How Americans see China
In meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao two months ago, President Barack Obama said: “Over the last several years…we have been able to really create a new model for practical and constructive and comprehensive relations between our two countries.” By early July, on the campaign trail in Ohio, he was touting his administration’s record for bringing “trade cases against China at a faster pace than the previous administration.” This was underscored by the Obama administration’s September 17 unfair trade case at the World Trade Organization against alleged Chinese subsidies of auto parts exports.
Meanwhile, the president’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has promised that on his first day in office he will issue an executive order branding China a currency manipulator, possibly triggering a trade war. However, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on February 16, he stated that “a trade war with China is the last thing I want,” and then backed away from the threatened executive order by saying that he would designate Beijing a currency manipulator “unless China changes its ways.”
The casual observer might be excused if he or she concluded that the candidates were presenting a mixed message about the China policy they would pursue if they win in November. This paradox may simply reflect the candidates’ efforts to reconcile the imperatives of campaigning versus the constraints of governing when confronted with sharply contrasting views of China.
On the one hand, the candidates are attempting to woo voters worried about China’s rise. On the other, China experts are advising that whoever is elected president will one day have to deal constructively with Beijing.
Reconciling these often conflicting perspectives may prove one of the toughest foreign policy challenges facing the next U.S. president.
Most Americans describe relations between the U.S. and China as good, but most consider China a competitor rather than an enemy or partner, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.
Indeed, when asked which country represents the greatest danger to the U.S., more Americans volunteer China (26 percent) than name any other country, including Iran and North Korea. And about half (52 percent) view China’s emergence as a world power as a major threat to the U.S.
In particular, nearly eight in ten Americans say the large amount of U.S. debt that is held by China is a very serious problem for America; majorities also consider the loss of U.S. jobs to China (71 percent) and the U.S. trade deficit with China (61 percent) to be very serious.
But the public is also worried about China’s impact on the global environment (50 percent), cyber attacks from China (50 percent), China’s growing military power (49 percent) and China’s policies on human rights (48 percent) as major problems.
It is little wonder then that only 26 percent of the public say the U.S. can trust China.
Nevertheless, the public is divided on what to do about China: 28 percent want the next president to build a strong relationship with Beijing, 24 percent want him to be tough with China on economic and trade issues.
Obama and Romney are hearing a slightly different story from the foreign policy community, including government officials, retired military officers, business and trade leaders, scholars and the media, also surveyed by the Pew Research Center.
Like the general public, strong majorities of these experts, more than seven in ten, see China as a competitor rather than an enemy or partner.
Also, like the public, retired military officers are more likely to name China as the country that represents the greatest danger to the U.S. In contrast, Iran is cited more frequently by government officials, business and trade leaders and members of the news media.
But, for the most part, foreign affairs experts are far less concerned than the general public about issues related to China. Less than half of the retired military officers and less than a third of the other experts view China’s emergence as a world power as a major threat to the U.S.Fewer than four in ten say the loss of U.S. jobs to China, the U.S. trade deficit with China, China’s growing military power and China’s policies on human rights are very serious problems for the U.S.
Only cyber attacks from China are considered a very serious problem by at least half of the experts surveyed. Retired military officers are especially concerned.
Still, experts are not that much more trusting of Beijing than is the public. Only about a third or less say the U.S. can trust Beijing. However, they place a much higher priority on building a stronger relationship with China (62 percent versus 28 percent among the public).
The November 6 presidential election will not be determined by the candidates’ views on China. But given the public’s fairly hawkish views on China, both Obama and Romney will not shy away from sounding tough on Beijing. And, after election day, whoever is the next president is likely to hear more cautionary advice from foreign policy experts.
2012 US Presidential Election discussion.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Just more thoughts on this one. Mitt Romney keeps shooting himself in the foot. The problem as I see it is that Mitt is completely not conservative. There is a huge difference between giving tax breaks to bankers and big corporation vs being conservative. He is the former or what we would call a corporatist, not a conservative.
That entire 47% message just shows that he is clueless about conservative ideology. For example, I believe that conservative fiscal policy can bring prosperity to all by creating wealth that will benefit all to a certain degree. Some people will gain more than others, but that's capitalism. Mitt doesn't understand that poor people would still vote for a real conservative for the hope that candidate may bring more opportunity out there so people don't have to rely on the government.
It's a really sad state of the affairs when the past 2 Republican presidential candidates McCain and Romney just don't understand the conservative economic model at all.
That entire 47% message just shows that he is clueless about conservative ideology. For example, I believe that conservative fiscal policy can bring prosperity to all by creating wealth that will benefit all to a certain degree. Some people will gain more than others, but that's capitalism. Mitt doesn't understand that poor people would still vote for a real conservative for the hope that candidate may bring more opportunity out there so people don't have to rely on the government.
It's a really sad state of the affairs when the past 2 Republican presidential candidates McCain and Romney just don't understand the conservative economic model at all.
To the contrary, I believe Romney understands precisely the Free Market economic model and its conservative roots. He pointed it out very well last night. His plan will create more jobs for more people.
His 47% comments have been taken out of context and completely used against what his actual plan is.
It is true that there are a certain (too large) a segment of people who will only vote for those who promise to keep them on the dole. Romney could have worded his articulation of that point better. Clerly, a large number of the 47% are willing to find work, take a job and be a part of the "engine'. But the bottom line, it is not representative of who he is or what he proposes.
His plan is not to give cuts and special opportunities to bankers and big corporations. His plan is to fire up the economic engine of the free market and create jobs...and he knows precisely how to do that.
Lats night, we saw Romney in his element, unfettered by the lens and interpretations of the media or the Obama campaign. And he took Obama apart.
This web ad absolutely nails the essences of that 1st presidential debate...both Romney's clear, head-on message, and Obama's demeanor and reaction. I believe it will...and already is...making a huge difference. You cannot filter this one with campaign ads or media interpretation. It is out there on the web in its entirety and people can see the two men, what they represent, how they responded and their passion or lack thereof. Unfiltered messages from each man with their ability to question the other and back up their own statements.
[video=youtube;dKMUHcgsbag]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMUHcgsbag[/video]
Romney may not have had a stupendous "moment" where he put Obama in his place with a single phrase that people will talk about for 20 years. Instead, he had 90 minutes of as complete a Presidential blow out as I have witnessed in my entire life. I cannot remember such a lop sided presidential debate since I have been old enough to care...meaning over the last 40 years. And, IMHO, THAT is what will be remembered and talked about for 20 years and more.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I don't know about that, it seems like Romney stutters and just reiterating what's written for him on paper. He's trying too hard to get all the "bullet points" out as fast as he can. He doesn't even answer the question directly but more of selling points as to what he's gonna do when elected as president. Now, to some of us Obama does looked passive in those debates, but don't be fooled. We have to wait and see the rest of the debates to give out a more definite grade between the two candidates. Now I can't wait for the Vice Presidential debate between Biden and Ryan, that'll be something to watch out for!
i personally like Obama, but make no mistake, Romney hit hard in that debate
it's Obama's campaign team fault that they think they can play defense and underestimate what kind of a fight and heat Romney could put up
if anything else, it is a clear example that general public like and follow good impression and promises, not exact actual facts or plans, or details and description which Romney hadn't been able to provide
Romney stood up good with his promises and sales pitches, while Obama tried too much to be presidential and lay out his plans to the viewing public, which is again a mistake, because this is a campaign
The president looked like he didn't want to be there, and lacked the passion for a debate or to push Romney to the edge of the cliff
I think when you really look deeper, whoever come to power won't really matter, because both party will still work for whoever got them elected, aka their biggest campaign donor, aka the corporations.
It seems the difference between the two is strikingly similar to the so call "cake dispute" between Bo Xilai and Wang yang. Obama if reelected, will play populist card by distributing the wealth from the rich to poor, so he maybe more harsher on the corporation, but I doubt he will really touch their bottom line, but Obama won't really truly expand the economy.
If Romney get elected, he will no redistribute the wealth, instead he will try to grow the US economy to make everyone more richer, but the dominance of business and Wall Street will continue to be consolidated, so will the gap between rich and poor.
Basically Obama aka Bo Xilai wants to redistribute the cake, Romney aka Wang Yang wants to grow the cake.
The strategy of Obama to get elected seems that he want to pour as much dirt on Romney as possible, and point out just how Romney is so different from people like you, and if you elect him, you will get poorer and the rich is going to get richer. Basically he plays on people's fear, he don't offer any clear alternative for solution, nor he have one, but he just want to scare the bejesus out of people.
Strategy of Romney is that he will point out just what a bad job Obama have done during the past 4 years, and he have the experience the expertise to solve the nation's problem. In a normal world, Romney would easily won, all he have to do is to point out how bad a job Obama is doing, but from all the mistake he is making combined with Obama's attack, make everything uncertain.
I personally see no real difference between the two, but if were to forced to choose between the lesser of two evil, I pick Romney, simply because of his past, he was part of Bane which brought distressed business and reorganize them to make it better, he also took over Olympic and governorship, all of them were facing problem at the time, but he was able to identify the problem and find the right solution to solve them. Just from this skill alone makes him invaluable, I don't know if he can correctly diagnoses America's problem and have the political smart/courage to solve them, but at least he have shown in the past he does have this ability.
Romney is as closet to the member of the CCP politburo as it gets, and this is a compliment.
Obama on the other hand, he have all the right ideas, but he have no ability to see the real issue and solve the real problem, his argument is that he was handed a bad economy so he is not his fault, this claim is true on surface, he was handled a bad situation, but there were a lot of things he would have done to make it better, but he didn't do it, this alone makes him unqualified to be president anymore.
To compare, George Bush is someone I think who have no brain, no imagination, have a lot of courage, no ability. Obama is someone with half a brain, too much imagination and no ability and no courage. I think Romney is someone with a lot of brain, some imagination, unknown courage and a lot of ability.
In the end no matter who get elected, there are 2 long term problem with US will continue to exist,
1. too much business influence in politics (Obama might try to fought this, but not a chance will succeed for long term)
2. Extreme increase in government budget, extreme wastage in government department (Romney have good chance of fix this, Obama won't even touch it)
What we need for president at this moment in US politics Theodore Roosevelt. He presided a nation which business class had much influence over the nation and the Unions were just as violent. But he was not just someone who was strong on business with anti-trust measures, he was also equally harsh on the striking Unions workers, he is famous for his "square deals" which he does not favor anyone side, he was tough on both side of dispute to really find the problem and solve regardless of outside influences.
Right now, there is no such person in US politics as far as I can see.
It seems the difference between the two is strikingly similar to the so call "cake dispute" between Bo Xilai and Wang yang. Obama if reelected, will play populist card by distributing the wealth from the rich to poor, so he maybe more harsher on the corporation, but I doubt he will really touch their bottom line, but Obama won't really truly expand the economy.
If Romney get elected, he will no redistribute the wealth, instead he will try to grow the US economy to make everyone more richer, but the dominance of business and Wall Street will continue to be consolidated, so will the gap between rich and poor.
Basically Obama aka Bo Xilai wants to redistribute the cake, Romney aka Wang Yang wants to grow the cake.
The strategy of Obama to get elected seems that he want to pour as much dirt on Romney as possible, and point out just how Romney is so different from people like you, and if you elect him, you will get poorer and the rich is going to get richer. Basically he plays on people's fear, he don't offer any clear alternative for solution, nor he have one, but he just want to scare the bejesus out of people.
Strategy of Romney is that he will point out just what a bad job Obama have done during the past 4 years, and he have the experience the expertise to solve the nation's problem. In a normal world, Romney would easily won, all he have to do is to point out how bad a job Obama is doing, but from all the mistake he is making combined with Obama's attack, make everything uncertain.
I personally see no real difference between the two, but if were to forced to choose between the lesser of two evil, I pick Romney, simply because of his past, he was part of Bane which brought distressed business and reorganize them to make it better, he also took over Olympic and governorship, all of them were facing problem at the time, but he was able to identify the problem and find the right solution to solve them. Just from this skill alone makes him invaluable, I don't know if he can correctly diagnoses America's problem and have the political smart/courage to solve them, but at least he have shown in the past he does have this ability.
Romney is as closet to the member of the CCP politburo as it gets, and this is a compliment.
Obama on the other hand, he have all the right ideas, but he have no ability to see the real issue and solve the real problem, his argument is that he was handed a bad economy so he is not his fault, this claim is true on surface, he was handled a bad situation, but there were a lot of things he would have done to make it better, but he didn't do it, this alone makes him unqualified to be president anymore.
To compare, George Bush is someone I think who have no brain, no imagination, have a lot of courage, no ability. Obama is someone with half a brain, too much imagination and no ability and no courage. I think Romney is someone with a lot of brain, some imagination, unknown courage and a lot of ability.
In the end no matter who get elected, there are 2 long term problem with US will continue to exist,
1. too much business influence in politics (Obama might try to fought this, but not a chance will succeed for long term)
2. Extreme increase in government budget, extreme wastage in government department (Romney have good chance of fix this, Obama won't even touch it)
What we need for president at this moment in US politics Theodore Roosevelt. He presided a nation which business class had much influence over the nation and the Unions were just as violent. But he was not just someone who was strong on business with anti-trust measures, he was also equally harsh on the striking Unions workers, he is famous for his "square deals" which he does not favor anyone side, he was tough on both side of dispute to really find the problem and solve regardless of outside influences.
Right now, there is no such person in US politics as far as I can see.
I think I'm probably going to sound like a nutcase answering this one, so please do excuse me a little bit as I express my frustrations.
Keep in mind as you read my thoughts, I only watched that debate for about 30 minutes last night due to my work schedule. I'm basing on what I saw and also a couple of other sources. And I also believed that Mitt Romney won the debate hands down. And that if he gets elected, it will probably benefit me more than most people.
When I first listened to Romney talking about the conservative ideals, I was thinking that this guy is actually quite on the point. He is presenting a really good case of what conservatism is. And then, when it actually came down to the specifics of what he will actually do, that's when it all fell apart for me. What really happened last night is that while he made a general case for conservative principles to the public, his actual stated policies is a huge move to the center. In my opinion, he was trying to out-liberal Obama. He was afraid to talk about cutting anything. Let's not touching the behemoth also known as medicare. Let's not touch social security at all. Let's not touch this education funding. Let's cut PBS.
His method of cutting down deficit is to cut some taxes for the rich, increase military spending, cutting some discretionary funding like PBS, magically close tax loop holes. Somehow that and increased tax revenue from economic growth with really reduce the deficit.
Does he not see what's going on around this country and around the world? There are serious economic problems in Europe and Asia, so you are not going to be able export your way out. The interest rate has already been cut to as low as you can get. The country still hasn't finished de-leveraging from the excessive debts of Bush years. Banks have plenty of money but can't find suitable lenders, so you can't grow that way either. Where is this magical economic growth coming from? You have to plan on cutting down deficit without expecting magical growth.
Currently, if you add up social security + medicare + medicaid + interest on the debts, that's equal to the entire national revenue base. If interest rate goes up at all to even 3%, the deficit will be unmanageable. Anything beyond that, you have to borrow from foreigners, your own people and all the savings fund around the country. Or you can just have Bernanke print even more money.
Anyhow, that's my $0.02.
Obama leads Romney by 3% point WSJ poll
67% think Romney won debate: CNN/ORC snap poll
DENVER -- Mitt Romney battled back in his uphill drive to oust U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday with an aggressive debate performance that put his campaign on a more positive footing after weeks of stumbles and knocked Obama off-stride.
In the first of three presidential debates this month, Romney went beyond expectations as the two candidates stood side-by-side for the first time after months of campaigning against each other from long distance.
Looking to claw his way back into a race that has seen Obama hold an edge among voters, Romney was on the offensive throughout the 90-minute encounter with Obama. While the president landed some punches on Romney's tax plan, he did not appear as prepared as his rival and missed several opportunities to attack.
With under five weeks to go until the Nov. 6 election, it was uncertain whether Romney had managed to change the trajectory of a race that has favored Obama. It is difficult to dislodge an incumbent from the White House. In recent weeks, Romney has lurched from stumble to stumble and been unable to project a consistent message.
“How does it translate into the horse race? That's unclear,” said Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Minnesota. “Romney should have some momentum. The question is whether he can maintain it.”
But there was no question that Romney's campaign felt it was now in a better position. In the “spin room” afterward, Romney advisers hung around for 90 minutes talking to reporters, long after the Obama side had decamped.
chinapost.com
67% think Romney won debate: CNN/ORC snap poll
DENVER -- Mitt Romney battled back in his uphill drive to oust U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday with an aggressive debate performance that put his campaign on a more positive footing after weeks of stumbles and knocked Obama off-stride.
In the first of three presidential debates this month, Romney went beyond expectations as the two candidates stood side-by-side for the first time after months of campaigning against each other from long distance.
Looking to claw his way back into a race that has seen Obama hold an edge among voters, Romney was on the offensive throughout the 90-minute encounter with Obama. While the president landed some punches on Romney's tax plan, he did not appear as prepared as his rival and missed several opportunities to attack.
With under five weeks to go until the Nov. 6 election, it was uncertain whether Romney had managed to change the trajectory of a race that has favored Obama. It is difficult to dislodge an incumbent from the White House. In recent weeks, Romney has lurched from stumble to stumble and been unable to project a consistent message.
“How does it translate into the horse race? That's unclear,” said Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Minnesota. “Romney should have some momentum. The question is whether he can maintain it.”
But there was no question that Romney's campaign felt it was now in a better position. In the “spin room” afterward, Romney advisers hung around for 90 minutes talking to reporters, long after the Obama side had decamped.
chinapost.com
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Debates are all about Control. If you can go in and control the conversation then you are the Winner Before the Debate Romney was looked at as almost an Ogre, During it he showed a personable individual who spoke the issues. A almost complete turn around well President Obama came off as sleepy, uninterested and annoyed.
Now for some thing completely different
[video=youtube;QlwilbVYvUg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg[/video]
Now for some thing completely different
[video=youtube;QlwilbVYvUg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg[/video]
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
These debates remind me of the British mini-series back in the 80s, Shaka Zulu. It was about the South African Zulu Wars. In the show before the rise of Shaka, the leader of the Zulus, war between the tribes was more a ritual dance than actual combat. He brought horror and blood back into war.
These debates are negotiated beforehand on how the candidates conduct themselves. Just like a lot of global summits between nations are hammered out long before where the summit itself is just ceremony. No leader is going to want a summit without knowing how it'll turn out beforehand. Failure can look bad to your own people. If you know it's not going to turn out in you favor in the first place, you wouldn't want to bother with a summit. Which is probably why the first debate wasn't filled with "zingers" like pundits said was going to happen and why both candidates didn't go down to the usual expected cheap shots at one another.
These debates are negotiated beforehand on how the candidates conduct themselves. Just like a lot of global summits between nations are hammered out long before where the summit itself is just ceremony. No leader is going to want a summit without knowing how it'll turn out beforehand. Failure can look bad to your own people. If you know it's not going to turn out in you favor in the first place, you wouldn't want to bother with a summit. Which is probably why the first debate wasn't filled with "zingers" like pundits said was going to happen and why both candidates didn't go down to the usual expected cheap shots at one another.