Trump vs. Xi Trade Battle, Running Commentary from Conservative Tree House

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 8/18/2019 at 5:03 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

/ Side note, waiting to see of this is going to trigger a third round of spam attacks by our persistent Chinese spammer against the Geopolitics subforum here.

/ / Update, yep, the triggered China spammer came back for a third round of intensive spamming in the Geopolitics subforum under yet another name, and I banned him yet again.  19 threads this time, took up the entire front page of the forum.   The site admin should block ban the IP range of addresses to cut off these targeted spam attacks. 

And our persistent China spammer was back for a 6th round of spam attacks.

@Meredith Poor saw this attack before I did.  I banned this China spammer yet again, but expect he will be back again tomorrow for a 7th round, with a new user name and a fresh barrage of spam attacks.

 

(Note, it says "hidden" because spam threads are automatically hidden after a moderator flags a spammer.)

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 8/20/2019 at 9:06 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

And our persistent China spammer was back for a 6th round of spam attacks.

@Meredith Poor saw this attack before I did.  I banned this China spammer yet again, but expect he will be back again tomorrow for a 7th round, with a new user name and a fresh barrage of spam attacks.

< sigh >

The pro-China spammer is back again today for the 7th time with a vengence, he got 19 huge spam threads posted in 10 minutes.

Spam deleted again, spammer banned again, guessing he will be back again tomorrow.

@CMOP @Selvedina  please ask the IT guys to put a block ban on the IP address region where this persistent spammer is located.

[Selva + 252]

Thanks @Tom Kirkman. I've noticed his posts but thought he would get tired after so many times being banned. I guess I was wrong.

We'll see what we can do about it. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Thanks Selvedina. I was hoping he would give up too, but perhaps he has a daily quota of spam to deliver  : )

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Excerpts below relevant to the trade war with China; full transcript in the link:

Subject: Remarks by President Trump and President Iohannis of Romania Before Bilateral Meeting

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 20, 2019

...

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  ... We're, right now, the number one country anywhere in the world, by far, as an economy. Europe has got a lot of problems, and Asia has got a lot of problems.

If you look at China, China has had the worst year they've had in 27 years. And they want to make a deal with us, but I can tell you I'm not ready to make a deal. Unless they're going to make the right kind of a deal, I'm not ready to make a deal. So I don’t know, but I will say this: Something will happen. It may be soon; it may be a little bit later. But China very much wants to make a deal.  ...

 

...  Q Mr. President, you keep insisting that your trade war with China -- the trade war with China is not affecting the U.S. economy. But a lot of economists disagree with that. And they worry that if China goes into a recession, they’ll pull us down with it.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well -- well, okay. Let me -- let me tell you something. Number one, we’re doing very well as an economy. But somebody had to take China on. You know, I read and I see so much and I read so much, and I’ll see these economists saying, “Oh, give up. Give up on China. Give up."

China has been ripping this country off for 25 years -- for longer than that. And it’s about time, whether it’s good for our country or bad for our country short term. Long term, it’s imperative that somebody does this because our country cannot continue to pay China $500 billion a year because stupid people are running it.

So I don’t mind this question. Whether it’s good or bad, short term, is irrelevant. We have to solve the problem with China because they’re taking out $500 billion a year-plus. And that doesn’t include intellectual property theft and other things. And also, national security.

So, I am doing this whether it’s good or bad for your -- your statement about, “Oh, will we fall into a recession for two months?” Okay? The fact is, somebody had to take China on. My life would be a lot easier if I didn’t take China on. But I like doing it because I have to do it. And we’re getting great results.

China has had the worst year they’ve had in 27 years. And a lot of people are saying the worst year they’ve had in 54 years. Okay? And frankly, I don’t want that to happen, but it does put us in a good negotiating position, doesn’t it? And China wants to make a deal, and that’s good. But they have to make a deal that’s fair to us. It can’t be a deal that’s not fair to us.

And you should be happy that I’m fighting this and I’m fighting this battle, because somebody had to do it. We couldn’t let this go -- I don’t even think it’s sustainable to let go on what was happening. They were stealing all of our intellectual property ideas. The theft was incredible. They call it “intellectual property theft.” And they value it at $300 billion a year. Who knows how they value it? I know how to value dollars; I don’t know how to value intellectual property theft. But they have experts that say it’s at least $300 billion a year, where they steal it.

Somebody had to do something with China. Obama should have done it. Bush should have done it. Clinton should have done it. They all should have done it. Nobody did it; I’m doing it.

So what do you say? “Oh, my trade deals are causing them.” My trade deals aren’t causing a problem. This is something that had to be done. The only difference is I’m doing it. I could be sitting here right now with a stock market that would be up 10,000 points higher if I didn’t want to do it. But I think we have no choice but to do it. And a lot of people that really know, people that love our country, they’re saying, “Thank you very much for taking it on.” And we’re winning because they’re having the worst year they’ve had in decades. And it’s only going to get worse.

China has lost 2 million jobs in the last month and a half because they’re moving -- the people, the companies are moving to non-tariffed countries. They’ve lost over 2 million jobs in a very short period of time. They’re going to lose a lot more jobs. And if I didn’t help certain companies -- there are American companies like Apple -- for a very short period of time, I may help them, only until they do what they have to do, which is probably move from China. Because this would be a very short term. If I didn’t help them, they would -- I mean, they would be -- they would have a big problem.

Here’s the thing: Somebody had to take on what China was doing to the United States economically. We’re winning big. I took it on. And it should have been done by previous Presidents, but I took it on. And I’m happy to do it because it had to be done. And the smart people say, “Thank you very much.” And the dumb people have no idea. And then you have the political people, and they go with the wind.

But they all know -- even Senator Schumer said, “Wow, Trump is doing a great job with China.” I couldn’t believe that. But Schumer thinks I’m doing the right thing. And he’s doing the right thing by saying it because he knows that China was a big economic threat. And they were taking all of that money that they were making from us, and they were building planes and ships and lots of other things. And we can’t let that happen.

Q Mr. President, on China, there is a new study out of Australia that suggests with the current Chinese military posture in the South China Sea, Indo-Pacific region, it could wipe out most U.S. bases within a number of hours. Is that something that keeps you up at night?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, nothing keeps me up at night. I’ll tell you, we could wipe out anything we -- we have the most powerful in the world. And when I came in two and a half years ago, we were in a very bad position. Now we’re in a very strong position. We got $700 billion and $716 billion and then $738 billion. We have the strongest military in the world right now. And we’re getting very close to finishing that whole rebuilding. We’ve rebuilt the military.

Right now, there’s nobody that’s even close to us, militarily. Not even close.

Q So it doesn’t concern you at all that the Chinese military --

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, because they’d pay a price that they wouldn’t want to pay.  ...

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

For a few years, I tend to pay close attention to the original musings of The Tylers over on ZeroHedge.  Yes, ZeroHedge is mostly a news aggregator, a running collection of articles put together by The Tylers, whatever strikes their fancy.  Unlike Drudge Report, The Tylers frequently contribute their own original, fiesty commentary, in addition to collecting and posting articles by others.

And the lively, uninhibited, and mostly unmoderated comments section can be more amusing than the articles.  I haven't commented there in a while, but ZeroHedge is still one of my daily quick overviews of global headlines.

Anyway, here is The Tylers latest take on the Trump vs Xi trade war.  Seems Xi is touchy about Hong Kong.  So I expect Trump to pounce and attack even harder on that frayed nerve.

 

China Warns Trump It Won't Make Trade Concession If US "Plays Hong Kong Card"

Just days after Trump for the first time linked the ongoing Hong Kong protests with his assessment of the US-China trade war, Beijing has issued an ultimatum to the White House: the United States should not link trade negotiations with China to the Hong Kong protests, denouncing such a move as a miscalculation.

In a short commentary published by Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily late on Monday, the author said that events in Hong Kong were the internal affairs of China, and linking them with trade negotiations was a "dirty" aim.

“Making a fuss about Hong Kong will not be helpful to economic and trade negotiations between China and the US,” the commentary said. “They would be naive in thinking China would make concessions if they played the Hong Kong card” the oped cautioned.

Chinese diplomatic observers also said Beijing considered the worsening situation in Hong Kong a sovereignty issue and would be highly unlikely to cave to Washington’s pressure.

The remarks followed a statement by US Vice-President Mike Pence on Monday which reiterated President Donald Trump’s demand to tie the largely stalled trade talks with Hong Kong’s deepening crisis, a day after hundreds of thousands of people marched peacefully in defiance of repeated intimidation from Beijing. In an address at the Detroit Economic Club on Monday, Pence said the Trump administration would continue to urge Beijing to resolve differences with the protesters peacefully and warned that it would be harder for Washington to make a trade deal with Beijing if there was violence in the former British territory. Separately, Mike Pompeo said that China should allow Hong Kong protesters the freedom to express themselves, in what China saw as clear interference in its own internal matters.

The Chinese article countered by saying that the top priority for Hong Kong was to stop violence and restore order, adding that US politicians should not send the wrong message to people creating chaos in the city. “In the face of political intimidation, we not only dare to say no, but also take countermeasures,” it warned.

Global Times, a tabloid controlled by the flagship state-run newspaper People’s Daily, also warned in an editorial on Monday that American political and public opinion elites should not harbour the illusion they could influence China’s decisions on Hong Kong.

“Because of the trade war, the US has lost the ability to impose additional pressure on China,” it said.

“The US should stop its meaningless threat of linking the China-US trade talks with the Hong Kong problem. Beijing did not expect to quickly reach a trade deal with Washington. More Chinese people are prepared that China and the US may not reach a deal for a long time.”

Chinese analysts noted Trump appeared to have hardened his stance on Hong Kong in the past week or so, under growing pressure from US lawmakers and extensive media coverage of the increasingly violent protests.  Indeed, it was only a month ago when we reported that "Trump Abandoned Support For Hong Kong Protests To Revive Trade Talks With Beijing." Now that trade war is once again front and center, with Trump using it as leverage for further Fed rate cuts, the US president is once again refocusing his attention on Hong Kong.

...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

And The Tylers over on ZeroHedge weigh in again with original commentary for a second day in a row about the trade war.  Looks like issue this may blow up soon.

"China Is Making Arrangements On Scenario Of No Deal", Global Times Editor Warns

[Guest]

#SPAM

[James Regan + 1,776]

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

< sigh >

The pro-China spammer is back again today for the 7th time with a vengence, he got 19 huge spam threads posted in 10 minutes.

Spam deleted again, spammer banned again, guessing he will be back again tomorrow.

@CMOP @Selvedina  please ask the IT guys to put a block ban on the IP address region where this persistent spammer is located.

Install proxy software on your server. 

Analyze the IP address. 

Verify if the address is a static IP address. 

Search for the IP address in the CIDR. 

Block the proxy server from visiting your website.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

No mincing words in this update.

Economic reset is being thrust upon global economics, and China and many Multinational companies are extremely pissed off.  Good.  Time for some economic Karma.

The Trade Battlefield Has Been Prepped – Now We Fight

Posted by sundance

Within the dynamic of the U.S -vs- China trade confrontation, CTH has long noted the Wall Street (globalist) multinationals would always go bananas.  There are trillions at stake and President Trump is confronting three decades of financial influence from Wall Street’s multinational corporate lobbyists.

To the angst of Wall Street, POTUS Trump tweets the dynamic.

President Trump will not back down from his position; the U.S. holds all of the leverage and the issue must be addressed.  President Trump has waited three decades for this moment.  Main Street U.S.A has waited for this moment.  This President and his team are entirely prepared for this battle…. Now we fight!

We are finally confronting the geopolitical Red Dragon, China!

President Trump has been brutally consistent for more than three decades on his intent and purpose with the Chinese.  President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides nefarious motives behind the panda mask.

Additionally, while carrying out the objectives of the confrontation, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Ambassador Lighthizer and adviser Peter Navarro are well aware of Beijing’s duplicitous panda mask; POTUS Trump will never let them forget about it.

 

The Eagle and the Arrow – An Aesop’s Fable

…An Eagle was soaring through the air. Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt the dart pierce its breast. Slowly it fluttered down to earth. Its lifeblood pouring out. Looking at the Arrow with which it had been shot, the Eagle realized that the deadly shaft had been feathered with one of its own plumes.

Moral: We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.

Some call it ‘Globalism vs Nationalism’, at other times it is best described as “Wall Street -vs- Main Street”; however, the overarching bigger picture is a battle over economics and the international financial power structures that oppose President Trump.

CTH  [ Conservative Treehouse ]  has often said ‘everything is about the economics’, because it is. Ask the ‘why’ question five times to any issue and you will find the root issue is money.  Power, greed and control, it is all about the money and the economics.

Opposition to President Trump’s singularly unique and transformational reset of the global trade system boils down to a battle against the financial ‘Big Club’.

Multinationals, billionaires and lobbyists within the DC UniParty system spend hundreds-of-millions in opposition to President Trump’s MAGA agenda. That agenda, that economic agenda, is the existential threat to the Big Club’s grip on power.

In the ‘globalist’ multinational, Wall Street dynamic, the Big Club DNC donor base and the Big Club RNC donor base also have mutual self interests. Within this dynamic, President Trump is their unified opposition.

Everything is about the economics.

The Big Club opposition to President Trump is based on financial best-interest. That opposition is not bound to a political party ideology. It is an ideology based on economics. In essence, this is a structural economic battle that is being waged politically.

Decades of financial and monetary policy were intentionally structured to the benefit of the BIG CLUB and the multinational Wall Street alliance represented by U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue. This is not a Republican -vs- Democrat issue; this is a larger confrontation between those who hold financial power and a singular person, President Donald Trump, who is determined to remove that grip.

President Trump is fracturing the multinational corporate ‘controlled market’, and his trade policies are beginning to reconstitute supply and demand pricing in a nationalist market.

Yes, President Trump, the man and his policy team, is an existential threat to the elitist hierarchy of things well beyond the borders of the DC Swamp. In the era of explaining the complex it’s a planetary economic reset almost too massive and consequential to encapsulate in words.

There are massive international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.

He will win.

We chose him.

 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Considering that the US is running a 1 trillion deficit, the suggestion that Trump is somehow protecting US finances is a fallacy.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Here's a suggestion for the newer crop of readers who don't like my comments here and in my similar threads in the Geopolitics sub-forum ... filter me.  Or simply don't read this thread (or the Brexit thread) if it upsets you. 

The title of the thread is pretty clear, and should be self-explanatory.  And this thread is in the Geopolitics sub-forum.

To filter me so you don't have to put up with reading my comments, go to:

> Settings
> Account
> Ignored Users
> Add new user to ignore list
   Enter a member's name to set ignore options

 

Also, I am not preventing anyone from starting their own threads.  Heck, I encourage it.  Go for it.  Repeated pissing and moaning about my comments may result in me ignoring you, or me posting silly memes, or simply gently poking fun, depending on my mood and inclination at the moment.  Trying to shut me up is a lost cause, I've been a motormouth commentor about oil & gas and its intertwined geopolitics for years. But you are free to filter me, go for it.

 

From the "About Me" section of my profile on this forum, which I wrote almost 2 years ago, for curious lurkers:

About Me

Working in international Oil & Gas for 15+ years.  Dealt with Oil Companies, NOCs and EPCs in 30+ countries.

PMO, Project Manager, Operations Manager, Technical Manager, Commercial Manager.  Leading multiple teams of Engineers and Project Managers at numerous customer sites.  Oversaw multiple, simultaneous projects at offshore oil platforms, refineries and petrochemical plants. 

Currently heading the global Engineering Operations for the global Oil & Gas division of a company that provides custom Industrial Machinery and custom Industrial Solutions.

U.S. Citizen and also a Permanent Resident of Malaysia.

Was a volunteer Moderator on the Oilpro forum for a few years, before the site was forced to close in September 2017.  (The Oilpro website lost a legal dispute with the Rigzone website...)

*** Important !   I do *not* expect others to agree with my opinions.  I tend to have rather unusual opinions about international Oil & Gas.  I *do* hope that readers will fearlessly voice their own views about international oil & gas.

As a former moderator on the Oilpro forum, (and now a moderator here on the Oil Price Community forum) I *encourage* dissent, and *encourage* Freedom of Speech, and *encourage* others to freely voice their views and convictions about oil & gas. 

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

Let's work together to make the Oil Price Community forum the Number 1 Oil & Gas forum on the internet.

Cheers, Mate.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Short excerpt below, full article in the link:

Fake Panda – China’s Request for “Calm” is Pure Head-Fake From Beijing

The corporate U.S. media are pushing a hard narrative today surrounding claims by Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He and wanting to create “calm” to work in earnest toward a U.S-China trade deal.  However, those who follow the dynamic closely will remember Liu He’s role was changed back in July.  Today’s Panda announcement is pure cunning.

Everything China is doing is intended to make it harder for President Trump to be aggressive in the confrontation ...

 

... This is a battle between the U.S. and China, but also between U.S. multinationals who are financially positioned/vested on the side of Beijing.   The U.S. Wall Street multinationals are trying to protect their Chinese investments by pushing a narrative that China is open to honest and fair negotiations; they are not.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Here's a suggestion for the newer crop of readers who don't like my comments here and in my similar threads in the Geopolitics sub-forum ... filter me.  Or simply don't read this thread (or the Brexit thread) if it upsets you. 

I only semi understand your point... What is point of discussing if everyone agrees? 

[Boat + 1,323]

The reason I go to this forum is for the American style expression of ideas. You can play victim to only those who buy into that sort of rhetoric. Lol We don’t agree on much but can find common ground on a couple issues although we might approach similar solutions from vastly different perspectives. 

I am for the trade war for example because we need less economy, less consumption, less migration, less population, less trade etc. All to save the babies and elderly from pollution and overtaxing the sustainability of our planet. I take leaving the planet in decent shape for future generations more than stock prices over the next decade for example.

Your enthusiasm for oil is equaled by my appreaction for the good in the world it has provided but it’s side effects need to be recognized and changes made along with any other product. This is not about good vrs bad but what changes can be made over time to improve the quality of life of humans while supporting basics like air and water.

Now If only the next prez will sanction Trump for his environmental damage. He is just like the Chinese. He is just like N Korea wanting nukes. In so many ways acts like a spoiled Putin little brother. Lol

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

What environmental damage is Trump responsible for?

Just a question....

[Hotone + 412]

57 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

What environmental damage is Trump responsible for?

Just a question....

National geographic had been tracking Trump's changes to environmental policy. Scroll down for the running list 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Long version of the Trade War and the U.S. 2020 election:

China and the 2020 Election

 

Short version of the Trade War and the U.S. 2020 election:

[BigJets + 87]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 5:31 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Considering that the US is running a 1 trillion deficit, the suggestion that Trump is somehow protecting US finances is a fallacy.  

Considering that the entire world depends on the USA for safe shipping lanes, the suggestion that Trump is not somehow protecting global finances and stability is a fallacy.  Is there another nation in the world that is able to turn on and off water bound trade in a mere matter of moments?   

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by BigJets

[Guest]

On 8/27/2019 at 4:28 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

 

On 8/27/2019 at 10:53 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I only semi understand your point... What is point of discussing if everyone agrees? 

You must have missed this bit Rasmus   

[specinho + 467]

On 6/29/2019 at 8:14 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

If you have been paying attention here, the nuclear threat from North Korea has long been a strategic chess piece wielded with a vengence by China.

North Korea was a dangerous puppet controlled by China.

May be this is misleading....... If we happend to watch documentaries about North Korea and China....... we might realize how different the growth models between the two have been. Shall North Korea is a puppet....... the way N.Korea is developing should mimic China - which is a random growth like all countries in Asia....... and have traffic jams everywhere especially in the cities........ and garbage........ and active neon light decorated night social  lives........ and etc......or no?? Since it is not..... there is a reason to believe North Korea is an independent entity.... may be a role model of development to the East; like Cuba is to the centre and South America?

On 7/1/2019 at 11:01 AM, John Foote said:

Aligning with USSR, and then China, and then their own version of whatever they do. Look at what has happened to the North and South since 1950. If you ever needed dynamic evidence aligning with the USA is better than old school communists, that is it.

Since the USSR went broke and the Berlin Wall feel, countries either align with the western financial models, or they don't. China is big enough to sort of break the rules, but other than that, countries that don't essentially follow western money rules are left quite poor, the exception being the odd extraction based economy (classically oil or gas). Closed, subsidized industries just don't cut it any more.

They are linked because all of the them believe in community based construction- sharing and leadership......... Which country is not?? Pardon my ignorant but............. what is so bad about communism that they are made targets of rivalry shall they not follow western money rules of presumably opened- not subsidized model??

 

On 8/2/2019 at 8:26 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

THE PRESIDENT: 

We've taxed China on 300 billion dollars' worth of goods and products being sold into our country. And China eats it because they have to pay it. Because what they do is they devalue their currency and they push money out.

............And frankly, it hasn't cost our consumer anything; it costs China.

Now, what has happened is a lot of companies are moving out of China so they can, you know, avoid. 

But when my people came home, they said we're talking. We have another meeting in early September. I said, "That's fine." But in the meantime, until such time as there's a deal, we'll be taxing them....

Not sure if we are right to assume that we are forcing American companies located outside of US back to homeland by imposing tariff or tax on the products they outsourced to be produced in other countries which later import to the US?? 

It might have not been our habit to buy a local product that is not made in the USA........ or no?? Targeting imports made by outsourced American companies might be less likely the case??

Hence........ if the tax is merely happening on the incomes of the companies located outside of the USA...... what is the reason they move out of China? They still need to pay tax wherever they go..... or no??

If the target of tax is on imports from China....... with the devalued currency RMB.... the prices might not be affected much. If this assumption is correct........ on what ground is China losing?? 

Pardon me....... just a little confused by this war.......... Conversation break down might be very likely the case instead of a war??..........

 

There might be a way to achieve win-win:............. 

for strengthening the internal economy the USA should do whatever considered appropriate. For China....... they can reduce the debts of USA by paying the tariffs with the bonds purchased and withheld...... or no?? No one is affected on the ground level; and the top solve their needs with better communicative ways??

Assumption could be dangerous........ especially when a few options are preset........ it might mislead us to believe the incredible....... and divert us from the solution required......... 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

I am astonished that this was published in The Washington Post.  Excerpt below, full article in the link:

Trump has the right strategy on Beijing. As a Chinese dissident, I’d know.

As the world watches President Trump wage a protracted trade war with China, many people are scratching their heads, wondering if he knows what he’s doing when it comes to my home country. Trump is regularly criticized for being unpredictable and erratic — praising Chinese President Xi Jinping one moment, then escalating the confrontation the next — for ignoring diplomatic conventions, and for upending a tense but supposedly workable economic relationship.

But as someone who has spent years with the knife edge of the Chinese Communist Party bearing down on my throat for my human rights work, I know that the president is on to something. Tariffs and economic threats may be blunt tools, but they are the kind of aggressive tactics necessary to get the attention of the CCP regime, which respects only power and money. It’s not just about “winning,” as the president sometimes puts it, and it’s not simply about trade: It’s about justice, and doing what’s right for ordinary Chinese and American people. 

Presidents before Trump naively believed that China would abide by international standards of behavior if it were granted access to institutions like the World Trade Organization and generally treated as a “normal” country. But that path proved mistaken, and Beijing ignored Western pressure on matters from human rights to the widespread theft of intellectual property. Trump, whatever his flaws, grasps this reality. 

Unlike many of his predecessors in the White House, Trump appears to understand innately the hooliganism and brutality at the heart of the CCP. He comprehends that — whether in the realm of trade, diplomacy or international order — dictatorships do not commonly play by the rules of democratic nations. While past administrations have curried favor with the CCP (“appeasement” is not too strong a word), Trump has made excising the party’s growing corrosion of U.S. society — from business and the media to education and politics — a focus.

For decades, U.S. presidents have allowed themselves to be taken in by China. Think of Richard Nixon marveling at staged supermarkets and shoppers in Beijing, and paving the way for the severing of ties with the Republic of China (Taiwan) in favor of the communist regime. Or Bill Clinton, after talking tough, declining to make “most favored nation” status for China conditional on human rights reviews, effectively eliminating any leverage the United States had over China with respect to fair trade, not to mention rights. As China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization moved toward reality, in 2000, Clinton described it as “the most significant opportunity that we have had to create positive change in China since the 1970s.” He said there would be no downsides to freer trade: It was “the equivalent of a one-way street.”  ...

 

... Trump, with an admittedly unorthodox style, is trying to break down the systems, and the concessions, that have allowed the CCP to operate unchecked for too long. He deserves credit, not criticism, for saying: Enough. 

 

[Dmitry Bedin + 25]

On 8/27/2019 at 11:53 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I only semi understand your point... What is point of discussing if everyone agrees? 

He wants to make this oil forum great again.😀

[Dmitry Bedin + 25]

On 8/27/2019 at 5:28 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Here's a suggestion for the newer crop of readers who don't like my comments here and in my similar threads in the Geopolitics sub-forum ... filter me.  Or simply don't read this thread (or the Brexit thread) if it upsets you. 

The title of the thread is pretty clear, and should be self-explanatory.  And this thread is in the Geopolitics sub-forum.

To filter me so you don't have to put up with reading my comments, go to:

> Settings
> Account
> Ignored Users
> Add new user to ignore list
   Enter a member's name to set ignore options

 

Also, I am not preventing anyone from starting their own threads.  Heck, I encourage it.  Go for it.  Repeated pissing and moaning about my comments may result in me ignoring you, or me posting silly memes, or simply gently poking fun, depending on my mood and inclination at the moment.  Trying to shut me up is a lost cause, I've been a motormouth commentor about oil & gas and its intertwined geopolitics for years. But you are free to filter me, go for it.

 

From the "About Me" section of my profile on this forum, which I wrote almost 2 years ago, for curious lurkers:

About Me

Working in international Oil & Gas for 15+ years.  Dealt with Oil Companies, NOCs and EPCs in 30+ countries.

PMO, Project Manager, Operations Manager, Technical Manager, Commercial Manager.  Leading multiple teams of Engineers and Project Managers at numerous customer sites.  Oversaw multiple, simultaneous projects at offshore oil platforms, refineries and petrochemical plants. 

Currently heading the global Engineering Operations for the global Oil & Gas division of a company that provides custom Industrial Machinery and custom Industrial Solutions.

U.S. Citizen and also a Permanent Resident of Malaysia.

Was a volunteer Moderator on the Oilpro forum for a few years, before the site was forced to close in September 2017.  (The Oilpro website lost a legal dispute with the Rigzone website...)

*** Important !   I do *not* expect others to agree with my opinions.  I tend to have rather unusual opinions about international Oil & Gas.  I *do* hope that readers will fearlessly voice their own views about international oil & gas.

As a former moderator on the Oilpro forum, (and now a moderator here on the Oil Price Community forum) I *encourage* dissent, and *encourage* Freedom of Speech, and *encourage* others to freely voice their views and convictions about oil & gas. 

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

Let's work together to make the Oil Price Community forum the Number 1 Oil & Gas forum on the internet.

Cheers, Mate.

 

You Tom like a vegan. Nobody even asked to send CV.🤦‍♂️

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, Dmitry Bedin said:

You Tom like a vegan. Nobody even asked to send CV.🤦‍♂️

On the old Oilpro forum, people were required to use their real names, and were expected to fill in their expetience, profile, projects worked on, etc.  That way, if someone was discussing, say, drilling, others could check that person's profile to see if he had experience in drilling.  If no experience, that person's comments would generally be taken far less seriously than someone who had 10 years experience in drilling.

I simply tried to bring that culture of openness to this forum when I first started commenting here.

And I bolded above my "moderator" advice, but posted the entire "About Me" section, for the benefit of lurkers, who cannot access the "About Me" section of member profiles without being a registered member here.

That moderator advice was written as a generic catch-all which I could trot out if someone gets to be a persistent jerk in not allowing dissent by others.