back to article Trump’s new ZTE tweet trumps old ZTE tweets that trumped his first ZTE tweet

On Friday, United States president Donald Trump Tweeted that ZTE will be allowed to sell into America again, subject to board changes, security controls, and a fine. May 9, 2018: ZTE closed down In more stable policy circles, the Chinese vendor was on the outs because of national security fears, and in the face of an American …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Toddler

    With a toddler length attention span. See, new shiny rattle and some sweets. Come over here now and stop throwing toys out of the pram. And he does.

    The only ones which will be getting a good deal in the end game will be the Chinese. As a natural result of long game vs toys out of the pram.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Toddler

      The problem is if his actions mask personal interests - i.e. trying to get foreign investors to keep Trump Inc. afloat blackmailing them... he believes the presidency is just another business of his family.

      He doesn't care what the Chinese get, as long as he sees an advantage for his own businesses.

      1. Chris G

        Re: Toddler

        Expect to see a huuge jump in the number of new international golf courses being built after his presidency. Yemen is probably the biggest sand trap he knows of.

        China has the space and beautiful countryside for some outstanding golf courses and of course the caddies will be cheap.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Toddler

          I read news he wanted to play on one of his gold courses in Britain during his travel next Summer, and he wanted to play against a golf champion - basically, turning it into and ad for one of his business (maybe "his property" is shared among several investors and he has only a quote).

          That's another conflict on interests, and shows how he mixes the presidency and his businesses.

          The only good knew it looks no big golf name wants to play with him because it would be bad PR for them - and guess one of the rules is to let him win so he can boast about it.

          1. Warm Braw

            Re: Toddler

            If only our government would take a leaf out of the US playbook, those assets - like golf courses - belonging to the principals in a regime threatening our economic security would already be emargoed or forfeit by the time he arrives. I don't think any other president has been so vulnerable to such action - and why we aren't exploiting it, I can't work out.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Terminator

              Re: Toddler

              @Warm Braw: "those assets - like golf courses - belonging to the principals in a regime threatening our economic security would already be emargoed or forfeit by the time he arrives"

              At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay..

              1. Intractable Potsherd

                Re: Toddler

                "At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay.."

                So no downsides at all!

              2. John Lilburne

                Re: Toddler

                "At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay."

                Is there a down side to that?

        2. PhilipN Silver badge

          "beautiful countryside" and "outstanding golf courses"

          With the greatest respect to golfers I would prefer that "beautiful countryside" stay that way.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Toddler

          Within days of the ZTE announcement, it became public that China had stepped in to fund some Trump-labelled developments in Indonesia and that his equally grifting daughter had a batch of trademarks approved in China.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Toddler

      The major mistake is, of course, for a president to involve himself directly in the matter. His job is to represent the country and to set policy directives and negotiate with the legislature.

      But I think that we have to see how this plays with the Trump Chumps who will see it as hardball negotiations leading to a concession by the Chinese and a huuge fine. That the deal was most heavily lobbied for by ZTE's US partners and suppliers doesn't matter to them; neither does the loss of face in Asia by these childish, short-term tactics which lead inevitably to things like the Mnuchin fudge on trade with China, and the dance that King Jong Eun is leading him on: some kind of fudge on the sanctions is bound to come.

      Trump's overriding aim, and we shouldn't make the mistake of treating him as a complete idiot again, is to shore up votes in the mid-terms so that he can continue dismantling government and push for legislature that is subdordinate to the executive. As things stand presently I think he has a 50/50 chance of realising Trumpland – the land of golf courses, no minimum wage and no welfare.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Toddler

        Firstly, i'd just like to qualify the following by stating that i'm British and have no particular interest in American politics.

        Trump's overriding aim, and we shouldn't make the mistake of treating him as a complete idiot again

        The thing is, that's been done already. The media has concentrated on representing him as a complete idiot since he got in. This sort of attack strategy works by reducing the perceived reputation of the target. That only works as an attack strategy if you have a public reputation that's above zero to start with.

        Ok, so the media has ensured that Trump has a perceived reputation of zero. How can you reduce the reputation of somebody with a perceived reputation of zero?! You can't. It's impossible, it therefore can't and won't work and attack strategies against him at this point via the media are dead before arrival. Therefore, he will "win" this particular little game by simply appearing less stupid than the media make him out to be at his chosen point. One might observe that this does not appear particually difficult to do, and what that chosen point is likely to be.

        I would put money that when the elections come Mr Trump is going to start liberally pointing things like how much more money people likely to vote for him have in their pockets, about things like rather selective reporting on issues like this (let's be honest, at least part of the sanctions/relaxations of sanctions on China have been to force China to pressure North Korea and to reward them for having tightened the screws on North Korea) and screaming loudly about the press being biased against him by not pointing these things out. By the time that people start picking his statements apart, he'll have taken advantage of the media's goldfish memory to move onto the next topic.

        I said a few months into his term that I think it's more likely than not that he's going to get a second term. I might be wrong, and would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong, but FFS people? The entire world appears to have stopped thinking and acting rationally and is just reacting to him. That in itself is another well known strategy that almost always results in losing.

    3. Restraint

      Re: Toddler

      MCC (a government-owned company specializing in metals production) cut a $500 Million dollar loan to a Trump property called LIDO just before the ZTE backflip.

      It was all just a shake-down.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Toddler

      @AC and other 'Trump Hate' posters

      Reading down the comments, it might as well be a George Soros sponsored media blitz campaign, and a set of "me too" bots. It's all "pandering to the perception" with respect to Trump, again, and totally getting it WRONG.

      As far as I can tell, Trump's strategy is all 'Art of the Deal'. The desired result is a win-win. Making ZTE/China LOSE so you can JUST PUNISH them (and 'win') isn't the way it works, at least not if you want to SUCCEED later down the road. "Win/Lose" is what you get in a boxing match. "Win/Win" is what you do in an honest and successful business. I think it's a refreshing change.

      And Trump voters are _NOT_ worse off. Unemployment rates at record LOWS, especially for women and minorities, and the economy is growing FASTER than it _EVER_ did under OBAKA.

      You anti-Trump'ers just don't want to admit the good news is happening. So you bury the good news with a bunch of Anti-Trump FUD, pander to the perception, and say "me to" to one another like all of the FUD is "accepted fact" (when it's not). (this is a typical misinformation trick, by the way, and if I looked I'd probably find things like it listed in Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals")

      (howler monkey downvotes expected in response, yeah)

      1. Paul 195

        Re: Toddler

        @bombastic bob

        Why HAVE you written your COMMENT in SUCH a S H O U T Y way?

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Toddler

          because it's what I do, punctuation and capitalization for *EMPHASIS*.

      2. Sir Loin Of Beef

        Re: Toddler

        There is no good news with this fucking moron.

        1. Alphebatical

          Re: Toddler

          > fucking moron.

          This is pretty much his favorite form of "3D chess": shout like a loon and act like an idiot and nobody will look at the board.

  2. 45RPM Silver badge

    I don’t have a problem with people who voted Trump. I can see that they might honestly have believed that Hillary represented a bigger threat to them - the Trump campaign beguiled them with a rush of endorphins and a boat full of lies. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

    Having witnessed the chaos that Trump is causing now, though, his total lack of respect for the law, or for people who aren’t rich, white, male and kissing his arse, I have a huge problem with those who continue to support Trump and who’d vote for him a second time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

      But not without consequences.

      1. 45RPM Silver badge

        Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

        @Voyna i Mor

        For the most part, Trump’s voters are suffering the consequences. Increased living costs. Poorer healthcare. A poorer quality environment. Lack of disaster relief.

        The same applies here. Those who voted for Brexit have suffered from the drop in the value of the pound and will suffer as jobs are lost overseas, and as prices increase etc.

        The great pity is that those who didn’t vote for Trump, and those who voted to remain, will have to suffer the consequences too. But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative, and it gives society a chance not to make the same mistake twice!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

          But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative, and it gives society a chance not to make the same mistake twice!

          What - you mean we're going to get to vote on Brexit again?

          1. 45RPM Silver badge

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            Ah yes, AC, you’ve put your finger exactly on the nub of the Brexit vote. Namely that it wasn’t democratic. The terms of the referendum weren’t followed, and the people are being denied any say in whether to proceed or not once the terms have been decided. And that’s before we get into the sticky issues of cheating and meddling.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

              The terms of the referendum weren’t followed, and the people are being denied any say in whether to proceed or not once the terms have been decided. And that’s before we get into the sticky issues of cheating and meddling.

              ... and absolute disinformation on so many fronts that the result should have been declared illegal before voting even begun..

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Trollface

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            "What - you mean we're going to get to vote on Brexit again?"

            At this point I wish they would, I know you've been brainwashed by all the little echo chambers saying that the results 'would be different next time'.

            But honestly the amount of salt after a second loss would be delicious!

            1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
              Mushroom

              Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

              I know you've been brainwashed by all the little echo chambers saying that the results 'would be different next time'.

              But honestly the amount of salt after a second loss would be delicious!

              The really odd thing is that the second referendum wanted by remainers is being denied to them by brexiteers.

              One would have thought brexiteers would leap at the chance to prove themselves right, to rub salt in the wounds, to make remainers cry more snowflake tears. Brexiteers say the vote will be more for leaving than it was last time around. And yet they won't allow that vote to happen. Absolutely bizarre.

              One might well conclude they are still lying and bullshitting and they know full well they would lose.

              Bring it on!

              1. veti Silver badge

                Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

                Lots of people say they'd like to see a second referendum on Brexit. But when you start asking them what, specifically, the question should be, that consensus starts to break down.

                Should it be a vote on the "final deal" negotiated between the UK and EU? A vote on remaining in the customs union? A rerun of the original vote? Those are all different things with different implications, and there's no sign of a pollable majority in favour of any one of them.

                And think, assuming you could rerun the original vote, and assuming it went the way you want it to (which, itself, is a belief that's not supportable by reputable polling) - what do you think would happen then? Do you think the now-just-under-50% who won first time would quietly fade away, chastened, and learn to listen to their betters? You think the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and the rest of the Leave press would see the error of their ways?

                The fuck they would. You saw the bitterness that followed the "don't split" result in Scotland - imagine that amplified tenfold.

                And in case you hadn't noticed, the rest of Europe is not doing a very good job of playing happy families right now. There are already openly-Eurosceptic parties in power in Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy (Italy! - for the gods' sake, a founder member of both the EEC and the Eurozone!). France's FN hasn't gone anywhere, they'll be back. And negotiations on the next EU budget, which will be about 6% short because of Britain's withdrawal, are still at an early stage - things are going to get a lot more fraught between now and 2020.

                For the record, I thought the referendum was a stupid thing to do, and I was blown sideways by the result. I was, and am, appalled by it. But in retrospect, I think it's far from the worst thing that could have happened. Right now I think it's odds on that the EU is doomed within a generation, thanks to the ill-conceived political compromises that were used to build it - and the even-more-ill-conceived idea of simultaneously trying to expand and deepen it, while still keeping "democratic accountability" firmly at the national level - and the UK may well do better in the end by getting out now before the whole thing collapses.

                1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

                  And think, assuming you could rerun the original vote... what do you think would happen then? Do you think the now-just-under-50% who won first time would quietly fade away, chastened, and learn to listen to their betters? You think the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and the rest of the Leave press would see the error of their ways?

                  The same is true of those who don't want to leave.

                  We polarised the country 50-50, then made that divide irreconcilable through all the hatred which followed that. Farage declared it a victory for "decent people", inferring remainers were not. It got worse with the labelling of those against leaving as traitors, saboteurs and enemies of the people. It was topped-off by Katie Hopkins, Paul Golding and friends declaring war on liberals, multiculturalism and everything standing in the way of their taking back control.

                  Brexit has fucked Britain over and there's no easy way back. It's what brexiteers intended.

              2. Stu Mac

                Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

                They don't want any further delay or prevarication.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

              Don't come crying when energy prices rise so high that your parents can't afford to heat your bedroom any more.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            >> But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative, and it gives society a chance not to make the same mistake twice!

            > What - you mean we're going to get to vote on Brexit again?

            And we'll keep on voting until we get it right.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            We'll get to vote on brentry when enough old people have died I presume. Well, some of us will: I expect it won't be in my lifetime.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

          Yes, but the biggest flaw in democracy is it can kill itself. Look at Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela (and in some ways US as well). Next in line: Italy.

          1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
            IT Angle

            Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

            Yes how dare the population of your listed countries vote for a leader/party that will give them what they wanted..... although Venezuela is a little different because the government had already banned the leading opposition candidate from standing along with any media that doesn't follow the government line...

            But from my point of view (and remember I'm from the 1980's... the good old days of baggie snatcher and 4 million unemployed), any government can be got rid of by democracy, democracy only dies when you get a group of people who say "We know better than the plebs and the plebs will vote the way we tell them to".... rather like the way Venezuela has already gone.......

            1. Alistair
              Coat

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              Venezuela is a little different because the government had already banned the leading opposition candidate from standing along with any media that doesn't follow the government line...

              Hmmmm. This does *NOT* strike me as a unique situation.... I suspect there are a couple of other spots where this might have happened.

            2. Stork Silver badge

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              I would like to remind you that democracy, as opposed to dictatorship of the majority, includes protection of minorities as well as checks and balances and rule of law - it is that in particular that has been dismantled in Turkey, and arguably to some degree in Poland and Hungary.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                @Stork

                I'm curious how does a democracy protect a minority? Isn't democracy by definition the will of the majority covered by another house and a judiciary who when push comes to shove have to enact the will of the people.

                1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

                  Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                  Isn't democracy by definition the will of the majority

                  Sort of depends on your definition of majority and the electoral system. In general, there is no single majority for all issues but successive coalitions for different ones. Well-organised minorities can and often do achieve outsize influence in coalition. This can be a long the stable lines of traditional European governments but also effectively blackmail as is the case in Israel and to a lesser degree in the UK (Democratic Unionists) and Denmark (Danish Peoples Party).

                  First past the post systems favour binary opposites and, hence, often riding roughshod over other minorities but they also tend to have the advantage of clear choices, even if long-term the to-ing and fro-ing tends to be inefficient. You can see this to some extent in the current US regime with Trump rolling back regulation from Bush and Obama where possible but also largely failing to fill important positions with capable candidates (new Dutch and German ambassadors embarassing examples of his placemen).

                2. Stork Silver badge

                  Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                  @AC (how to protect minorities)

                  It is normally done by separation of powers, constitutions that are difficult to change (and are used) and so on. But fundamentally it requires winners of elections to accept that they can loose next time - this is something it is hard to legislate about. Has worked reasonably most of the time since WWII in most of the western world.

                  Taking your definition to the extreme, a slight majority can decide that the major opposition party is illegal and its supporters are to be denied any civil rights as they are traitors to the true cause - sounds familiar? (Hint - look at how NSDAP gained majority in the German parliament)

              2. Sloppy Crapmonster

                Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                Democracy is literally dictatorship of the majority. Here in the democratic republic of the USA, we have seen -- twice!, in the last 20 years -- the majority of ballots cast for the candidate that loses. Just because the American system worked against you (and me!) doesn't mean it doesn't work.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              "although Venezuela is a little different because the government had already banned the leading opposition candidate from standing along with any media that doesn't follow the government line" I suspect some Corbynistas have a similar thing in mind for the UK.

            4. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              It's not the case that any government can be got rid of by democracy. It's completely possible for a democracy to vote, democratically, for an end to democracy, usually in the form of a government one of whose stated policies is to end democracy.

              There is a famous example.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Brexit...

            Here we go again....

            There are going to be people that disagree with you, us or them. It's life.

            There are going to be people that vote for things you don't want and also things you do.

            There are people that don't want democracy, they are the ones you need to watch because while we all disagree and divide they are probably just waiting for the opportunity to take our democracy (probably for our own good). What's that? I'm paranoid? Need a tin foil hat? Feel free to believe that but I suggest you read some history books before forming that particular opinion.

            Democracy isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives.

            The alternatives also never end well because we as a species can't be trusted to rule fairly on our own. If I had my way I would make it mandatory for all politicians to pass a philosophy degree amongst other things at the very least.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

            "Yes, but the biggest flaw in democracy is it can kill itself."

            Athenian "democracy" (actually male military-franchise large oligarchy) did precisely that. People had a tendency to vote for aristocrats who were good at rhetoric, like Johnson Alcibiades. That's why Plato wanted a benevolent dictatorship; so people like him could run things. But his benevolent dictatorship would have turned nasty the moment a problem arose not soluble by a discussion between aristocrats.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              "benevolent dictatorship" Rather lioke the Patrician in Ankh-Morpork.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                ""benevolent dictatorship" Rather lioke the Patrician in Ankh-Morpork."

                <spoiler>One of the most interesting long term threads in the Pratchett opus, and the kind of thing that justifies his knighthood, is the evolution of the thinking of Havelock Vetinari. He originally gets the job because the current holder is insane. Vetinari then gradually moves to introduce proper civil law, and often starts out suspicious of new ideas like the Press only to accept them as he sees how they can become part of a functioning political system. He sees the virtues of multiculturalism as a way to grow the city, and create alliances, of a non-political police force, and then of public-private partnerships. One of his big moments is when he shows off to Margoletta that the ordinary citizens of Ankh-Morpork have got the idea of public spirit. Goldsmith's teacher got the reaction that "and still they gazed and still the wonder grew/that one small head could carry all he knew." Same for Pratchett.</spoiler>

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

          The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a democratic Republic with a pro-slavery holdover institution (electoral college)for electing the president.

        4. Byron "Jito463"

          Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

          "But that’s democracy for you"

          Good thing the US isn't a democracy, then. We are - and have always been - a constitutional, representative republic.

    2. Lee D Silver badge

      I have a big problem with people who think that when only two options are presented for voting, they have to choose one.

      This is quite possibly the BIGGEST problem we have in electoral politics.

      Simple solution:

      - Make voting compulsory, over a 7-day period. Everyone gets a chance to vote.

      - All votes have "Brewster's option": "None of the above"

      - Brewster is treated as a candidate, just like any other. He can hold a majority if enough people vote for that option.

      - If his votes win, then neither of the others get to be president/whatever, and the election has to be redone with ENTIRELY NEW CANDIDATES (with the exception of Brewster, who's always a shoe-in).

      We could also implement this overnight. Certain votes aren't valid if the turnout is low. All we have to do is add the option in for "I've turned up as required, but I want neither of these clowns", and then make voting compulsory, like in many other countries.

      Given a choice between Trump, Clinton and Brewster... who would have won?

      1. handleoclast

        Why Brewster?

        A more traditional name is Ron. As in Re-Open Nominations.

        Another one is NOTA. None Of The Above.

        Also FEA. [expletive] 'Em All.

        Yes, every election should have it. No, it's never going to happen, short of an armed revolution (and almost certainly not even then). The ones in safe constituencies would never permit it, because once RON is on the ballot their constituency will no longer be safe.

        Even so, it won't work until we have something better than first past the post. Something using a Condorcet method is theoretically the best option but practicalities render it infeasible (you need to tally the votes by computer and few here would trust that). Some Australian elections use a method that can be done by hand and allows for preference voting. We definitely need that.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like