I think the bigger concern is that this is Trump and therefore he probably hasn't thought any of this through. It's one thing to experimentally test out a shift in the status quo, but it's another to completely disregard it, especially when it seems to be working for all parties.

 

From what I've read, public opinion in Taiwan is dead-set against reunification...and getting more so. Basically they'd opt for all-out independence if it weren't for China blackmailing them with the threat of war and invasion. China on the other hand, doesn't like the status quo either, but at this point the war option is rather uncertain and it could potentially go either way, and it would definitely deal huge damage to the world economy...so they grudgingly accept the status quo for now. So we've set up this fiction where Taiwan is independent in everything but name, and as long as they don't cross over to declaring formal independence, China won't invade (yet).

 

Yes, agreed. "Like" is too strong a word.

 

China will not consider any military option whilst the US "promise" to protect Taiwan is still on the table. This is why Trump's call is very, very serious; if Beijing interprets it as a sign of recognition of the Taiwanese government and independence from China (breaking the "one China policy" diplomacy), then the Chinese will want to test how strong the US support really is.

It is likely economic sanctions will be slapped on Taiwan via China, maybe a big ol' military exercise of the coast. But no invasion. Yet.

 

And now we go to the Trump administration for comment on possible invasion of Taiwan...



In seriousness though, there's no upside for China to test those waters militarily with an invasion of Taiwan to offset the resulting response IMO.