Economy Trump opposes US defaulting on Chinese-held debt

[7437]

But you knew what he meant. It doesn't make you clever to point out irrelevant technicalities. The "Time Magazine Person of the Year", is not awarded with negative intent, and you know it.

They say its an award for better or for worse. Putin's was not exactly glowing, it was uncertain but acknowledged how important he was for example.

Thats not really the point though. Its never been the best person of the year. At all.

 

[7437]

Let me help you out. I understand you’re kinda slow.

Not seeing a best person of the year award anywhere.

 

[HereticBD]

They say its an award for better or for worse.

Is that why they awarded Charles Manson and Jim Jones the accolade?

It's not about pure notoriety. While there are shades of grey here and there, it's generally a positive accolade. C'mon now.

 

[7437]

Is that why they awarded Charles Manson and Jim Jones the accolade?

It's not about pure notoriety. While there are shades of grey here and there, it's generally a positive accolade.

I'd assume so. I don't think there is an argument they weren't influential.

 

[HereticBD]

I'd assume so. I don't think there is an argument they weren't influential.

They were undeniably influential. No Time award though, because, well, obviously.

I don't even take issue with their judgement. Just saying that they've awarded the accolade prematurely in the past, and aren't infallible, like Jack (Time!) Savage is inferring.

It's Time Magazine after all. TIME MAGAZINE!

 

[KOFalconPunch]

Not seeing a best person of the year award anywhere.

There is no “best person of the year” just their “man of the year” tradition.

If you can’t make that interepration from “man of the year” then you’re a putz. Simple as that. Don’t be a Captain Literal Man, as you would still look like a fool arguing semantics.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why? To work for Time does someone need to have attained a level of righteousness that precludes them from spreading fake news?

More or less, yes. But more importantly than that, there are institutional controls that prevent that kind of thing. And it's crazy to think that they'd undermine their whole business model for no reason. Or that thinking they would is more plausible to you than that Trump could make a mistake. It's really amazing to see Americans act like this. I associate that kind of slavish devotion to political leaders with third-world (or second-world) dictatorships and wouldn't have thought it could come here.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

More or less, yes. But more importantly than that, there are institutional controls that prevent that kind of thing. And it's crazy to think that they'd undermine their whole business model for no reason. Or that thinking they would is more plausible to you than that Trump could make a mistake. It's really amazing to see Americans act like this. I associate that kind of slavish devotion to political leaders with third-world (or second-world) dictatorships and wouldn't have thought it could come here.

This is handwaving. Polishheadlock's article claimed Trump received "a warning" in "many" daily intelligence briefings in early January. The article's writers didn't say what was in these briefings (which I suspect was intentional), but the context is information on the virus so it's reasonable to infer that (if Time is telling the truth) these briefings had information on the virus. But the article it links to to claim Trump and administration officials were "uninterested" says nothing about daily intelligence briefings saying what the virus does to the body and how it's transmitted and a coverup by the CCP, much less that Trump and administration officials were "uninterested".

 

[Cid]

I think this is all a different issue. Wanting to know what happened is fine. Sanctions are fine if we're talking about a continuing issue. Trying to negotiate a settlement is fine. The idea that we should impose "punishment" on other countries as a response amid a crisis that was largely a result of an incompetent response to a problem by our own gov't is reflective of a mindset that is both authoritarian and childish.

There's also something really creepy about the way people are so easily manipulated as Trump's relationship to China keeps changing (immediately gives in to them on the TPP and it's great that we're building a stronger relationship, then pivots to a trade war and they're the devil, then pivots to playing nice to get out of the trade war and they're great, then needs a scapegoat for his failure on COVID, etc.--every step of the way, his slavish followers shift and express the new gov't-demanded position with deep conviction).

Whether they should be punished would be something that's determined by an investigation or if they refuse one. If it did occur at the wet markets there's not much blame. If it came from the lab it's a different story. If they refuse an investigation then fuck em. I'm not disagreeing with you about punishment but rather the last line where you state "if anyone deserves punishment..."

That's really something to be established and i find it unlikely that China's attempts to censor didn't play a role or that they'll allow an independent investigation.


I think the real issue and why I'll support any reasonable or even unreasonable trade repercussions for China is the belief that trade shouldn't be about unbridled capitalism where we build up nations ideologically opposed to our own.

For me it's not about punishment, covid or even China. I'm just pro anything that damages trade relationships these countries.

At the end of the day I understand that building trade with poor countries who are more in line with our rights and freedoms isn't going to happen because some billionaire won't become a multi-billionaire because of it.

So I take any half victory I can get.