Even France hates us now.

1,521 Views | 70 Replies | Last: 22 days ago by Sam Lowry
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hard to believe France now hates Hiddin Biden.
What makes the offended right?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Hard to believe France now hates Hiddin Biden.
our allies really unhappy right now.

Biden admin released this statement
2021 Adopt-A-Bear: Gavin Byers OL
Starting RT against TX St game
Starting RT against TX Southern
Starting RT against Kansas
Starting RT against ISU
Starting RT against OSU
Starting RT against WVU
Starting RT against BYU


“There are two buttons I never like to hit: that’s panic and snooze.” Ted Lasso
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't they like pull the ambassadors or something? I'm sure it would being reported 24/7 for weeks if this had happened under trump. Since it's biden the media ignores it. I guess the aussies paid the 10% to the big guy so they get their nuke subs.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are domestic French politics involved (i.e. upcoming elections) in their theatrics. Really, if they wanted to keep the contract they should have kept it from running so over-budget and behind schedule (first subs were supposed to be delivered 9/1, but they aren't even being built yet).

The funny part is, Biden actually brokered one of those big consequential deals that Trump always bragged about (but never delivered), and now the French invoke Trump's name as an insult. As in: the Biden admin behaved like the Trump admin to make the deal. This is part of the Biden admin's "pivot to Asia" that started under Obama, it is now all hands on deck to forge a coalition that can counter China, even if it pisses off some Europeans. Worth noting that France rebuffed Biden's advise to beef up focus on China during the NATO summit, so this is the response to that.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

There are domestic French politics involved (i.e. upcoming elections) in their theatrics. Really, if they wanted to keep the contract they should have kept it from running so over-budget and behind schedule (first subs were supposed to be delivered 9/1, but they aren't even being built yet).

The funny part is, Biden actually brokered one of those big consequential deals that Trump always bragged about (but never delivered), and now the French invoke Trump's name as an insult. As in: the Biden admin behaved like the Trump admin to make the deal. This is part of the Biden admin's "pivot to Asia" that started under Obama, it is now all hands on deck to forge a coalition that can counter China, even if it pisses off some Europeans. Worth noting that France rebuffed Biden's advise to beef up focus on China during the NATO summit, so this is the response to that.
What's ironic is that Biden shares some responsibility for China's rise to superpower status. While a senator, he was one of the strongest advocates for passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, which was largely responsible for the loss of millions of American jobs and a boon to China's economy. And this is what he said about China in 2011 as VP: "I remain convinced that a successful China can make our country more prosperous, not less. I am convinced, from nearly a dozen hours spent with Vice President Xi Jinping, that China's leadership agrees." And then while campaigning last year, he said this about China: "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man ... they can't figure out how they're going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. I mean, you know, they're not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they're not, they're not competition for us." He was largely critical of Trump's blunt relations with China.

The sudden pivot to a much more adversarial and aggressive stance is ironic to say the least. He now wants to counter Chinese influence in the Far East when he was responsible in part for that influence.

As for France, keeping the French in the loop from the start and being transparent with our oldest ally would probably have mitigated some of the damage done to our relations. But as we know from the Afghanistan debacle, the guy can screw up even those deals which are good in principle.

I am reminded of what Obama's former Sec. of Defense said about Biden: "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." That streak continues.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Never position yourself to the Left of the French" - author unknown.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
Again with Trump. Is he all you think about? Do you have some soft of sexual fantasy of him? I mean, it's disturbing that almost every post of your contains his name. It's like you're sitting at home just waiting to tie everything to Trump...
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
I understand your willingness to overlook and excuse Biden's support of the PNTR, but the fact of the matter is he supported it. In this case, Biden's actions have been consistent with his wording on China.

As for your last sentence, it's unclear what you're saying. Biden's Afghan withdrawal was a disaster of his own making. Even liberal pundits have admitted as much. No surprise you cannot, of course.

And as much as you'd like to make it about Trump, that has nothing to do with Trump.
bularry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
I understand your willingness to overlook and excuse Biden's support of the PNTR, but the fact of the matter is he supported it. In this case, Biden's actions have been consistent with his wording on China.

As for your last sentence, it's unclear what you're saying. Biden's Afghan withdrawal was a disaster of his own making. Even liberal pundits have admitted as much. No surprise you cannot, of course.

And as much as you'd like to make it about Trump, that has nothing to do with Trump.
so no PNTR and China isn't an issue right now and we are still friends with France? Is that your position?
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"In this case, Biden's actions have been consistent with his wording on China."

This is how a majority of our conversations go: you make some claim, I answer with some evidence showing that claim is not correct, it doesn't matter because you keep making the claim anyway.

This whole thread is about Biden/the UK making a move against China, by selling (almost gifting) nuke subs to Australia, and you still cling to "well he said nice things about them before so that means he's soft on China". You even managed to squeeze in a completely unrelated defense of Trump's Afghan deal, even though you're supposedly glad he's gone (lol), and then act like I'm the one who can't let him go.

As satire goes, it's a decent bit, problem is you really don't see any of your own inconsistency at all. Y'all are so happy to have something to complain about with the French that the actual implications of what happened went right over your heads.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

Mothra said:

HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
I understand your willingness to overlook and excuse Biden's support of the PNTR, but the fact of the matter is he supported it. In this case, Biden's actions have been consistent with his wording on China.

As for your last sentence, it's unclear what you're saying. Biden's Afghan withdrawal was a disaster of his own making. Even liberal pundits have admitted as much. No surprise you cannot, of course.

And as much as you'd like to make it about Trump, that has nothing to do with Trump.
so no PNTR and China isn't an issue right now and we are still friends with France? Is that your position?
Not sure what the hell you're talking about. I am not sure you know either, but of course we see you coming to Biden's defense on the indefensible. Par for the course.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

"In this case, Biden's actions have been consistent with his wording on China."

This is how a majority of our conversations go: you make some claim, I answer with some evidence showing that claim is not correct, it doesn't matter because you keep making the claim anyway.

This whole thread is about Biden/the UK making a move against China, by selling (almost gifting) nuke subs to Australia, and you still cling to "well he said nice things about them before so that means he's soft on China". You even managed to squeeze in a completely unrelated defense of Trump's Afghan deal, even though you're supposedly glad he's gone (lol), and then act like I'm the one who can't let him go.

As satire goes, it's a decent bit, problem is you really don't see any of your own inconsistency at all. Y'all are so happy to have something to complain about with the French that the actual implications of what happened went right over your heads.
I think you need to go back and read my initial post on this thread, wherein I said Biden has pivoted during his presidency toward an adversarial position on China. I am sure it has something to do with polling numbers, but the bottom line is he never took an adversarial approach toward China until his presidency, and shares some of the blame in its rise to superpower status.

Now, I trust from your post above, you feel you've presented some evidence showing that claim is not correct? I went back and read your post, and have not seen it. Can you please point me to the post where you presented some evidence that Biden's previous stance on China was consistent with his recent approach?

The point of my post was to show the irony between his current position and his position on the campaign trail. It sounds like you are unhappy that the main point of my post was not regarding the riff with France. I am sorry that confuses you. I know it must be difficult not having a stock answer ready to defend Biden.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So we're in agreement that Biden has taken a posture against China that we both approve of. You just feel like you need to whine about some "pivot" from Biden's previous rhetoric on the issue that you cynically ascribe to "polls", even though Biden's current policy is a continuation of the Obama/Biden "pivot to Asia" policy of 2012-2016.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

So we're in agreement that Biden has taken a posture against China that we both approve of. You just feel like you need to whine about some "pivot" from Biden's previous rhetoric on the issue that you cynically ascribe to "polls", even though Biden's current policy is a continuation of the Obama/Biden "pivot to Asia" policy of 2012-2016.
LOL, you're a hoot.
Guy Noir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
You continue to defend Biden. Do you not realize that he has demonstrated incompetent leadership since taking office?
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Pivot to Asia policy is worth defending. France will get over it, and our relations in the Pacific (+ the UK) will be fortified. If you believe China is a threat, then you should be happy with this deal.

The irony of calling this incompetence is, the Biden admin pulled off the kind of blockbuster Defense deal that Trump bragged he could deliver but never did.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

So we're in agreement that Biden has taken a posture against China that we both approve of. You just feel like you need to whine about some "pivot" from Biden's previous rhetoric on the issue that you cynically ascribe to "polls", even though Biden's current policy is a continuation of the Obama/Biden "pivot to Asia" policy of 2012-2016.
I have yet to see the pivot to an aggressive posture towards China. China owns Biden through billion dollar deals with acclaimed international "businessman" Hunter. How on earth you still have delusions of "Russia collusion" is what I can't understand.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

HuMcK said:

So we're in agreement that Biden has taken a posture against China that we both approve of. You just feel like you need to whine about some "pivot" from Biden's previous rhetoric on the issue that you cynically ascribe to "polls", even though Biden's current policy is a continuation of the Obama/Biden "pivot to Asia" policy of 2012-2016.
I have yet to see the pivot to an aggressive posture towards China. China owns Biden through billion dollar deals with acclaimed international "businessman" Hunter. How on earth you still have delusions of "Russia collusion" is what I can't understand.

You understand that has no basis in fact, right? Last time I bothered to check on a claim like that, I turned up that Hunter Biden had a 10% equity stake in a Chinese business, amounting to a $400k investment. Obviously that's far from being a billion $$, hell it's even way off from the $16mil Trump withdrew from his secret Chinese bank account in 2017(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/trump-taxes-china.html)...
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are a clown.
What makes the offended right?
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

BearFan33 said:

HuMcK said:

So we're in agreement that Biden has taken a posture against China that we both approve of. You just feel like you need to whine about some "pivot" from Biden's previous rhetoric on the issue that you cynically ascribe to "polls", even though Biden's current policy is a continuation of the Obama/Biden "pivot to Asia" policy of 2012-2016.
I have yet to see the pivot to an aggressive posture towards China. China owns Biden through billion dollar deals with acclaimed international "businessman" Hunter. How on earth you still have delusions of "Russia collusion" is what I can't understand.

You understand that has no basis in fact, right? Last time I bothered to check on a claim like that, I turned up that Hunter Biden had a 10% equity stake in a Chinese business, amounting to a $400k investment. Obviously that's far from being a billion $$, hell it's even way off from the $16mil Trump withdrew from his secret Chinese bank account in 2017(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/trump-taxes-china.html)...
https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-federal-tax-investigation-87c200c919aa61396b5d43077bc5b0ff

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-hunter-chinese-firm-investment-100-days

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html

Your link doesn't work for me. As hard as you grasp onto straws, there is a box full of them when it comes to the Biden family.

In any case, the point of my early post in this thread was the media would be acting like it was the end of the world had france pulled their ambassador from the US for any reason under a trump presidency. Now not a peep. I'm smart enough to know the France will come back around. But Joe can't make any claims to have improved things with our allies.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Those links confirm what I wrote, an equity stake in a Chinese company not anywhere near a billion $$. I don't like it, but the election was between a guy who collected 8 figures from a Chinese bank account as President in 2017 (the link is the NYTimes story about that, and much more, derived from tax records), or a guy whose son has a <half-million dollar stake in a Chinese business, so I voted accordingly.

The media is talking about this French tantrum (*, I dont watch any cable news so I can't speak to that), as much as anything else. If anything, a more sympathetic media would be playing up the deal as a win and play down the French more than they have, but foreign policy not involving an immediate danger doesn't really move the needle for people much.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

The Pivot to Asia policy is worth defending. France will get over it, and our relations in the Pacific (+ the UK) will be fortified. If you believe China is a threat, then you should be happy with this deal.

The irony of calling this incompetence is, the Biden admin pulled off the kind of blockbuster Defense deal that Trump bragged he could deliver but never did.
You're arguing against a straw man. No one has suggested that a "pivot to Asia" is a bad policy. What they've suggested is the way Biden went about executing was, once again, abysmal, and completely alienated a long-time ally.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The other side of the coin:
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

The other side of the coin:

Nice try, but that quote is about working on climate change, and is a very diplomatic quote to an NBC newsperson. I'm sure the question was also posed how he felt about dealing with Joe Biden on Afghanistan.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

GrowlTowel said:

Hard to believe France now hates Hiddin Biden.
our allies really unhappy right now.

Biden admin released this statement

But America is back. Dementia Joe said so. Unlike Bo, Joe just doesn't know.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
That's funny, while you do nothing but defend biden. Even going as far as trying to defend his fubar'd Afghanistan exit.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
Again with Trump. Is he all you think about? Do you have some soft of sexual fantasy of him? I mean, it's disturbing that almost every post of your contains his name. It's like you're sitting at home just waiting to tie everything to Trump...
I've said more than once, he really needs to seek some professional help
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That didn't last long.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do we care that France hates us?
Amal Shuq-Up
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden and Xi go to restaurant and both protest France by ordering Fleedom Flies.
MaxTeller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
China is a paper tiger.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Do we care that France hates us?
yes, they are our oldest allie. Biden and crew seriously botched this deal. I agree that Australia needs nuclear subs to blunt China a bit. However, you don't negotiate behind you friends back. Biden and crew should have gone to France on the front end and told them what was going on and worked out a deal they could live with on the diesel subs which they already had a contract for. Australia as some responsibility too.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

fadskier said:

Do we care that France hates us?
yes, they are our oldest allie. Biden and crew seriously botched this deal. I agree that Australia needs nuclear subs to blunt China a bit. However, you don't negotiate behind you friends back. Biden and crew should have gone to France on the front end and told them what was going on and worked out a deal they could live with on the diesel subs which they already had a contract for. Australia as some responsibility too.
France needs us more than we need them.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

HuMcK said:

That Permanent Normal Trade Relations designation is from 1980, call me crazy but maybe things have shifted a little bit in the 40yrs since then.

I'm suddenly remembering all of your admonishments that last few years to pay no attention to what Trump says, it's actions that are important. Why doesn't that apply here? There is a long history of Presidents speaking diplomatically about adversaries in public, so much so that it was the standard before Trump.

It is pretty clear to outside observers that, regardless of what he has said, the Biden admin is very focused on China as an adversary. What he was critical of was Trump's foolish idea that we could confront China by ourselves, all of his moves since taking office have been aimed at building a coalition out of the "Quad" (which includes Australia) and shifting resources to the Pacific region. In fact, that shift of focus is what Romney was criticizing Obama for in the famous "foreign policy from the 80s" exchange.

I still wonder how much stronger out position in the region would be as lead dogs in the TPP, which China has just formally applied to be since Trump backed us out of it. That will end up being one of the great blunders of history before all is said and done imo.

Also lol at calling the Afghan deal "good in principle", it's ok to acknowledge that Trump made a bad deal there, you don't have to defend every little thing the guy you supposedly don't like did.
Again with Trump. Is he all you think about? Do you have some soft of sexual fantasy of him? I mean, it's disturbing that almost every post of your contains his name. It's like you're sitting at home just waiting to tie everything to Trump...
So you missed the part about France invoking the last president, or the post right above?

Instead of bringing up sex try dealing with the issue at hand. We need more intelligent dialogue around here, not less.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.