You absolutely should, assuming that you are a nerd it’s IMO his best book. I have a lovely hard cover edition.

deleted by creator

No, they dont

When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.

The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.

As is confirmed in your first link, the USA acknowledges that the Chinese position is that Taiwan is a part of China, and recognise that the PRC is the government of China, they deliberately do not say if they consider Taiwan a part of China or not.

Its a political stech in a newspaper, not a link to a video. You can either go to the guardian’s front page to see the it or type anything even slightly relatred to it into a search engine to see the video.

Please try to read usernames, I didnt say anything about motivations.

And all of them threatened retaliatory tariffs immediately after trump anounced his:

• China
• Canada
• Mexico
• EU

Obviously most of those havent been implemented yet as THe USA hasnt implemented it’s tariffs. But the more general point about imposing retaliatory tariffs is sound, they make the other countries exports less attractive. If the US does that to other countries they are going to want to do it back to the US.

So do you think the EU, Canada, Mexico and China all dont understand how economies work either? As they all immediately said they would respond to tariffs with tariffs on American goods.

No I’m not, I’m just not assuming immigrants have 0 buying power, which your post implicitly was. Yes supply increases but demand also increases. Beyond that you get into the realms of having to do empirical research as to which is more (which is difficult).

More people also means more demand for things that require labour to create however. Your position is referred to as the lump of labour fallacy

There was also a Harvard paper that was the main justification for austerity in the UK given its conclusion that past a certain GDP/debt ratio al sorts of bad things happen.

Turned out to be an excel error skipping 1/4 of their data and when re-run with the whole set the effect vanished. Horrible abuses of excel and csv files are by no means limited to any one country.

If you dont understand the difference between trying to start by winning a mayoralty of a town of 10,000 people then some state legislature seat and trying to win the president of the USA without an existing power base I dont know what to tell you. I cant break that down to being any simpler for you as to why starting with the later before you’ve managed the former is pointless.

So do what I literally said before, build up a party, take places that you have a realistic chance of winning, build your parties power base and then take larger constituencies. That’s how a an organisation actually interested in political power would go about it with multiple years out. Not trying to jump to the highest level office in the land where the mathematical reality of the system insists that that one of the top two candidates will win.

Ah yes I’d forgotten about all those elections in a winner takes all system where a candidate was polling at 1% the day before election turned out to win it. Your obnoxious posting style really helped me remember that absolutely true fact.

So why dont you just vote for yourself? Clearly thats the only way to agree with your candidate 100% and it clearly doesnt matter to you what the odds of winning are.

If you want to get an actual left winger into office in the us you have exactly three options, entryism into the democrat party and pushing a left winger in the primaries (ie bernie, maybe AOC in the future), building up a new party starting by taking local offices in progressive places until the dems either have to pivot to the left or are replaced by you, revolution.

Ignoring reality and voting for a third party in the presidential election is nothing more than posturing at best and actively enabling the worst elements in society at worst.

If Germany wasnt a country that bent over backwards to please Israel and shelter it from critisism, maybe that could be the case. But instead it is the country that barred the rector of Glasgow university from entering Shengen as he (A British-Palestinian surgeon) was going to give a talk on the conditions he had witnessed in gaza and has repeatedly banned pro Palestein demonstrations and symbols.

I see no reason to assume its refusal to state that it would uphold an ICC warrant against Netanyahu (as more vocally pro Palestein countries such as Spain and Ireland have done) is anything other than not being willing to uphold it.

Right, I’m not trying to portray the UK as a beacon of goodness, but Germany has gone far beyond in suppressing any dissent towards Israel and noticeably has not said that they would respect an ICC warrant, just that they would “examine” it.

Huh? You think that the UK, which has affirmed that it will honour ICC warrants (i.e. arrest Netanyahu if he came to the UK), is somehow more pro-Israel than Germany?

Probably yes, but if its at the point of European NATO having to fight directly that’s likely a second order consideration.

The weapons “cant be used” in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we’re talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.

Its possible that it was built to a lower standard than would be expected in the west, both in terms of quality and worker safety. Though unless you have specific reports of that I dont see any reason just to assume it because Arabs bad.

In addition this was largely built by Korean companies who have a successful record of building NPPs at home without incident, I imagine Korea wouldnt be particularly happy if their citizens (especially highly trained and economically productive ones) were being abused to build foreign infrastructure.

The main point is that NPPs dont have to be stuck in a quagmire, and using Hinkley Point as a stand in for all NPP construction is disingenuous, just as using the UAE as a sole example would be.