2016 US Presidential election thread

[Rockstar]

I think the reason P.E.T. is said by some to have committed a faux pax, broke the rules, failed politically on a global scale by answering his telephone is because the media told them he did. Frankly I would have thought much less of the man and suspected of him being complete horsesarse and not very neighborly had he not picked up the phone and said hello.

I just can't imagine how anyone could be led to believe that the soon to be most powerful man in the world should be afraid to pick up a telephone because of what someone else might think. That's how I expect high school girls to behave. Not my President, then again he's not been sworn in yet and just a plain ol' citizen in country where he is free to talk to whom ever he damn well pleases.

[Oberon]

As President-Elect, I guess he does have some leeway, however as President he will not, and the policy of the United States since 1979 has been to recognize only one China, and that China is the PRC.
Generally speaking any negotiations between the US and Taiwan go through the American Institute in Taiwan, I think the last time any US president actually met with a Taiwanese one was back in the 1960s.
As Platapus has put it, Trump needs some waking up to the roles and responsibilities of being the President, which includes various regulations and procedures which must be adhered to in order to maintain stability.
He also needs someone to remove his twitter account.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm saying that the President of the US should be aware of the geo-political nature of the world in which his or her country resides in.

I'm aware that the Chinese on Taiwan have free elections and an open press and that the Communist regime which controls the mainland is not.

Interesting take on Trumps move from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.ee234f7a85c4

[Rockstar]

Not sure what the arguement over who we are supposed to negogiate with is all about. Im fairly certain nobody negotiated anything Trump simply received a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan.

In spin we trust.

[eddie]

I have nothing against him talking to other heads of state. Isn't that part of his job? Like to see him try to talk to that nutjob in North Korea! Now that would be interesting,lol

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

I'm aware that the Chinese on Taiwan have free elections and an open press and that the Communist regime which controls the mainland is not.

Interesting take on Trumps move from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.ee234f7a85c4

Trump knew precisely what he was doing in taking the call. He was serving notice on Beijing that it is dealing with a different kind of president — an outsider who will not be encumbered by the same Lilliputian diplomatic threads that tied down previous administrations. The message, as John Bolton correctly put it, was that “the president of the United States [will] talk to whomever he wants if he thinks it’s in the interest of the United States, and nobody in Beijing gets to dictate who we talk to.”

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

I'm aware that the Chinese on Taiwan have free elections and an open press and that the Communist regime which controls the mainland is not.

And what does that have to do with geo-politics?

Originally Posted by eddie

I have nothing against him talking to other heads of state. Isn't that part of his job? Like to see him try to talk to that nutjob in North Korea! Now that would be interesting,lol

Except that the US doesn't recognize Taiwan as a state.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Not sure what the arguement over who we are supposed to negogiate with is all about. Im fairly certain nobody negotiated anything Trump simply received a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan.

In spin we trust.

It's about political recognition, the PRC believes Taiwan to be a rogue province, as such out of the 193 member states of the United Nations only 21 recognise Taiwan.
Take a look at this map:



The nations in green fully recognise Taiwan, the nations in blue have unofficial relations with Taiwan but do not fully recognise it.
Part of this bit of diplomatic wrangling involves political leaders not meeting with or speaking to the President of Taiwan in an official status. Usually when Taiwanese/US meetings happen it is with the President of Taiwan visiting the US on the way to a nation in Central America that recognises Taiwan, and the President is never formally treated as a head of state and it's usually low ranking US government officials or staff members they will meet in non-governmental surroundings.
There is a reason that this has been the norm for the past thirty years, because it works, Taiwan is still there, it's been a good place for the US to sell lots of weapons to, and there hasn't been a major exchange of fire between the PRC and Taiwan (who let's not forget are technically still at war) since 1958. Heck, if you want to get into the real nitty gritty, even the name Taiwan is a diplomatic nightmare, with some people recognising it, others preferring the usage of 'Republic of China', and others still preferring to refer to it as 'Formosa'.

The WaPo article is a fair thing, but you've got to bear in mind that Taiwan is a particular thorn in the side of the PRC, and it's a thorn which is a lot closer to the Chinese coastline than it is to the American one. At the moment Beijing is content to let the Taiwan issue simmer gently, it's not pleased with the new Taiwanese president, but so long as they're not too radical then Beijing has more important matters to attend to. The status quo and Taiwan being relatively ignored works in favour of Taiwan. The more fuss is kicked up, and the more that the spotlight is put on Taiwan, the more that Beijing might start to think that Taiwan is more trouble than it's worth and bump up the timetable for finishing the Chinese civil war.
Now, if you're happy with committing the US to a possible war with the Peoples Republic of China over Taiwan, then that's all fair and good. But if you're not, then the best course of action for America is to leave Taiwan and the Taiwanese issue alone.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by eddie

Like to see him try to talk to that nutjob in North Korea! Now that would be interesting,lol

Yes I'd like to see that, who knows he might even get to meet Steven Seagal or Dennis Rodman.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Now, if you're happy with committing the US to a possible war with the Peoples Republic of China over Taiwan, then that's all fair and good. But if you're not, then the best course of action for America is to leave Taiwan and the Taiwanese issue alone.

That may be but you Brits certainly didn't want us to feel that way in WW2 even though England is much closer to Occupied Europe than it is to our shores too. Now perhaps that's an extreme example but if we're going to start abandoning democracies in the name of "geo politics" then where does the road end?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

That may be but you Brits certainly didn't want us to feel that way in WW2 even though England is much closer to Occupied Europe than it is to our shores too. Now perhaps that's an extreme example but if we're going to start abandoning democracies in the name of "geo politics" then where does the road end?

I recall it took a lot of work to swing that, and indeed it certainly helped that the Occupier of Occupied Europe declared war on you after the Japanese pulled off their little visit (of which it is the 75th anniversary today).
I get where you're coming from, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth too, just as the continued sitting on the sidelines about the massacres in Syria also leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The thing is, no-one has abandoned Taiwan at the moment, when President Carter made the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, he put in it the provisio that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities", however how far these services and articles go is up to the President and Congress.
It's a sort of ambiguity which is designed to let Taiwan know that the US has got its back if the PRC decides to invade, but that the US also reserves the right to not step in if Taiwan does something provocative and then tries to run under the skirt of the US when the PRC comes looking for pay-back.
It keeps a lot of options on the table, and quite frankly it has worked perfectly fine since 1979. Everyone is happy with the status-quo, it works for Beijing since they use Taiwan as a major conduit for trade, it works for Taiwan because they have grown rich from this trade and they can spend that money on US weapons, and it works for the US because they have a non-communist doorstep on the Chinese border and they can sell a lot of weapons to it. Taiwan is also probably used for periodic US intel activities, however that is probably extremely hushed up because no-one wants to provoke Beijing over it.
It's not in the best interests of all involved to change the way things are, if Trump wants to attack Chinas economy, there are better ways to do it than putting Taiwan in un-necessary risk. Although ultimately, in my opinion at least, trying to take on China like Reagan took on the Soviet Union is playing with fire. Reagan got lucky in that he had a good Soviet counterpart to work with, Gorbachev was not a hardliner. Xi Jinping is not Gorbachev, ok he's not really a hardliner either, but he's not as soft as Gorbachev was when pushed.
Of course, there's not many options that China has for retaliation since they are very dependent on the US, so it is entirely possible that Trumps plan will work, and China will fold, but it's a real gamble and if it doesn't pay off then there'll be a lot of problems for the world. Particular when you factor in that the US cannot invade and occupy China, and China cannot invade and occupy the US. So whatever conflict should happen will be primarily trade based, and the US can win that but you've really got to be careful about pushing a nuclear armed state into a corner, because if they feel as if they have nothing left to lose....then I guess we get to see how good this ABM system is.

[Oberon]

Not that I think it'll come to that, if I'm honest. The WaPo article does make a fair point on reflection, but if that was Trumps intention then it was a bit more sledgehammer than scalpel, and rather clumsy politics. Not something you really want in a leader of a powerful nation, but he's still in training so with any luck someone took him into a corner and explained carefully why what he did wasn't a good idea and why he should refrain from such things after he officially becomes President.

Honestly though, if Trump wants to take down China...all he really needs to do is wait. Time is not on Beijings side, their growth is slowing, their infrastructure and internal growth really isn't as far along as it needs to be at this point in time, there's a crunch coming for the Chinese markets and it terrifies Beijing, they're doing all they can to either stave off the crunch or make the impact as gentle as possible, but it's questionable if they're going to be able to do enough.
There's also opportunities there, I imagine, ways to actually reach out and work with China in order to try and keep it afloat whilst benefiting American industries. Particularly when it comes to things like infrastructure. Helping China up might actually be more creative and beneficial than trying to knock it down. However, I think that such a thing would require more international co-operation than the human race is capable of, so instead the rollercoaster ride will continue.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

...so with any luck someone took him into a corner and explained carefully why what he did wasn't a good idea and why he should refrain from such things after he officially becomes President.

I've yet to see a valid argument against it. There's been lots of hand wringing, mainly by people who would not have anything good to say about Trump if their lives depended on it anyways, but little in the way of solid ramifications. Mostly "Ooh the Chinese will be irritated!"

Again the Chinese or any other foreign nation for that matter do not control who the President of the United States can talk to, and if just taking a phone call from the leader of a democratic nation risks war with a tyrannical regime then war is inevitable anyways.

[Bilge_Rat]

man, the hypocrisy over the Taiwan phone call is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.

Communist China invaded and absorbed Tibet in the 1950s. Since then the Dalai Lama has wandered the planet to stir up support for a free Tibet. Under China's "One China" policy, no foreign leader can meet with the Dalai Lama, yet Obama has met with the Dalai Lama 4 times, including this summer, each time over the criticism of China's communist dictators.

Obama meets with Dalai Lama, angering China

"The U.S. government made solemn commitments. It acknowledges that there is only one China, that Tibet is an inseparable part of China and will never recognize the so-called Tibetan government in exile," the spokesman, Lu Kang, said during a daily press briefing Tuesday.

"Under the cloak of religion, the 14th Dalai Lama peddles his political ambitions of dividing China all around the world," the spokesman added. "We ask all countries and governments not to give him any room to carry out such campaigns, even less risking arousing the firm opposition from the 1.3 billion Chinese people."

Nationalistic Chinese state-run tabloid Global Times said the meeting showed Obama's "mean side."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politi...ma-dalai-lama/

How did "liberals" react? They praised Obama for standing up to a dictatorship in the name of democracy and respect for human rights;

I am amazed how far so called "liberals" will twist and turn to criticize every action Trump does. The phone call to Taiwan was not a mistake, it was a carefully planned shot across the bow to China.

Now to all the "liberals", why do you praise Obama when he violates China's "One China" policy, but criticize Trump when he does the same thing?

[STEED]

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/don...ar-1201935932/

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Now to all the "liberals", why do you praise Obama when he violates China's "One China" policy, but criticize Trump when he does the same thing?

Tibet has already been invaded, you can't invade it any more than it has been. Taiwan has not.

Originally Posted by August

I've yet to see a valid argument against it. There's been lots of hand wringing, mainly by people who would not have anything good to say about Trump if their lives depended on it anyways, but little in the way of solid ramifications. Mostly "Ooh the Chinese will be irritated!"

Again the Chinese or any other foreign nation for that matter do not control who the President of the United States can talk to, and if just taking a phone call from the leader of a democratic nation risks war with a tyrannical regime then war is inevitable anyways.

Perhaps war is inevitable, there's certainly been a bubbling undercurrent of the new 'red scare' in America since the early 2000s which was derailed briefly by terrorism and Russia, but I imagine will make a comeback soon.
I doubt it'll happen though because both sides have too much to lose at the moment, it's when it gets to the point where there is little to lose that war becomes more likely.
In regards to ramifications, I think that Americans have come to the realisation over the past decade that China isn't as strong as they originally thought it was, I don't see quite so frequently the morose predictions of Chinese dominance any more, so I think people have realised that the rapid Chinese growth was built on a house of cards and if it gets pushed too hard it will collapse like one.
The risk comes in what happens if and when the Chinese collapse, especially if it is portrayed as being the result of American actions. One can argue that there is the potential for a collapse on the horizon for China anyway, but if Washington wants to push China into that collapse then it runs the risk of being embroiled in it.
Yes, I'll admit, most of us 'liberals'™ over-estimated the Chinese response, I thought they'd reply a bit more forcefully than they did, but it seems that both sides have down-played the phone call a bit in the aftermath so they probably got some very angry people talking to them, probably from Beijing.

I'll end this here since we're going in circles, and I guess we'll see what Trump has up his sleeves for China and what China will do in return. Whilst the US certainly has more power than China, it shouldn't think itself invincible and untouchable.