2 ms·
> why is the U.S. finally admitting this out loud? 4) The US President is not well. He saw that the stock market went down, so he tweeted a thing. This then be
by Balgair 7y ago
> why is the U.S. finally admitting this out loud?
4) The US President is not well. He saw that the stock market went down, so he tweeted a thing. This then became policy simply because he tweeted a thing. As the US lurches from crisis to crisis, this will be forgotten, as many things have before [0,1,2], and there is not a good chance that the thing will be enacted.
[0] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-keeps-making-threats-he-doesnt-follow-through-on https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-keeps-makin...
[1] https://time.com/5175729/donald-trump-broken-promises/ https://time.com/5175729/donald-trump-broken-promises/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/06/trump-is-increasingly-relying-himself-not-his-aides-trade-war-with-china/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/06/trump-is-...
- complexmango 7y agoPerhaps this is the first US President in decades, who either out of raw courage, sheer necessity or personal (so far undetected) corruption, called out what has been known for the entire time: 1. That China manipulates its currency to improve its economic competitiveness 2. Restricts access to its domestic markets 3. Uses North Korea in negotiation leverage 4. Uses trade deals to capture foreign territory (e.g. the Sri Lankan port project) Using an ad hominem (“not well”) to discount the democratically elected, leading political actor of a country, seems to be a uniquely American trait (I grew up in India, where we know our politicians are corrupt, but highly intelligent rational actors). Ad hominems are not a useful tool to try and understand motivations of political actors. It’s ok to say ‘I don’t know why’ when the reasons for an action seem opaque.