Posted on 10/20/2019 2:29:06 AM PDT by cba123
At a recent dinner for a group of high-ranking military officers at an undisclosed location in the bucolic American countryside, I cautioned the generals to prepare for the president to make a deal with China on trade. Many nodded but were skeptical. Why would the president unilaterally end a trade war that has been so successful against a country which he, and many of his most ardent supporters, believe is America’s number one geopolitical rival?
I explained that the president is a transactional leader who favors short-term solutions over longer-term strategic considerations. This in itself is not bad. In fact, it was one of the reasons why I not only voted for the Trump in 2016 (and will vote for him again in 2020), but it is also why I so loudly defended this president to fellow Republicans who despised him. Yet, foreign and trade policy is not a one-size-fits-all solution. And, with China, if the United States cedes an inch of ground on trade, China’s leaders will turn that inch into a mile — ensuring that Beijing will yet again keep pace with (and possibly ultimately defeat) America in the great strategic competition between Beijing and Washington.
(Please see full article at the link)
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The FIRST president, in either party, to do so in thirty full years.
So far, he seems to have been doing precisely the right thing.
Perfect.
Wait? Wasn’t the trade war a disaster? First time I’m hearing its a success from the MSM
I have to say though, he sounds like one of the few, who may just understand.
For real.
This article is a trial baloon besmirchment of the Presidential “transactional” trade policies.
Transactional my foot.
Its the Art of the Deal. Period. Why gussie it up like a freakin’ liberal autocrat?
Notice how the haters of Trump are always trying to change the vocabulary so that there is an undertone of hatred for PDJT.
Its as if they want us to believe that PDJTs sole purpose is like some kind of prostitute, transaction.
Underneath our so called “tranactional” presidential policies is a deep well of patriotism and care for the Grand Experiment which is America, and its associated liberties.
The ChiComs can NEVER turn that into their country mile, whcih somehow has author of this thread article, BRANDON J. WEICHERT’s panties all in a twist.
It is Weichart’s article which is transactional. He thinks our President or his successors won’t continue to hold China’s feet to the letter of the deal,and all this is just a Flash in The Leftist Defined RINO Pan.Its an attempt to diminish President Trumps achievement with China. After all, 50 billion dollars sale of agricultural futures is hardly a snake one blinks at.
We can’t have people thinking of that success.( sarc.)
Any deal with China is a deal that will ultimately lead to China overtaking the US. China is a tyrannical, murderous nascent superpower that needs to be held at arms length and prevented from becoming too prosperous. I suspect that greed will be the primary consideration though. Too much money to be made trading with this oriental despotism regardless of the long term interests of future generations who will have to deal with aver mighty PRC in future.
Any deal with China is a deal that will ultimately lead to China overtaking the US>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not is the policy of our President is followed by his successors.
The trick is simply to hold the CHICOMs accountable when they break their agreement, which they will. Then the tariffs go back on and we make another pile of money from them.
Simple really.
“if the United States cedes an inch of ground on trade, China’s leaders will turn that inch into a mile....”
That would only happen if Trump allows it to happen. We already know he is not afraid to jack up the tariffs and we also know this is very harmful to the Chinese economy. I also do not for a moment believe Trumps strategy on China is tactical rather than strategic.
The author of this piece has not been paying attention these past 3 yrs.
“Simple really”
It really is and it is puzzling so few seem to understand.
In the end they need us much, MUCH more than we need them.
When it comes to weapons available by each side, we have nukes and they have flintlock rifles.
Yes, it really is simple. This so called “trade war” was over before it started with the winner predetermined.
with the winner predetermined.>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep, its US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.