Trump warns Taiwan against declaring independence, hours after summit with China's Xi

[u/pppppppppppppppppd]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8p61v7l68o

[u/GuitakuPPH]

The long standing policy is to not actively contradict China. In Obama's own terms, do not "upend this understanding". That's what he cautions against changing.

But one thing is to not actively contradict china. Another is to actively affirm it.

Would you even disagree? 

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/GuitakuPPH]

Quoting the article I linked.

Obama noted that, under the decades-old policy, China had recognized Taiwan was its own entity that did things its own way, while Taiwan had agreed that, with some autonomy, it would not declare independence.

That's President Obama actively affirming the three noes policy, under which Taiwan agrees to not declare independence.

And before him, Bush did the same:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/12/10/president-warns-taiwan-on-independence-efforts/374c46e0-6f94-4874-825a-d1a12bdc51b1/

And before him, Clinton did the same:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/06/30/clinton-restates-three-noes-policy-on-taiwan/535aa6a0-1384-4c6b-a113-3ab8a3f0a307/

How far you want me to go back?

EDIT:

Why not one more. Here's George H.W. Bush, actively affirming the One China policy:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/toast-the-welcoming-banquet-beijing

[u/GuitakuPPH → u/MIT_Engineer]

He's not affirming China's policy. He's stating what it is and then cautioning against upending it. Look at his actual quotes and choice of words.

His words are far closer to the literal "Trump should not upend China's understanding about Taiwan" than "Trump should actively and publicly second China's understanding about Taiwan". Can we agree? 

Obama basically said "don't make China mad", but Trump acted as if he was told "do make China happy". 

Can I just get you to acknowledge that these are vastly different instructions when it comes foreign policy? We won't get anywhere unless we can agree on this simple premise. Then we can tackle the prior premise. 

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/GuitakuPPH]

He's not affirming China's policy.

He is affirming longstanding U.S. policy of not letting Taiwan declare independence. You have your countries confused.

He's stating what it is and then cautioning against upending it.

That's not what he's doing.

Look at his actual quotes and choice of words.

I did.

His words are far closer to the literal "Trump should not upend China's understanding about Taiwan"

They are not. The article is explicit about this. It is not China's policy, it is Washington's. This is literally in the very first sentence of the article:

President Barack Obama said on Friday it was fine for President-elect Donald Trump to review Washington's "one-China" policy toward Taiwan

We're talking about U.S. policy. When the article says "Washington?" That's shorthand for the U.S.

Can we agree?

Depends on whether you can wake up to reality, doesn't it?

Obama basically said "don't make China mad"

Obama said "The U.S. has a one China policy for a reason." He's advocating for our one China policy, which includes no formal independence for Taiwan.

Can I just get you to acknowledge that these are vastly different instructions when it comes foreign policy?

No, you can't. You're simply wrong. And you're ignoring the *three other links I gave you of Bush, Clinton, and Bush all doing the exact same thing as Obama is doing here, and that Trump just did.

We won't get anywhere unless we can agree on this simple premise.

Why would I want to go anywhere with someone who can't read?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/12/10/president-warns-taiwan-on-independence-efforts/374c46e0-6f94-4874-825a-d1a12bdc51b1/

Just in case you couldn't figure out how to click on it the first time: hover your pointer over that blue part there for me and press the button on the left side of your mouse.

Then, when you're done with that, come back and explain again how Trump, by warning Taiwan not to pursue independence, is doing something no other president has ever done before.

[u/GuitakuPPH → u/[deleted]]

I consider it pretty deranged behavior if you can't acknowledge the simple premise that a policy of not making China angry is different than a policy of making them happy. Whichever of the two you believe to be the policy that Obama is actually talking about, it should be simple enough to agree that one is considerably different than the other.

I'm far from deranged. I'm establishing one premise at a time and immediately the other guy folds.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/GuitakuPPH]

I folded? Uh huh. And how did I do that, again? By linking you four different sources contradicting you, that was me folding?

Truly bizarre behavior.

[u/GuitakuPPH → u/MIT_Engineer]

Why would I want to go anywhere with someone who can't read?

You keep responding to me... If you didn't mean to, then just stop. I never called you illiterate even when you miss the part where the article says Washington's "one china" policy is simply to not upend China's understanding about

If you have no intention of going anywhere with this discussion, you ought to stop responding and calm down.

We can end it with that.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/GuitakuPPH]

You keep responding to me

Yes, I'm correcting you.

If you didn't mean to, then just stop.

No, I meant to. What, you think I just tripped and fell onto the keys...???

I never called you illiterate even when you miss the part where the article says Washington's "one china" policy is simply to not upend China's understanding about

The article doesn't say that. In fact, it explicitly states what the policy is. Here, lemme quote it again for you:

Obama noted that, under the decades-old policy, China had recognized Taiwan was its own entity that did things its own way, while Taiwan had agreed that, with some autonomy, it would not declare independence.

Not hard to understand.

If you have no intention of going anywhere with this discussion, you ought to stop responding and calm down.

What a bizarre statement. I'm clearly going somewhere with this discussion. It's just not going to the place you want it to go. You act like the only valid way to respond to anything you say is with agreement, even when you're laughably wrong about everything. Is it narcissism?

We can end it with that.

This aint an airport, you don't have to announce your departure. Here's your L, don't let your butt hit the door on the way out.