https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1351580135464558593



Oh, alright. The Secretary wants to acknowledge China's genocide on his last full day in office.

It's easy to be tough on China on your way out the door.

This is why I don't buy the "Trump was tough on China" talking point. He had all the ammo available to be really really hard to China over the genocides, Taiwan, etc. He could have easily been very very economically tough on China and gotten our allies on board by pressuring them on the humanitarian crisis.
He did none of that though, because he actually had no interest in being any tougher on China than he needed to be to trick the gullible into thinking he was going to make changes.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 19 2021 12:53pm

I think it shows how America alone pursuing a policy without our allies is fruitless and counter-productive. A smart populist would bring allies together in order to enact consequences on China. That's not in Trump's DNA... he has to pursue an endless list of grievances with our allies while trying to be tough on China.

I suppose right-wing populists can claim, like the socialists do, that "true" populism hasn't been tried yet. But I don't recall them objecting to Trump's moves in the moment.

trump doesn't know what this means

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would have bought Trump being driven by concern over human rights abuses. He was the wrong person to forge an international anti-China alliance under this premise.

especially as the worst of their issues imo are against muslims, doesnt exactly poll spectacularly with his base.

I mean, yeah, he can't defend Muslims at all without looking bad because his base really hates all Muslims.

But if he was genuine he could easily have said "I don't like Muslims but we shouldn't genocide them" and also China does these bad things too.

Trump just doesn't know how to actually... do... anything except complain and be a victim.

Did u just suggest trump could openly say "i dont like muslims"?

like the guy is a wreck with rhetoric, but that's a magnitude worse than he's capable of IMO. even his awful "they're not sending their best, they're sending rapists, murders, etc" speech was more nuanced than that. in fact he's been nuanced all along to a degree, ranging from winking at it levels of dogwhistling to statements that require a 2 page op ed to decode.

You're taking it too literally lol. He can signal however he wants, but that's what would be barely under the surface. His base wouldn't abandon him over trying to keep people from being genocided. They can easily compartmentalize "he's doing this to get back at China" away from "He's helping Muslims". They don't seem to be affected at all by cognitive dissonance.

I dont think that this base actually hates muslims, in the sense that they actively wish them harm - they just dont see a place for islam in America.
Similarly, Trump actually got along quite well with MBS of Saudi-Arabia and also other Middle Eastern leaders.

Anyway, I disagree with your notion that the fabled anti-China alliance could or should have been forged on humanitarian grounds. Taking on a behemoth like China will require a lot of patience and sacrifice. The truth, imho, is that almost no Western society really cares that much about the treatment of minorities at the other end of the world that they would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of billions for it. Imho, the anti-China alliance must be framed as a defense of our freedom, our wealth and our democracy from Chinese encroachment. The Chinese being a threat to someone else (Uighurs/Taiwan/its own opposition) will never be as motivating and close the ranks as effectively as them being a threat to us.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 19 2021 02:27pm