Serious question - which of these advance American national interests or prevent human rights abuses?
The first item in your list is President Trump calling the virus the Chinese virus. Aside from maybe bringing his supporters as a rallying cry, what does that actually achieve? It feels more like hollow political rhetoric and not something that delivers any kind of results.
What do the arms sales achieve? Is it merely profit for the American industrial complex, or are you saying Hong Kong now has some chance against China in the event of a military conflict?
> Serious question - which of these advance American national interests or prevent human rights abuses?
You're moving the goal posts. OP simply said the president "accomplished jack-all". I can't stand the guy either but these are at least accomplishments, even if the effects of some of them are symbolic. What do you want him to do? A land invasion?
No, I don’t think I’m moving any goal posts. Op provided a list of items, and my question is very simple - what is the net impact? What has Trump actually achieved? What is the result?
From your last comment, are you implying no action can be taken that isn’t simply symbolic except for a land invasion?
Interesting that you turn this into a personal attack. If you agree with the OP, that’s okay. The goal has always been delivering results, not empty, feel good rhetoric that makes you “feel” good. If it’s about your feelings, then okay, I’m sure his strong man rhetoric is good enough over any actual policy shift.
The results are foreign companies moving out of China. Bringing much more world attention to the aggression of China in the South China sea, and uniting foreign powers (India, Japan, Philipines, Vietnam, Australia, etc) to contain the CCP's aggressive expansion. It's been made more clear how the Belt and Road initiative can create debt trap for less developed countries and as a sort of CCP imperialism.
Under all these external pressures, the economy of China has suffered. And this is more crucial than most realize, as CCP would remain in power, and the majority of its citizens tolerate the oppression and ignore minority's human rights abuse, as long as the economy is growing. Also as a result, CCP is experiencing more internal factional struggles. This is apparent in Xi's deployment of cultural revolution style tactics such as purges (under the name of anti-corruption, as vast majority of CCP officials are corrupt), requiring study of Xi thoughts (think Mao's little red book), and demand for absolute loyalty from the military to himself (generals have spoken out against him).
What does calling the virus the Chinese virus achieve? Does it solve the current crisis we are in? I’d like to go back to my original question - what is the substance or end result?
And in your mind, what does it mean that Trump is willing to “stand up” to China? What is the net effect or outcome?
Last I checked, there are over 200,000 Americans dead from the virus. The American President initially denied it was a real issue, going as far as to say it was a Democratic hoax. Then he started having daily conferences, somewhat acknowledging their seriousness of the situation, but insisting it would all just disappear.
You can vote however you like, and no one here is asking you to tell us who you voted for. And I’m not asking you to justify your vote, although you indicated your candidate and your reasons why.
I’d prefer to go back to a policy discussion.
Arming Taiwan will help an American defense company increase its revenue for sure. But if we want to discuss impact on China, in a serious military conflict, Hong Kong has essentially zero chance of holding off a Chinese invasion.
The larger point I’m trying to make is that it’s not clear to me what actual impact the current Presidents policies have had. He certainly has great sound bytes to portray himself as being tough on China, but from the list of items you provided, I would love to know what fundamentally has changed.
The American President is fairly well known for exaggeration and hyperbole - he describes himself as the “best” or most informed on any particular topic. In his own words, his opponent is weak because his opponent will listen to scientists. I hope you’re able to disambiguate that tough words, whether it’s calling Mexicans rapists and criminals or saying the virus is the Chinese virus, don’t actually accomplish anything substantial other than maybe make you “feel good” or provide you confirmation on your beliefs on a particular topic.
Separate note: I do find it ironic that as an American voter, you believe the same President, who has financial interests and even personal bank accounts in China, is “tough” on China in terms of any meaningful policy.
who do you think is more likely to take a bribe from Chy-na?? Trump or Biden? Trump already has more money than many of the establishment politicians. Biden didn't come from a wealthy family but is dirty rich now.
Your perception of reality is heavily distorted by the leftist media that an an interest in keeping themselves in Chy-na. Bloomberg admitted the self-censorship not long ago. Any media outlet with interest in staying in Chy-na is morally compromised
I wasn't defending China's internment of Uighurs, and so much of what you wrote is a strawman.
Why does Trump need a second term for the two items you mentioned? Why didn't Trump already do those things? Given his administration's disastrous response to COVID and continuing denial, how do you take him at his word?
If we set aside COVID, the first two years of his terms had a fully Republican Congress. If nothing changed then, realistically what do you expect to happen next?
By the way, when you start a conversation by insulting people, you're not really convincing anyone of your viewpoint. If anything, it demonstrates your sense superiority over others and a lack of emotional intelligence.
The first item in your list is President Trump calling the virus the Chinese virus. Aside from maybe bringing his supporters as a rallying cry, what does that actually achieve? It feels more like hollow political rhetoric and not something that delivers any kind of results.
What do the arms sales achieve? Is it merely profit for the American industrial complex, or are you saying Hong Kong now has some chance against China in the event of a military conflict?