Trump Demands China Trade Deal Before Summit

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

 

Trump shifts from personal diplomacy as he demands China trade deal before summit

The embrace of hype has not changed. When the U.S. and China finally agree a trade deal, it will be the “granddaddy” of all deals and a “monumental” agreement, according to President Donald Trump.

But as he spoke ahead of a meeting with Beijing’s vice premier on Thursday, the dealmaker in chief signaled a shift in tactics.

“If we have a deal, then we’re going to have a summit,” he said. “If we don’t have a deal, we’re not going to have a summit.”

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

His words stand in contrast to previous negotiations, characterized by heavy doses of personal diplomacy designed to seal agreements during presidential summits rather than before them.

In February, Trump walked away from a summit with Kim Jong Un of North Korea in Vietnam without a deal. Tizoc Chavez, a presidential diplomacy expert at Vanderbilt University, said the failure of the second Kim summit may have prompted a rethink.

“He does have this great faith in his ability to convince someone. Before the first Kim Jong Un summit, he talked about how his touch and his feel would play an important role,” he said. “Maybe now we see his evolution as he tries to trust his diplomats and officials to lay the groundwork rather than taking on all the responsibility himself.”

Robert Lighthizer, who heads China talks for the Trump administration, said “major, major issues” remain. Negotiations continued for a third day on Friday and are due to carry on next week via video link.

The U.S. is pressing China to make commitments to buy American products, to increase protection for intellectual property, and to rebalance trade between the two countries.

Trump said any deal could take up to four weeks.

Officials initially suggested that a summit could take place before the end of March. However, that sparked concerns that any announcement before a deal could weaken U.S. leverage, reducing the chances of winning concessions, according to a person familiar with the talks.

It suggests a new tack for the author of The Art of the Deal, who as a candidate frequently talked up how he would use his business acumen in the realm of politics.

“Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry,” he said shortly before announcing his presidential run. “I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

Curtis Ellis, senior policy adviser with America First Policies and former member of the Trump transition team, said the president had no need to take on the entire weight of negotiations by himself.

Instead, Trump forged a consensus around tough action and promoted the decoupling of the U.S. economy from China, winning more time to strike not just a deal, but the right deal.

“Businesses and business leaders are coming around on China as the threat. They are now open to President Trump’s approach to confront China. They are open to tariffs,” he said.

“There’s now a growing consensus that President Trump’s policy is the right policy, so the pressure for a ‘quick deal’ is disappearing as it becomes more obvious that we need to counter China’s expansion in international markets and infrastructure development.”

Xi says new substantial progress made on text of China-US economic and trade agreement

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE SHANGHAI CHINA NEWSPAPER ‘SHINE’)

 

Xi says new substantial progress made on text of China-US economic and trade agreement

Xinhua

Chinese President Xi Jinping said in a message delivered to his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Thursday that new substantial progress has been made on the text of the China-US economic and trade agreement in the past more than one month.

In the message conveyed by Chinese Vice Premier Liu He at a meeting with Trump at the White House, Xi encouraged the two sides to keep up with the spirit of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, and resolve issues of mutual concern so as to conclude the negotiations on the agreement text as soon as possible.

Under the current situation, a healthy and stable development of China-US relations concerns the interests of both Chinese and American people, as well as the interests of people of other countries around the world, and it needs, in particular, their strategic leadership, Xi told Trump.

Xi also said he is ready to keep close contact with Trump through various means, and believes that the China-US relations will make new and greater progress under their joint guidance.

At the meeting, Liu said the Chinese and US negotiation teams have over the past two days conducted fruitful consultations and reached new consensus on such important issues as the text of the economic and trade agreement.

Liu also said that the two sides, guided by the consensus reached by the two heads of state, will continue with the consultations to achieve greater progress on issues of mutual concern so as to conclude the negotiations as soon as possible and push forward the healthy and stable development of bilateral economic and trade ties.

Trump said that the US-China bilateral relationship now sees a sound and robust development, and is at a high level in history.

The US president said that he is glad to see that huge progress has been achieved in the economic and trade negotiations, and that he hopes the two sides make further efforts and resolve the remaining issues in a bid to reach a comprehensive and historic agreement as soon as possible.

It will not only benefit the two countries but also the whole world, he added.

The US president said he looks forward to meeting with Xi after the two sides reach the agreement, and to witnessing the great moment together with the Chinese leader.

Trump also thanked Xi for China’s decision to add fentanyl-related substances to a supplementary list of controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances with non-medical use, saying it is of great significance for American people and the US-China anti-drug cooperation.

Liu is in the United States for the ninth round of high-level economic and trade consultations between the two nations.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Trump’s senior adviser Jared Kushner attended the meeting.

We’re Cracking Apart From The Inside, With Missiles Aimed At Our Back

We’re Cracking Apart From The Inside, With Missiles Aimed At Our Back

 

I’m sorry, but I don’t exactly like the Title either. Here in our Country we are acting like it is back in the 20’s or something ignorant like that. We have our HollyWood and our Politics, the never-ending battle between the Dems and the GOP and we pick Our Country apart. We have several outside State Players and other well-funded hate groups who are actually in the Chess Possession to make this play. Folks, I hope they do not push the ‘ignite’ button. This would be the end of the world as we all know it all because of a couple of dozen people from around whom have some Power in this world who hate us and hate everything’ the West’ stands for. Attacking us from the inside while we bicker among ourselves is a sure Cancer to our Cells.

 

Our current Government has weakened Us with our long-standing Allies and gotten off to a bad start with several other ‘not so friendly States.’ There is always the issue of other ‘unfriendliness’ such as Hezbollah, Hamas and many others. I pray for our Children, and Theirs. Hate, it is such a disgusting thing when we direct it at each other. Our System has many errors within it but it could be very much better. We need to address these things quickly before there is no tomorrow in which to be concerned about.

 

 

 

Is It Time To Kill The World’s Dictators?

Is It Time To Kill The World’s Dictators?

 

At first I was thinking of using the title ‘is it past time to kill your dictator as I am not sure which title was the most appropriate, or, is neither appropriate? In today’s world it does seem that most dictators choose to keep power in a country by fraud sham elections so as to say they are legally elected Presidents. Examples of this could be Mozambique and Robert Mugabe, Cuba with the Castro’s or even Mubarak of Egypt. I used these three as my first examples because none of the three actually died in Office. Mugabe and Mubarak were both removed from Office by their Nations military at the insistence of the will of the people. I am not nor have I ever been a fan of either of the Castro’s but surprisingly they gave up power of their own accord mainly because of age and health reasons. The Castro brothers are different in the reality that most dictators refuse to give up power until they are dead or removed from power by their military.

 

Any time that a country has a ‘one party’ political system that is simply another way to say dictatorship. Good examples of this are with Syria’s President Assad and Russia’s Putin. Then there is the illegitimate Communist government on mainland China where only the Communist Party leadership decides who will be their ‘President’ every 10 years that is until their current President Xi Jinping came into the picture. Now the Mainland has themselves a ‘President for life’ with Mr. Xi Jinping and the people have no power to get rid of him outside of killing him. Another type of example of a Dictator resides in North Korea where their Leader Mr. Kim Jong Un considers himself to be a living God even though I find it odd that the two former ‘gods’ of North Korea are dead. One of the things that these people have in common, just as in Turkey with their ‘President’ Mr. Erdogan, they are all mass murderers. Then there are cases like in Iran where the actual Leader who calls himself the ‘Supreme Leader’ whom should be known as the Supreme Murderer of Iran who has final say in all things even over the Nations President.

 

I know that by the Biblical Scriptures we are told that we should pray for our Leaders. Scripture says nothing about whether these Leaders are Kings (Dictators), Priests or honestly elected Presidents or Prime Ministers as these are just titles.  Folks, titles do not go to Heaven nor to Hell, people do. People also tells us that we are not allowed to murder anyone yet it is very plain that in cases of war we are allowed to defend ourselves and our families. We as people are also allowed to defend ourselves and families if our lives are in imminent danger such as someone who is armed breaks into our home and threatens you. This would also be so if let’s say you are in a store, a concert or a Church and a person or people come in and start shooting, we have every right to defend ourselves. Folks this does include the reality of ‘anyone’ whom is trying to kill you or your loved ones. Folks, this does mean anyone whom is trying to kill you, by this I mean if military people, police or even a Congressman or a President is actively trying to physically harm you, you have the absolute right to defend yourselves. By this I do mean (for example) what happened in Waco Texas in the early 1990’s where the government murdered over a hundred people, women and children included. This was a case where police came bursting through the doors and windows while shooting at the people inside whom had not yet shot one bullet at the Officers.

 

Now let’s get back to the issue of killing your Dictator, do you/we have the right to do so? Even though the human in me says that there should be no Dictators on the face of the Earth, this is not a reality. When it comes to G-d’s Judgement Day all Leaders will have to answer for all of their actions as Leaders both good and evil. On a smaller scale the same situation exists within a Church community as far as the Leaders who are responsible for the safety of the Flock who committed crimes against the Flock. I am not saying here that the members of the Church have the right to kill (lets say, a pedophile) though we do have the right to not allow them to be a part of the Congregation at all and we do have the right to charge them in front of our Nation’s Courts. What I am saying though is that all Church Leaders will have to answer for their actions as ‘Guardians’ of the Flock whether good or evil. So, do we have the right to kill our Dictator even if they are a murderer like Mr. Putin or Kim Jong Un? These Dictators, are they actively trying to kill you or your loved ones? When the answer is no, we have no such right to harm them, peacefully try to remove them from their position, yes, kill them, no.

 

Obviously this letter to you is just my thought, my beliefs. Like is almost all of my letters to you I am simply trying to get you to think about the issue that I am writing to you about. What are your thoughts on this matter, what do you believe? Leave me a note, let me know your thoughts?

China: President Xi Says That Taiwan Will Be Reunited With China, Even If By Force

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BBC)

(MAINLAND CHINA IS PART OF TAIWAN, IT IS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT IN BEIJING IS THE ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA. THE ONLY LEGITIMATE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE IN TAIPEI, XI JINPING AND THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT IN BEIJING ARE A FRAUD THAT MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE EARTH EVEN IF (TO USE MR. XI WORDS) THAT MEANS BY FORCE!) (oldpoet56)  

Chinese President Xi Jinping has urged the people of Taiwan to accept it “must and will be” reunited with China.

In a speech marking 40 years since the start of improving ties, he reiterated Beijing’s call for peaceful unification on a one-country-two-systems basis.

However, he also warned that China reserved the right to use force.

While Taiwan is self-governed and de facto independent, it has never formally declared independence from the mainland.

Beijing considers the island to be a breakaway province and Mr Xi’s comments are in line with China’s long-standing policy towards reunification.

But on Wednesday, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen said the island would never accept reunification with China under the terms offered by Beijing.

“I want to reiterate that Taiwan will never accept ‘one country, two systems’. The vast majority of Taiwanese public opinion also resolutely opposes ‘one country, two systems’, and this is also the ‘Taiwan consensus’.”

Under the “one country, two systems” formula, Taiwan would have the right to run its own affairs; a similar arrangement is used in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has its own legal system, and rights including freedom of assembly and free speech are protected – however, there are widespread concerns in the territory that those freedoms are gradually being eroded.

In his speech on Wednesday, Mr Xi said both sides were part of the same Chinese family and that Taiwanese independence was “an adverse current from history and a dead end”.

Taiwanese people “must understand that independence will only bring hardship,” Mr Xi said, adding Beijing would never tolerate any form of activity promoting Taiwanese independence.

Instead, unification was “an inevitable requirement for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people”, he argued.

He also stressed that relations with Taiwan were “part of China’s domestic politics” and that “foreign interference is intolerable”.

Beijing “reserves the option of taking all necessary measures” against outside forces that interfere with peaceful reunification and Taiwanese separatist activities.

Taiwan Honour guards perform during the rehearsal for the presidential inauguration in Taipei, Taiwan (20 May 2016)Image copyrightEPA
Image captionMany in Taiwan want a separate nation

What is the view in Taiwan?

In a new year’s speech on Tuesday, Ms Tsai said China must use peaceful means to resolve its differences with Taiwan and respect its democratic values.

“I would like to call on China to face squarely the reality of the existence of the Republic of China on Taiwan,” Ms Tsai said, referring to the island’s formal name.

China should “respect the insistence of 23 million people on freedom and democracy, and must use peaceful, on parity means to handle our differences”, she added.

In November, Ms Tsai’s political party saw a heavy setback in regional elections perceived by Beijing as a blow to her separatist stance.

Presentational grey line

How serious is China’s threat?

Analysis by John Sudworth, BBC News, Beijing

The Chinese Communist Party has long spoken about unification as a matter of destiny.

But President Xi is arguably the most powerful leader since Mao – now unconstrained by presidential term limits – and one who has personalised, like no other, the project for “national rejuvenation”.

So should we pay more heed when the threat to retake Taiwan by force if necessary comes from his lips?

China may be a rising military superpower, but sending an invading army across the choppy, well-defended waters of the Taiwan strait would still be a huge military gamble, with success far from guaranteed.

Beyond the slightly more strident tone, Mr Xi’s speech does not appear to signal any dramatic change in those calculations, especially when you take into account the more conciliatory passages offering a further strengthening of trade links.

If there is to be any warfare, it is likely to be of the cyber kind; China is reported to be stepping up its efforts to influence Taiwan’s elections to hurt the prospects of independence-leaning parties and politicians.

The hope has long been that it will be China’s growing economic might, not military force, that will eventually pull Taiwan into its embrace.

Presentational grey line

Why is this so contentious?

Taiwan is a self-governed democracy and for all practical purposes has acted as an independent nation since 1949, when China’s nationalist government was defeated by communist forces and fled there from the mainland.

China however considers the island to be a breakaway province – not a country in its own right – which will one day be fully reunited with the mainland.

Woman holding Taiwanese flagImage copyright AFP
Image caption Beijing insists Taiwan is just a breakaway province

In recent years, Beijing has become increasingly assertive over its claims and what it says is a key question of national sovereignty.

China, for instance, insists that other countries can only have diplomatic ties with China or Taiwan, not both.

Beijing has won over more and more of Taipei’s few international allies to cut diplomatic ties with the island and establish relations with China instead.

Last year, it also forced foreign airlines and hotels to list Taiwan as part of China on their websites.

China: Inside Xi Jinping’s Plan to Dominate the World

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BLOOMBERG NEWS)

 

Inside Xi Jinping’s Plan to Dominate the World

Elizabeth Economy’s “The Third Revolution” makes the case that China is most dangerous in the realm of ideas.

Man with a plan.

Photographer:  Ikegami Madoka/Getty Images

Who is the most important and disruptive leader in the world today? Most Americans would probably answer, Donald Trump — with Russia’s Vladimir Putin running a close second. But my choice for the must-read book of 2018, Elizabeth C. Economy’s “The Third Revolution,” makes a strong case that China’s Xi Jinping may deserve the title.

Under Xi’s leadership since 2012, an increasingly powerful China has begun throwing its weight around in ways that have led international observers to fear the emergence of a new Cold War — or perhaps even a new hot war — with the U.S. Xi has more candidly announced China’s ambitions to take center stage in world affairs than any leader since Mao Zedong; he has also amassed greater personal power than any Chinese leader since Mao. Economy’s book traces Xi’s influence and ambitions through an exhaustive reading of his speeches as well as an astute knowledge of Chinese politics and policy. It should be required reading not just for China-watchers but for anyone interested in U.S.-China relations and the future of world order.

Economy, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, catalogs the changes China has experienced under Xi: The replacement of collective leadership with personalized rule, the constriction of the political system, the efforts to tightly restrict the flow of ideas into China while expanding the stream of ideas and influence rushing out of it. Economy is also a reliable guide to Xi’s seemingly contradictory efforts to stimulate game-changing, high-tech innovation while also steadily increasing the role of the Communist Party in China’s economy and society.

Turning from the domestic to the foreign, Economy provides a concise discussion of China’s expanding military footprint, push to create new international institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, launching of the Belt and Road Initiative and other major geo-economic projects, increasing use of coercive diplomacy toward its neighbors, and other efforts to project influence not just in the Asia-Pacific but globally. All of these undertakings seem impressive at first glance, and Xi’s vision seems to be carrying the day in Chinese politics for now. But as Economy reminds us, all the elements of his agenda — from his grab for unchallenged individual authority to his drive for greater power and prestige overseas — carry the danger of provoking a backlash, whether from dissatisfied rivals at home or wary competitors abroad, that could ultimately waylay Xi’s “Chinese Dream.”

Perhaps the most valuable part of the book takes us from the realm of hard power to the realm of ideas. As Economy points out, Xi is advancing an ambitious ideological vision: “A uniquely Chinese model” that will “perhaps become a standard bearer for other countries disenchanted with the American and European models of liberal democracy.” That model may seem to cut against the flow of the post-World War II era, in which the world has become progressively more democratic. Yet it actually fits quite well with the more recent propensity of things, as democracy has receded, the allure of the American liberal-capitalist model has faded, China’s economic performance has wowed developing countries around the world, and authoritarian ideas make a resurgence. Economy’s book is thus a useful reminder that of all the ways China is testing American leadership, this ideological challenge may ultimately be the most important, and the hardest, for the U.S. to handle.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Hal Brands at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tobin Harshaw at [email protected]

Damn… I Sure Hope I’m Wrong

Damn… I Sure Hope I’m Wrong

 

Folks this is simply the thoughts of an old man, roll with it where you will, or not. Time, age, it does give one advantage to the times people see fads come and go. I know that I am not the brightest bulb in the package but I do enjoy history and memories what one sees and understands often come from that. This article to you tonight is strictly a ‘what if’ letter and damn, I sure hope I’m wrong.

 

What If, what if President Trump is considered to be at the weakest point of his Presidency right now? What if right now even our Allies have no trust at all in Mr. Trump’s Leadership or even worse, if they consider the U.S. to now be a likely enemy? Now our real Enemies challenge U.S. authority all over the globe, Russia has been pushing the “West” for a fight over Crimea and now over the mainland of Ukraine, Mr. Putin has installed several hundred tanks facing Ukraine along their Border. Russian Naval Ships have fired on boarded and taken control of Ukraine Naval Ships.

 

If Mr. Putin and President Xi Jinping decided on a date over this Christmas Holiday to coordinate an attack on two fronts, first with Russia doing an all out attack on Ukraine and second, China doing an all out assault on Taiwan. Then of course this day would happen to be the time Hamas does an all out assault on Israel from the south and also the day Hezbollah does the same into northern Israel. My question is how would the U.S. Government and Military handle these situations, or could they in any real way enter into a WW3 situation, and win? There would also be the reality of every Three-Bit Dictator attacking whomever they choose all around the world. If the U.S. had great leaders would they take this kind of a chance? The reality is, we don’t have a mentally competent Leader in the Oval Office. So, what would happen if all of this occurred? You know folks, there is one thing that the world seems to forget about. Folks wake up, all of our ‘ways of life’ can change is just a fraction of a second with one bright flash up in the skies.

 

As I said, this was just a ‘what if’ theory and all I can honestly say is, I sure hope I’m Wrong!

Folks: Like The Man Or Hate Him He Is Our Nation’s President But, Is He Sane?

Folks: Like The Man Or Hate Him He Is Our Nation’s President But, Is He Sane?

 

This article is not intended to be any type of joke or a poem. I know that I am not the most tuned in type of person, but I do read at a lot of sites pretty much every day. Please tell me where President Trump is positioning Himself with this ‘Trade Agreement’ with President Xi Jinping of China? Did He really just make this up, you know, this whole ‘ I thought it, so it must be so’? Honestly all that I can say is, I really hope that this is not so. Folks, that would actually mean that our Nation’s President, is insane. I don’t like the person that is our President right now. What I don’t like is his constant lying, it is not ever possible to believe anything he is talking about. I believe that our President is a lot of very bad things, it is simple the Man can’t be trusted, he is a loose Cannon and totally ignorant to everyday realities.  But actually crazy? If it turns out that President Trump made this ‘Deal’ up in His Head, but it really didn’t happen? What is it that President Xi Jinping and their Communists Government, who doesn’t like us in the first place, suppose to think about how to take advantage of this situation to their best advantage? Our President has greatly hurt our relations with almost every Nation on the Globe. Is it possible that Our President isn’t just a hate filled habitual liar, but that He is actually legally Crazy? Lord knows that I hope not. That would be a new low for Our Country. Mr. McConnell and the Republicans should really be ashamed of their works these past few years I believe that the Republican Party is going to take a 20 year or so ‘Hit’ to their credibility in Elections, if He is proven to not ‘be competent’. I just hope that He is not lying about this ‘trade deal’ with China. Could it be He could claim ‘temporary insanity’ with regard to Mr. Mueller’s Investigation also? Man, I hope that the Man is not ‘less than sane.’ As an old and Special Lady friend used to say once in a while, ‘we shall see what we shall see.’ Think about it, is that not so?

Trump’s Advisers Struggle to Explain Deal He Says He Cut With Xi

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BLOOMBERG NEWS)

 

Trump’s Advisers Struggle to Explain Deal He Says He Cut With Xi

 Updated on 
  • President hails ‘extraordinary’ dinner with Chinese leader
  • Kudlow says China made ‘commitments’ to ‘presumably implement’

President Donald Trump left his top advisers scrambling on Monday to explain a trade deal he claimed he’d struck with China to reduce tariffs on U.S. cars exported to the country — an agreement that doesn’t exist on paper and hasn’t been confirmed in Beijing.

In the day after Trump announced the deal in a two-sentence Twitter post, the White House provided no additional information. At a briefing in Beijing, a spokesman for the foreign ministry declined to comment on any changes to car tariffs.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

China has agreed to reduce and remove tariffs on cars coming into China from the U.S. Currently the tariff is 40%.

45.8K people are talking about this

Questioned about the agreement on Monday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, dialed back expectations and added qualifiers.

Larry Kudlow speaks to members of the media outside the White House.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

“I’ll call them ‘commitments’ at this point, which are — commitments are not necessarily a trade deal, but it’s stuff that they’re going to look at and presumably implement,” Kudlow told reporters at an official White House briefing that followed TV interviews and informal briefings by him and Mnuchin earlier in the day.

The apparent move on auto tariffs was part of a broader trade truce struck by Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping during a dinner in Buenos Aires on Saturday night. As part of that the U.S. said it had agreed to hold off on raising tariffs Jan. 1 while negotiations took place. Kudlow initially said that the Chinese had 90 days from Jan. 1 to come up with “structural changes” regarding intellectual property protections, forced technology transfer and other issues.

The White House later corrected him to say that the 90 days actually began on Dec. 1, Saturday.

Trump’s tweet, which moved stocks of automobile companies across the globe, followed the dinner at the Group of 20 summit in Argentina. There, all sides agree, the American president agreed to postpone an increase in tariffs on Chinese imports to 25 percent from 10 percent, which was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, in exchange for negotiations on broader economic disputes.

Steven Mnuchin

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

“I think there is a specific understanding that we are now going to turn the agreement the two presidents had into a real agreement in the next 90 days,” Mnuchin told reporters at the White House on Monday. “I’m taking President Xi at his word, at his commitment to President Trump. But they have to deliver on this.”

He didn’t say precisely what China committed to do.

The uncertainty underscored the risk entailed by Trump’s eagerness to strike deals without nailing down details in advance. The confusion was exacerbated by the absence of a joint statement from the U.S. and China following the dinner. Financial markets were left struggling to digest talks that the White House portrayed as a major victory for the president.

“That’s what happens when you don’t have the detailed negotiations going into the summit” and end up with the “broad swath of a 35,000-foot deal,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “It’s risky. There’s certainly no guarantees that it will produce the outcomes that we want.”

Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and members of their delegations during their bilateral meeting on Dec. 1.

Photographer: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

Officials in Beijing did not respond to requests for an explanation and neither did the Chinese embassy in Washington.

Trump nevertheless praised himself for the dinner, and abandoned nuance in claiming on Twitter that China had agreed to immediately buy more U.S. farm products, in addition to dropping car tariffs. Mnuchin, in an interview with CNBC on Monday, put a $1.2 trillion price tag on China’s additional trade commitments, but emphasized the details of how they get there still need to be negotiated.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Farmers will be a a very BIG and FAST beneficiary of our deal with China. They intend to start purchasing agricultural product immediately. We make the finest and cleanest product in the World, and that is what China wants. Farmers, I LOVE YOU!

35.4K people are talking about this

China imposed a retaliatory 25 percent tariff on imports of cars from the U.S. over the summer in response to Trump’s own tariffs. That’s added on top of a 15 percent tariff that Beijing charges for imports from the rest of the world, leaving U.S. auto exporters facing a 40 percent levy at the Chinese border.

In his briefing with reporters, Kudlow said he assumed that the Chinese would eventually drop their auto tariffs altogether. Such a change would have to apply to all countries under World Trade Organization rules.

“We don’t yet have a specific agreement on that,” Kudlow said, apparently contradicting Trump’s tweet on the matter. “But I will just tell you, as an involved participant, we expect those tariffs to go to zero.”

Asked why the auto tariffs weren’t mentioned in statements the U.S. and China issued after the dinner, Kudlow inexplicably insisted that they were. “I don’t agree with that,” he said.

— With assistance by Shannon Pettypiece, Alyza Sebenius, and Jennifer Jacobs

(Updates with White House correcting Kudlow’s remarks, beginning in fifth paragraph.)

(Philosophy Poem) Taking Money From The Devil

Taking Money From The Devil

 

When you are down and out, be careful of the spout

Water is never pure when it is coming from the sewer

Muddy water from a swamp just kills you a little slower

When drowning in the sand one will grasp at any hand

Sweet words to reel you in to slather you on their spit

 

Promises of help all disguised to steal your life and land

Taxes and tolls with high interest you can never repay

Bridges that they build are just their avenue to invade

Belts and Roads built to plunder the poor man last dollar

Upon the Roads their Armies march your sovereignty do part

 

Whether a Panda or a Card they smile as they cut your throat

The Poor are only fodder for the weapons of the rich man’s dollar

Poor people do all the work but to Ivory Towers go all the perks

Just look to your Capitals for Fallen Angels disguised as rich Jerks

Soon all money will come from one hand, will be the Devil, not a man