• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden doesn’t want to change China. He wants to beat it.

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
82,864
Reaction score
88,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"To the surprise of many in Washington and Beijing, the Biden administration has largely followed Trump’s lead, keeping U.S. policy toward China on a more competitive — if not confrontational — footing, an approach now favored, in varying degrees, by lawmakers in both parties and likely to last as long as China continues its great leap backward. Restraining China is now a multi-administration, bipartisan strategy that stands among the most important foreign policy adjustments since the end of the Cold War.

...The Biden team’s first move was not to launch the traditional review of U.S. policy often done by new presidents. Instead, the competitors spent several weeks huddling with allies, informing them of the hard line they intended to take toward Beijing and asking them to rally around it. In the early months of 2021, Rosenberger’s office at the NSC led hours-long “virtual roadshows” with officials in France, Germany, Britain and the Baltic states. The sessions were meant to reassure allies and hear them out so that U.S. officials could identify opportunities for cooperation as well as potential weaknesses in a united front.

The competitors knew that many in the Washington bureaucracy, the business community, and China hands in think tanks and universities did not agree — or perhaps recognize — that the rules had changed. Lobbyists, former trade officials and others with economic incentives to keep U.S.-China relations on an even keel typically assumed Biden would end the Trump-era hostilities and return to the cooperation of the Barack Obama days. But, as NSC’s Campbell would later explain, “The period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end.”"


...In September, the competitors made their biggest strategic play — a new alliance expanding military cooperation with Australia and the United Kingdom. Called “AUKUS,” the deal has at its cornerstone a commitment to share nuclear submarine technology with Australia. AUKUS was not the Biden team’s idea, a senior official told me; credit belonged to British and Australian officials. China had been battering Australia economically throughout the pandemic in retaliation for its government calling for an independent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Meanwhile, Britain was looking to shore up its alliances following Brexit. In response to the sub deal, China’s acting ambassador to Australia, Wang Xining, issued a vague threat: “There’s zero nuclear capacity, technologically, in Australia, that would guarantee you will be trouble free, you will be incident free. … And if anything happened, are the politicians ready to say sorry?”

Link

Long article about Biden dealing with China. He's on the right path. One might say Trump started it. But Biden is under no illusions that the US can do it alone.
 
"To the surprise of many in Washington and Beijing, the Biden administration has largely followed Trump’s lead, keeping U.S. policy toward China on a more competitive — if not confrontational — footing, an approach now favored, in varying degrees, by lawmakers in both parties and likely to last as long as China continues its great leap backward. Restraining China is now a multi-administration, bipartisan strategy that stands among the most important foreign policy adjustments since the end of the Cold War.

...The Biden team’s first move was not to launch the traditional review of U.S. policy often done by new presidents. Instead, the competitors spent several weeks huddling with allies, informing them of the hard line they intended to take toward Beijing and asking them to rally around it. In the early months of 2021, Rosenberger’s office at the NSC led hours-long “virtual roadshows” with officials in France, Germany, Britain and the Baltic states. The sessions were meant to reassure allies and hear them out so that U.S. officials could identify opportunities for cooperation as well as potential weaknesses in a united front.

The competitors knew that many in the Washington bureaucracy, the business community, and China hands in think tanks and universities did not agree — or perhaps recognize — that the rules had changed. Lobbyists, former trade officials and others with economic incentives to keep U.S.-China relations on an even keel typically assumed Biden would end the Trump-era hostilities and return to the cooperation of the Barack Obama days. But, as NSC’s Campbell would later explain, “The period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end.”"


...In September, the competitors made their biggest strategic play — a new alliance expanding military cooperation with Australia and the United Kingdom. Called “AUKUS,” the deal has at its cornerstone a commitment to share nuclear submarine technology with Australia. AUKUS was not the Biden team’s idea, a senior official told me; credit belonged to British and Australian officials. China had been battering Australia economically throughout the pandemic in retaliation for its government calling for an independent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Meanwhile, Britain was looking to shore up its alliances following Brexit. In response to the sub deal, China’s acting ambassador to Australia, Wang Xining, issued a vague threat: “There’s zero nuclear capacity, technologically, in Australia, that would guarantee you will be trouble free, you will be incident free. … And if anything happened, are the politicians ready to say sorry?”

Link

Long article about Biden dealing with China. He's on the right path. One might say Trump started it. But Biden is under no illusions that the US can do it alone.

Trump was right about 1% of the time. His view that China was a problem was in that 1%.

But he had no clue how to manage China. For example, pulling out of TPP was colossally stupid.

He left Biden a bad hand, but Biden is smart enough not to rush with that bad hand.
 
Trump was right about 1% of the time. His view that China was a problem was in that 1%.

But he had no clue how to manage China. For example, pulling out of TPP was colossally stupid.

He left Biden a bad hand, but Biden is smart enough not to rush with that bad hand.

Pulling out of TPP is a paradigm of Trumpism's idiocy. That was exactly the kind of thing we need to do to manage China. Trade agreements/spheres of influence, etc., since an invasion of mainland China would be a bitter slog.

It's ****ing huge and it's got over 1,400,000,000 people. Oh right, and the CCP can't be bribed to give a **** about the citizens' lives, so it would have no problem throwing far more under-equipped civilians at us than the much smaller USSR did in WWII. (What was it? 20ish million? One thousand deaths per mile on the drive to Berlin? Shooting people who were captured but then escaped? Shooting at any attempt to retreat to better ground during a slog?)

It's good that we didn't end up with that. But what we ended up with is indeed colossally stupid. No TPP to help manage China, and a Trade War without a clue of a plan to show that we're "tough" idiots, plus tens of billions of bailouts for the US industries we screwed in the process.



Sounds like just about every other Trump product. Glitzy idiocy, sold to dupes whose idea of a virtue is self-defeating bravado. Then he likes Little Rocket Man's ass in the middle of the DMZ and they're "oh, man, what a super tough leader. Nobody ever rimmed like that before!"
 
Pulling out of TPP is a paradigm of Trumpism's idiocy. That was exactly the kind of thing we need to do to manage China. Trade agreements/spheres of influence, etc., since an invasion of mainland China would be a bitter slog.

It's ****ing huge and it's got over 1,400,000,000 people. Oh right, and the CCP can't be bribed to give a **** about the citizens' lives, so it would have no problem throwing far more under-equipped civilians at us than the much smaller USSR did in WWII. (What was it? 20ish million? One thousand deaths per mile on the drive to Berlin? Shooting people who were captured but then escaped? Shooting at any attempt to retreat to better ground during a slog?)

It's good that we didn't end up with that. But what we ended up with is indeed colossally stupid. No TPP to help manage China, and a Trade War without a clue of a plan to show that we're "tough" idiots, plus tens of billions of bailouts for the US industries we screwed in the process.



Sounds like just about every other Trump product. Glitzy idiocy, sold to dupes whose idea of a virtue is self-defeating bravado. Then he likes Little Rocket Man's ass in the middle of the DMZ and they're "oh, man, what a super tough leader. Nobody ever rimmed like that before!"
TPP had some truly serious problems in greatly and disproportionately advantaging and empowering corporations over virtually every other stakeholder that merited equally serious reforms.

His outright scuttling of the trade agreement was ill-advised, but it absolutely should not have proceeded as is, and though I don't believe it was a choice between two extremes, it would have been far better to scuttle it than to ramrod it through were those the only options.

More generally, I will say that Trump was right about the general notion of China as a great and terrible threat that needed to be soberly regarded as such, even if his prescriptions were wildly off. The absurd neoliberal notion that democracy in China was just around the corner, and globalization and market participation would be its harbinger has now all been decisively proven over decades to be the asinine, naïve (and let's face it, greed and corporate motivated) dribble it so obviously was back almost half a century ago during the time of Nixon, having done nothing but empower a totalitarian genocidal police state to be worse than ever, and a clear and imminent danger to American national interests and democracy and freedom worldwide more broadly.

Having said all that, I'm glad not only Biden, but the world, are finally coming to terms with the perilous reality of China and the danger it poses, and are beginning to react accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Bernie, Hillary, Trump all opposed the TPP.
And the TPP wasn't the end of it -it was supplanted by the bilateral China talks that yielded Phase 1
The current US trade rep under Biden supported continuing the bilateral

 
Biden doesn't want to change China, and he certainly doesn't want to beat it. For pity's sake, it his and Hunter's golden goose.
 
The Xiden crime family took in $31m from china. He aint gonna do anything to upset his families slush fund


Moa_Biden_Site.webp
 
The last two idiotic right wing posts shows why Dems need to get out and vote to make sure that kind of stupidity stays out of power.
Shut up and go back to watching the genocide Olympics you Chinese bot.
 
The Xiden crime family took in $31m from china. He aint gonna do anything to upset his families slush fund
You have Pepe as avatar and doing the whole "lol guys, I'm a communist!" thing.

What I'm saying is thank you for sending up red flags. That always helps judge the likely merit of someone's post. In your case, none.

What do you think of Trump using an official public business visit to rustle up some trademarks for Ivanka?


Shut up and go back to watching the genocide Olympics you Chinese bot.
The problem is that saying the first thing makes people roll their eyes at the second thing, but the Uighur genocide was an excellent reason not to have the Olympics in China for 50 years at least. It legit should not be there.
 
What makes China so successful?
 
"To the surprise of many in Washington and Beijing, the Biden administration has largely followed Trump’s lead, keeping U.S. policy toward China on a more competitive — if not confrontational — footing, an approach now favored, in varying degrees, by lawmakers in both parties and likely to last as long as China continues its great leap backward. Restraining China is now a multi-administration, bipartisan strategy that stands among the most important foreign policy adjustments since the end of the Cold War.

...The Biden team’s first move was not to launch the traditional review of U.S. policy often done by new presidents. Instead, the competitors spent several weeks huddling with allies, informing them of the hard line they intended to take toward Beijing and asking them to rally around it. In the early months of 2021, Rosenberger’s office at the NSC led hours-long “virtual roadshows” with officials in France, Germany, Britain and the Baltic states. The sessions were meant to reassure allies and hear them out so that U.S. officials could identify opportunities for cooperation as well as potential weaknesses in a united front.

The competitors knew that many in the Washington bureaucracy, the business community, and China hands in think tanks and universities did not agree — or perhaps recognize — that the rules had changed. Lobbyists, former trade officials and others with economic incentives to keep U.S.-China relations on an even keel typically assumed Biden would end the Trump-era hostilities and return to the cooperation of the Barack Obama days. But, as NSC’s Campbell would later explain, “The period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end.”"

...In September, the competitors made their biggest strategic play — a new alliance expanding military cooperation with Australia and the United Kingdom. Called “AUKUS,” the deal has at its cornerstone a commitment to share nuclear submarine technology with Australia. AUKUS was not the Biden team’s idea, a senior official told me; credit belonged to British and Australian officials. China had been battering Australia economically throughout the pandemic in retaliation for its government calling for an independent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Meanwhile, Britain was looking to shore up its alliances following Brexit. In response to the sub deal, China’s acting ambassador to Australia, Wang Xining, issued a vague threat: “There’s zero nuclear capacity, technologically, in Australia, that would guarantee you will be trouble free, you will be incident free. … And if anything happened, are the politicians ready to say sorry?”

Link

Long article about Biden dealing with China. He's on the right path. One might say Trump started it. But Biden is under no illusions that the US can do it alone.
Why would anyone be surprised? Trump's foreign policy team was outstanding and has the results to prove it.
 
The Xiden crime family took in $31m from china. He aint gonna do anything to upset his families slush fund


View attachment 67373921
hilarious - I wonder how many get that is Mao's hairline? the mask is a nice touch as well.
What is Biden going to do when they take away his mask? he panics when he leaves it behind
 
What makes China so successful?
wow. now THAT is a long thread topic. China would say they have stability of leadership that western democracies do not-
which allows long term planning.. and there is some truth to that.

Of course there is there malign trade practices that escape WTO sanctions...the reason Trump wanted the bilateral instead.
But it's a lot to this topic
 
Why would anyone be surprised? Trump's foreign policy team was outstanding and has the results to prove it.
Hysterical
 
wow. now THAT is a long thread topic. China would say they have stability of leadership that western democracies do not-
which allows long term planning.. and there is some truth to that.

Of course there is there malign trade practices that escape WTO sanctions...the reason Trump wanted the bilateral instead.
But it's a lot to this topic
Leadership is one consideration. What about citizenry?
 
Leadership is one consideration. What about citizenry?
well China is certainly more homogeneous - and it's history of empire as well as Confucianism makes for an orderly
population where everyone accept the collective good. But only as long as leadership continues to bring economic improvement.
That's kind of the deal the CCP ( and Xi specifically) have going on with their population
 
Biden doesn't want to change China, and he certainly doesn't want to beat it. For pity's sake, it his and Hunter's golden goose.
Why would you say that?
 
well China is certainly more homogeneous - and it's history of empire as well as Confucianism makes for an orderly
population where everyone accept the collective good. But only as long as leadership continues to bring economic improvement.
That's kind of the deal the CCP ( and Xi specifically) have going on with their population
Our standards are very different, are they not?
 
More generally, I will say that Trump was right about the general notion of China as a great and terrible threat that needed to be soberly regarded as such, even if his prescriptions were wildly off. The absurd neoliberal notion that democracy in China was just around the corner, and globalization and market participation would be its harbinger has now all been decisively proven over decades to be the asinine, naïve (and let's face it, greed and corporate motivated) dribble it so obviously was back almost half a century ago during the time of Nixon, having done nothing but empower a totalitarian genocidal police state to be worse than ever, and a clear and imminent danger to American national interests and democracy and freedom worldwide more broadly.

WTF? "worse than ever"? You leftists actually believe the Chinese people were better off under Mao.

China is still a mixed economy, with way too many SOEs, but the fact is, the more capitalist a country becomes, the more free the people become. The market reforms made by Deng brought literally hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty, and those people don't give a shit about "democracy" nor should they. The only reason people like you worship democracy is so you can vote other people's money away from them and into your pocket.
 
Back
Top Bottom