5 ms·

Because government is the ultimate monopoly. If China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens (which legally is 100% a matter of foreign policy, a

Because government is the ultimate monopoly. If China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens (which legally is 100% a matter of foreign policy, and therefore at the executive branches sole discretion) then celebrating the demise of one "monopoly" (tech) by the hands of an agent of another (a foreign govt) isn't principled capitalism/free-trade/etc, it's traitorous/patriotic, depending on perspective.

franklampard 6y ago
> China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens Evidence other than Donald, the Mr.Credible’s claim?
- edgyquant 6y ago
  Why wouldn’t they?
  - franklampard 6y ago
    Very fine piece of evidence
    - trasz 6y ago
      If the US is doing it, then China must be doing it too.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        The US isn’t doing what China is accused of because they lack the ability. They definitely would if all corporations were state controlled.
        trasz 6y ago
        Snowden documents clearly show the US corporations cooperate with NSA by providing backdoors. We don't know for sure if they do this because they are being forced to, bribed, or just nice to the government agencies, but the end effect is the same: they do whatever the US agencies tell them to.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        It shows they turn over information it does not show they do the bidding of the US government. There is a legal process in the US that must be abided by while this isn’t true of the PRC. The line between corporation and state is a blurry one in China, to say the least.
        trasz 6y ago
        Installing backdoors isn't "turning over information". And I'm not sure secret cangaroo courts match the typical western understanding of the term "legal process".
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      It’s not evidence it’s a legit question if the US could get away with it they would as would any rational actor.
- beerandt 6y ago
  It's a political policy judgement call, not a criminal trial. By definition it falls upon his discretion, not evidence or a trial verdict. This isn't "innocent until proven guilty" TV drama.
  - franklampard 6y ago
    No one said it’s innocent until proven guilty. But shouldn’t the leader of the free world make “policy judgment calls” based on evidence?
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> which legally is 100% a matter of foreign policy, and therefore at the executive branches sole discretion I don't think the executive branch has sole and arbitrary discretion over foreign policy? For one thing, there's the treaty clause, and the foreign commerce clause of article 1 section 8. This judge apparently agrees.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Maybe "ultimate" is a more accurate word than "sole," but in general, short of declaring War, foreign policy power eventually falls on the executive when tensions exist between branches. The president can unilaterally leave treaties, arguably universally. SCOTUS has said that as head of State, even the recognition that other countries exist and/or are legitimate falls upon him. Yesterday's SG argument at SCOTUS brought up many of the reasons why the judicial has historically, and should continue, to stay out of foreign policy matters. Foreign commerce clause is a better argument, but I'd say regardless, here the President is operating within the laws and framework as Congress has legislated under that authority. Whether the judge agrees is sort of circular logic here, not affirmation.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > Yesterday's SG argument at SCOTUS brought up many of the reasons why the judicial has historically, and should continue, to stay out of foreign policy matters. If there is anything generically less convincing to me than a lawyer's presentation of arguments favoring their client's point of view, I can't think of it. > Whether the judge agrees is sort of circular logic here, not affirmation. So, I'm not clear on whether you're claiming that the president in fact does have the powers you're ascribing to them, or if you're saying they ought to, or if you're saying they have historically. If you're saying the president does have that power, well, that's is the contested question. The most recent update we have from the entity that has the power to decide -- the judicial branch -- is that the president does not. If you're saying they ought to, well, that's just like, your opinion man. :) If you're saying they have historically, I confess some ignorance on the matter, but I'm not familiar with any recent examples of retaliatory expropriation like this in the United States.

franklampard 6y ago

> China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens Evidence other than Donald, the Mr.Credible’s claim?

edgyquant 6y ago
Why wouldn’t they?
- franklampard 6y ago
  Very fine piece of evidence
  - trasz 6y ago
    If the US is doing it, then China must be doing it too.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      The US isn’t doing what China is accused of because they lack the ability. They definitely would if all corporations were state controlled.
      - trasz 6y ago
        Snowden documents clearly show the US corporations cooperate with NSA by providing backdoors. We don't know for sure if they do this because they are being forced to, bribed, or just nice to the government agencies, but the end effect is the same: they do whatever the US agencies tell them to.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        It shows they turn over information it does not show they do the bidding of the US government. There is a legal process in the US that must be abided by while this isn’t true of the PRC. The line between corporation and state is a blurry one in China, to say the least.
        trasz 6y ago
        Installing backdoors isn't "turning over information". And I'm not sure secret cangaroo courts match the typical western understanding of the term "legal process".
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    It’s not evidence it’s a legit question if the US could get away with it they would as would any rational actor.
beerandt 6y ago
It's a political policy judgement call, not a criminal trial. By definition it falls upon his discretion, not evidence or a trial verdict. This isn't "innocent until proven guilty" TV drama.
- franklampard 6y ago
  No one said it’s innocent until proven guilty. But shouldn’t the leader of the free world make “policy judgment calls” based on evidence?

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

> which legally is 100% a matter of foreign policy, and therefore at the executive branches sole discretion I don't think the executive branch has sole and arbitrary discretion over foreign policy? For one thing, there's the treaty clause, and the foreign commerce clause of article 1 section 8. This judge apparently agrees.

beerandt 6y ago
Maybe "ultimate" is a more accurate word than "sole," but in general, short of declaring War, foreign policy power eventually falls on the executive when tensions exist between branches. The president can unilaterally leave treaties, arguably universally. SCOTUS has said that as head of State, even the recognition that other countries exist and/or are legitimate falls upon him. Yesterday's SG argument at SCOTUS brought up many of the reasons why the judicial has historically, and should continue, to stay out of foreign policy matters. Foreign commerce clause is a better argument, but I'd say regardless, here the President is operating within the laws and framework as Congress has legislated under that authority. Whether the judge agrees is sort of circular logic here, not affirmation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > Yesterday's SG argument at SCOTUS brought up many of the reasons why the judicial has historically, and should continue, to stay out of foreign policy matters. If there is anything generically less convincing to me than a lawyer's presentation of arguments favoring their client's point of view, I can't think of it. > Whether the judge agrees is sort of circular logic here, not affirmation. So, I'm not clear on whether you're claiming that the president in fact does have the powers you're ascribing to them, or if you're saying they ought to, or if you're saying they have historically. If you're saying the president does have that power, well, that's is the contested question. The most recent update we have from the entity that has the power to decide -- the judicial branch -- is that the president does not. If you're saying they ought to, well, that's just like, your opinion man. :) If you're saying they have historically, I confess some ignorance on the matter, but I'm not familiar with any recent examples of retaliatory expropriation like this in the United States.