The United States and China agreed Monday to drastically roll back tariffs on each other’s goods for an initial 90-day period, in a surprise breakthrough that has de-escalated a punishing trade war and buoyed global markets.
I said the Chinese had an opportunity to significantly pressure the US economy and did not take it. You are arguing that they shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to pressure the US economy. We aren’t having the same conversation. I don’t know what the right choice would be in this situation and don’t claim to understand the situation better than the Chinese govt if that wasn’t clear.
I said the Chinese had an opportunity to significantly pressure the US economy and did not take it. You are arguing that they shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to pressure the US economy. We aren’t having the same conversation.
As I said before, your option will speed up the war effort which means activating all of the puppets and US occupations in Asia(Philippines, Taiwan, ROK, Japan and others). It will also unite the US capitalist class. It will lead the US into turning plenty of countries in Asia to ucranization where there citizens are kidnapped to the frontline.
I wouldn’t call that an opportunity but a mistake that will lead to bloodshed of many.
Again, I’m not intending to make a value judgment or suggesting one course of action over another. If I intended to do that, I would have said something like “the Chinese should have punished the US”. But I never said that because I didn’t intend to make a value judgment or suggest a course of action over another, as though I’m better positioned to understand what’s going on than the people intimately involved.
But you did make a value judgement(arrogantly if I may add)… 🙄 Your intention was clear as purified water… As clear as the moonlight
When you said “China capitulated”, you implicitly told all of us what your standard is which is “China should have continued with their pressure and they lost if they didn’t continue” and the rest of interpretations are not good enough. You implicitly told us your strong preference for your main interpretation rather than actually measuring the rest of the interpretations available. Also, you don’t need to write “should” to make a value judgement.
If your true intention was to measure all of the interpretations available and examine if yours was the closest to the correct answer, then a better wording will have suffice and it will have help a lot if you didn’t double down on this:
So you agree that China is more interested in maintaining business as usual than putting pressure on the US?
My word choice betrayed what I intended to get at and I didn’t realize how significantly I misunderstood the connotation of capitulated until more folks started voicing the same perspective as XiBuck. That is why I initially balked at what I saw as a significant extension beyond what I intended to say in his response.
I said the Chinese had an opportunity to significantly pressure the US economy and did not take it. You are arguing that they shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to pressure the US economy. We aren’t having the same conversation. I don’t know what the right choice would be in this situation and don’t claim to understand the situation better than the Chinese govt if that wasn’t clear.
As I said before, your option will speed up the war effort which means activating all of the puppets and US occupations in Asia(Philippines, Taiwan, ROK, Japan and others). It will also unite the US capitalist class. It will lead the US into turning plenty of countries in Asia to ucranization where there citizens are kidnapped to the frontline.
I wouldn’t call that an opportunity but a mistake that will lead to bloodshed of many.
Again, I’m not intending to make a value judgment or suggesting one course of action over another. If I intended to do that, I would have said something like “the Chinese should have punished the US”. But I never said that because I didn’t intend to make a value judgment or suggest a course of action over another, as though I’m better positioned to understand what’s going on than the people intimately involved.
But you did make a value judgement(arrogantly if I may add)… 🙄 Your intention was clear as purified water… As clear as the moonlight
When you said “China capitulated”, you implicitly told all of us what your standard is which is “China should have continued with their pressure and they lost if they didn’t continue” and the rest of interpretations are not good enough. You implicitly told us your strong preference for your main interpretation rather than actually measuring the rest of the interpretations available. Also, you don’t need to write “should” to make a value judgement.
If your true intention was to measure all of the interpretations available and examine if yours was the closest to the correct answer, then a better wording will have suffice and it will have help a lot if you didn’t double down on this:
My word choice betrayed what I intended to get at and I didn’t realize how significantly I misunderstood the connotation of capitulated until more folks started voicing the same perspective as XiBuck. That is why I initially balked at what I saw as a significant extension beyond what I intended to say in his response.