To: Lane3 who wrote (150693 ) 1/21/2020 9:09:07 PM From: Katelew Read Replies (1) | Respond to The rallies right now are the trash talk types you describe. I don't know what I think about those at the moment because I think Trump should try implementing an appeal for unity type strategy. What I was thinking about were the first rallies where he would complain about something--a trade agreement, for ex.--and then tell the audience why he was opposed and what he planned to do about it. At the time, there was a website which listed changing Chinese trade agreements as a goal.website that describes the strategy that has been in play for the last three years? The China strategy, if there was one, did not just kick off. This is the first deliverable, three years in. What were the objectives and how did this agreement meet them? What's next?I thought Trump laid out his goals clearly on his website and at his rallies.>> Definition of strategy: A strategy is a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim. With this definition, it seems there are multiple ways to easily describe what his strategy was. Trump's goal was to change the way China and the US did business with each other. His strategy was to raise tariffs in an effort to cause China to agree to negotiating a new trade agreement. There was a step-by-step plan of action as each side raised tariffs until the agreement was reached. One might also say Trump's China strategy is a new trade policy. Trump will use a re-negotiated trade agreement designed to achieve a major realignment of power between the two nations. For you to say "the China strategy, if there was one" is baffling. Of course, there would be one. I assume everything a pol does has a strategy behind it, and I don't feel much of a need to have it spelled out for me. When any POTUS does something, the strategy seems self-evident at the time. Have you always had a hard time figuring out what was going on? Here's one timeline covering each step along the way. Trump was critical of China during the campaign but it always takes a lot of time for the research and preparation to be done before there's a formal beginning to such a major change as this. During this time the Nafta trade agreement was also replaced. Timewise both went quite fast in my opinion and Democrats dragged it out by refusing to sign the USMCA when it was completed. Both have received little coverage. There have been some hit pieces, but so far I haven't seen any coverage that claims these two trade agreements put the US in a worse position. The typical lefty opinion is that they weren't worth the time. It's way too soon to see what will come of them, and China is only a first step. reuters.com
