Slashdot Mirror


Trump Strikes Deal With China's ZTE on Sanctions (usatoday.com)

The Trump administration struck a deal Thursday with a Chinese telecom that will allow it to do business with U.S. companies even though it violated sanctions. From a report: China's ZTE will pay a $1 billion penalty and will embed a U.S. appointed compliance team, terms that are similar to those President Trump discussed last month when he revealed that Chinese leaders had asked him to look into the matter. "At about 6 a.m. this morning, we executed a definitive agreement with ZTE," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told CNBC in an interview Thursday. "And that brings to a conclusion this phase of the development with them." Trump asked the Commerce Department to investigate the restrictions on ZTE in April following a request from Chinese President Xi Jinping. Commerce imposed a seven-year ban after the company sold American-made products to Iran, a violation of U.S. sanctions.

145 comments

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make ZTE great again!

  2. So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Make China Great Again

    1. Re:So Much Winning by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is how international trade works in the real world. If you completely screw your big trading partners, they screw you back and everyone loses.

      ZTE's demise helps no-one. It wouldn't have made America great again, that's for sure. For once Trump did the right thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with the new batch of Chinese trademarks that Ivanka got - on the same day he announced this.

    3. Re:So Much Winning by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with the new batch of Chinese trademarks that Ivanka got - on the same day he announced this."

      The things we do for love.

    4. Re:So Much Winning by cyberchondriac · · Score: 0

      What would alleged trademarks (clothing I assume, since you provided no citation or evidence) have to do with a telecom company?

      Spin for spin's sake, I guess.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1, Funny

      LOL. If commrade Hannity says it, it must be so.

    6. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Informative
    7. Re:So Much Winning by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That isn't what whataboutism is, comrade. But nice try on trying to discount the entire concept by misusing it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZTE's demise helps its honest competitors. We don't want to live in a world where Zaibatsu hegemony makes the law of the land.

    9. Re:So Much Winning by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2, Informative

      From your own link. "Coincidence? Well, probably".

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    10. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WOW. If that's your take-away from that, maybe we should just drop an anvil on you to get your attention.

    11. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because Trademark protection is soooo valuable. No one gets Trademark protection without making corrupt deals.

    12. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that trademarks & copyrights are not valuable? Tell that to the Disney Corporation...

    13. Re:So Much Winning by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      No thanks, I don't buy into the media hype train. The bottom line is still, "probably not". The rest is only speculation, subject to bias and subjectivity, as if the NYT would ever write anything positive about him.

      ZTE just got fined a BILLION US dollars. As fines go, that's not small potatoes, plus there'll be additional monitoring by a compliance team.
      Other US companies are actually helped by this agreement that have nothing to do with the the trumps.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    14. Re:So Much Winning by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      So facts that some moderator doesn't like is now trolling? That's just an abuse of moderation. It's a fact: The article sums up with "Coincidence? Well, probably". It's right in the article, and then followed by speculation.
      Nothing trollish about my post.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    15. Re:So Much Winning by truckaxle · · Score: 2

      Nice whatboutism

      This isn't whatboutism but correlation fella!

    16. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So try again now that you have thought about it: what *is* your point.

    17. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. If commrade Hannity says it, it must be so.

      Hillary, is that you? The Clinton Foundation funds are running dry. You must have not been elected president.

    18. Re:So Much Winning by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Any group that can watch the 'Clinton Global Bribe Fund' operate, then watch it's income go basically to zero after she lost and conclude: 'nothing suspicious here' is beyond reasoning with. It's simply tribal to them...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is negotiating leverage for North Korea. Trump only told us his plans long ago.

      Trademarks aren't really worth a damn in China and will only be enforced if they feel like it. They've done tons of business in China before and after this. Trump has gotten loans from lots of people, even Soros, so you'll need a lot more to make things out of this.

      The TDS is real, you also have some ridiculous conspiracies about his wife, so I'm not really surprised at this point. "They didn't hold hands! He probably beats her!!!!"

    20. Re:So Much Winning by youngone · · Score: 1

      We don't want to live in a world where Zaibatsu hegemony makes the law of the land.

      Sorry A/C, but if you're American you already live in a world where corporate interests write the laws they want and pay your elected officials to enact them. See George W Bush's energy policy as one of many examples.
      Your country is run by corporate interests for their own benefit.

    21. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademarks are the cheapest and easiest things to get anywhere, non-story.

    22. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any group that can watch the 'Clinton Global Bribe Fund' operate, then watch it's income go basically to zero after she lost and conclude: 'nothing suspicious here' is beyond reasoning with. It's simply tribal to them...

      Getting your irony in extra thick today, HornWumpus?

      Remember, this is about T-Rump, the actual person to worry about, but damn, you still screaming Hillary Hillary Hillary like it's all you got.

      You could at least have learned not to bite on the damn Pizza-gate Uranium Alien Conspiracies just because your tribal affiliations require you to recite them like a shibboleth.

    23. Re:So Much Winning by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And we hear from the deranged troll.

      Keep it up, we're all laughing at you, poor buthurt snowflake. You set the standard for passing corruption as long as it's on your side.

      Trump was, until recently, a lifelong D...the RNC hates him as much as the DNC. The hope is he triggers a dirt dump by both, giving American politics a hard reset and leaving Hillary dying in prison.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:So Much Winning by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      corporate interests write the laws they want and pay your elected officials to enact them. See George W Bush's energy policy as one of many examples.

      Obviously you can't be right, since Bush the second's administration's energy policy was decided and enacted with full transparency and under open public scrutiny. Moreover, we know Republicans always put people first, so corporations can't have had any influence on the policy.

    25. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trump won. GET OVER IT!

    26. Re:So Much Winning by youngone · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Mr. Bush II even if Ken Lay or Vice President Cheney explained how Enron worked I am sure he would not have understood it, so I probably should go easy on him.
      That's what you get if you elect the perpetually puzzled.

    27. Re:So Much Winning by dwater · · Score: 1

      In the short term, perhaps. I would imagine ZTE (and others) will think twice about using US parts in future.

      --
      Max.
    28. Re: So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And money ..

    29. Re:So Much Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://politics.slashdot.org/story/18/06/07/1355227/trump-strikes-deal-with-chinas-zte-on-sanctions#comments

  3. So now we know how much it costs! by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [Pinky finger to corner of mouth] Only $1 Beeelllyon to sell out national security and do away with trade sanctions.

    Not really that much in today's markets.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By the way the examples I brought up you didn't give a shit about when they happened.

      They never happened. Stop watching fake news that has been proved to be false and have defended themselves in court as "just entertainment". You get some seriously messed up ideas of reality that way.

    2. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary Clinton personally received no money from the Uranium One deal. Full stop, she did not even have the power to approve the deal wholesale so that is a whole lot of nothing. As far as Biden there was one book which alleges all this with no additional evidence as of yet.

      Given the sources I see in a Google search I would definitely wait to see what plays out. With the current political climate if Joe Biden actually was guilty of quid pro quo then it should be an easy slam dunk for the President to get him investigated since he can investigate other non-existent issues like 5 million illegals voting somehow even though it didn't happen and there is zero evidence to suggest it did or the stupid Spygate scandal which is just more misdirection.

    3. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Informative

      Economic sanctions are just the systematic murder of poor and middle-class--including their children--while pretending to keep your hands clean. They're not fundamentally-distinct from charging into villages and shooting 10-year-olds with flamethrowers.

      The whole "national security" thing was a bunch of crap. They suggested ZTE could possibly put some kind of malicious espionage software on their phones--not that they, Huawei, or Xiaomi have done any such thing, but they could. Meanwhile CISCO routers are made in China and make up major government infrastructure....

    4. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The "National Security" issue is that the NSA didn't have access to ZTE devices. Now they will. Go read a few hundred Snowden slide decks if you don't know that this is how they work.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Dare+nMc · · Score: 4, Informative

      ZTE illegally sold US-made goods in Iran and North Korea, making hundreds of millions from Iran alone. ZTE then promised to punish 7 people caught directly violating these US laws, instead it gave them bonuses.

      The espionage claims resulted in US government employees being prevented from using their phones, and is completely separate from these actions.

    6. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton did a speech for a Russian Bank, owned in part by Putin for $500,000, 4 months before approval. Personally.
      State Department had veto power to nix deal, Clinton was in charge of state department.

      If you want to defend corrupt actions, that is fine. You don't get to make up lies to do so.

    7. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      You want to know what's funniest about the whole Uranium one conspiracy theory?

      Not one ounce of Uranium has been mined in the US since the 1980's. I don't know the exact date they stopped but it was a LONG time ago. You want to know what's even funnier?

      If every nuclear power plant stays open for the next 30 years they won't need to mine uranium for another 30 years.

      Not much of a conspiracy.

    8. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      [Pinky finger to corner of mouth] Only $1 Beeelllyon to sell out national security and do away with trade sanctions.

      Not really that much in today's markets.

      No, it only costed China $500M in a Trump hotel. That $1B is a public figure for "punishment". But probably will go into the Chinese government coffers to repay that investment.

      That's it.

      Meanwhile, Canadian steel and aluminium are the greater national security threat. Because war of 1812.

    9. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by hey! · · Score: 1

      It could be coincidence, but China granted Ivanka Trump (who is working in the White House in a somewhat nebulous capacity) a number of trademarks.

      Trump's taking such personal efforts to save ZTE is curious to say the least, given its involvement with transferring sensitive US technology to Iran, the fact that it is ultimately mainly owned by the Chinese State, and the fact has been implicated in various overseas bribery scandal.

      I'm not saying where there's smoke, there's fire, but that's a hell of a lot of smoke.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly more than an ounce: https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/

    11. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Trump's taking such personal efforts to save ZTE is curious to say the least [...]

      Not really. It is pretty much the way the world works. One big man asks another big man for something, and so the world turns to make it happen.

      First of all, it is a chance to show off how powerful Trump is.

      Second it is a favor. Trump did a favor for Xi. Someday Xi may do a favor for Trump.

      Third, refusal to do a favor is an insult. Insulting Xi (and China) would be bad for international relations.

      This is how business (and politics) works.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    12. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      See: http://nordic.businessinsider....

      "China's Ministry of Aerospace founded ZTE as a front to send officers abroad under non-diplomatic covers such as scientists, businessmen and executives for the purpose of collecting intelligence," documents in the case allege.

    13. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how much of it was exported to Russia? I'm not going to wait for your answer because I already know it.

      So the whole story is that a Russian company bought a controlling stake in Canadian mining company that mines uranium in the United States, but said uranium can't be exported... Those bastards!

      Next week we'll all lament about Benghazi! Benghazi this, Benghazi that, the MOOSLUMS hit Benghazi with a wiffleball bat.

    14. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      > ZTE illegally sold US-made goods in Iran

      The Obama administration conspired to do the very same and yet half the people freaking out on this article don't seem to give a rat's ass about that.

    15. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Explain why the flow into the 'Clinton Global Bribe Fund' went basically to zero after she lost?

      At this point, you are just willfully ignorant.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      > ZTE illegally sold US-made goods in Iran

      The Reagan administration conspired to do the very same and yet half the people freaking out on this article don't seem to give a rat's ass about that.

      Fixed that for you.

    17. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get a lot of our uranium from "watering down" Russian nukes, not mining. It was NY Times that reported on the issue, and before it became a partisan issue everyone on both sides seemed to agree Clinton was up to no good. After Trump, everyone on the left is trying to downplay the issue.

    18. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because trump WON, dumbass. Why would companies give a loser donations for policies that she can no longer affect? You put your bribes....er donations to work the best way that maximizes results. Are you gonna bribe your plumber to get you out of a ticket because he was a cop 10 years ago? Your dumbass might.

    19. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. This basically blows clean away the fig-leaf that sanctions have anything whatever to do with national security.

      They're a tool for funnelling money into the coffers of Trump's friends in US industry. Oh, and some of it will no doubt find its way back into his slushcampaign fund.

    20. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the whole legal basis is fine and dandy; the response is a big fine and some other action; and people are all in a huff because they think sanctions are some sacred cow.

      The WTO and UN should put economic sanctions on the list of things that will get your leaders arrested and tried for war crimes. Extending from a reasonable legal response to a huge moral response against ZTE is like calling for the death penalty for a person who murdered a child rapist during the rape of a child: your moral foundation sucks.

    21. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      I don't see a problem with the act, but the how is clearly suspect. This is not the type of thing the president should be involved in, especially one who's adviser and daughter just got preferential treatment, and lawyer just took a bunch of money from China, and who's family business just got millions of investment from a Chinese government run business.

      When it is out of character (Publicly trump as been very anti china not enforcing sanctions. Very anti Chinese business.) and does a sudden 180 turn. Decides to intervene in something he should not, and while receiving business favors at the same time. And then you see the false propaganda start from his usual sources, it all adds up to the biggest growth of the government Swamp ever.

    22. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how business (and politics) works.

      It's corrupt. Just because the corruption is ongoing, it doesn't mean we should just accept it. What happened to the swamp-draining project?

    23. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      tl;dr it's an obvious conflict-of-interest.

    24. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you feel changed his mind from the days of "China is a Currency Manipulator" to welcoming a huge Chinese competitor into the US Market?

    25. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      None.

      Every year we import several hundred pounds of weapons grade uranium from the form Soviet union, blend it down to 3% and make power production nuclear rods out of it. We've been doing this since the mid-90's and after we exhaust all that leftover soviet Uranium we've got several dozen tons of US weapons grade uranium that's of no use that will also be blended and used in power plants.

      This is the reason they won't need to mine any new Uranium until 2050 if all the Nuclear plants stay open, but with the number of nuke power plants that have closed over the last few years that might be 2075 now or even 2100. Uranium has no reason to be mined in the US for a very long time because we mined so much of it between 1950 and 1980 that we've got so much laying around we can't use it all for decades. Who cares if they sold mining rights to the Russians, those rights are worthless for decades to come and if it's an issue when we need to mine it again we can seize those rights back. The Russians bought a worthless asset.

      People forgot we built nearly 10K nuclear bombs more than half of which used uranium. The soviets built close to 17K warheads and had an even higher proportion of Uranium triggers. All this nuclear material is worthless in the era of Plutonium trigger hydrogen bombs so its all being recycled into power production. All that weapons grade material will supply power production needs for decades to come.

      This is the definition of a non-story.

  4. Many jobs lost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    So ZTE were blocked from US for national security reasons. Trump has his meeting and starts singing the praising of ZTE:

    "President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!
            — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 13, 2018"

    Right.... worried about jobs in China..... sure you are.

    If you look at the payments Cohen received, he received money from Oligarchs, AtnT, Ukraine, Israel, Turkey, US Coal lobby, etc., and he paid out bills for Trump, Hannity, Elliott Broidy (RNC finance chair, so his money stream maybe RNC related) that they're not supposed to have.

    Money they're not supposed to have, paying bills they're not supposed to have. All done through Cohen.

    Trump looks after Trump, there will be a money stream associated with this. Money for Trump. It won't be through Cohen because he's broken now. It won't be Manasfort either, same reason. But it will be there, because that's Trump.

  5. ZTE got away with it, and others will too by It's+the+tripnaut! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It certainly pays to have friends in high places.

    ZTE will easily recoup the $1B just by the fact that its share price will certainly jump up with this news alone. Essentially, ZTE will have suffered very little penalties after all the transgressions it has done against the US. This sets a precedent that many other foreign companies with good ties to their government will surely follow.

    1. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It certainly pays to have friends in high places.

      ZTE will easily recoup the $1B just by the fact that its share price will certainly jump up with this news alone. Essentially, ZTE will have suffered very little penalties after all the transgressions it has done against the US. This sets a precedent that many other foreign companies with good ties to their government will surely follow.

      Well, they had China give Trump a few hundred million in business deals, so you need a mechanism for giving the Trump businesses money.

    2. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      Maybe if they'd own a lot of their own stock, but from what I can see that doesn't seem to be the case (all of their stock is held by 3 entities, two of which are Chinese government ones and collectively own 51% of the company). As for little in terms of penalties, they still have to pay a billion in fines, put 400 million into escrow, completely replace the board and upper management along with having to put up with a U.S sanctions compliance team for the foreseeable future.

      Obviously a lot less severe than the original sanctions, which essentially amounted to a corporate death sentence as pretty much everything they make has critical components made by U.S companies, but I wouldn't jump on the Trump hate bandwagon quite that hard. If he got some trade or security-related concessions (like backing the U.S in talks with North Korea) out of the Chinese in return it may even have been completely worth giving ZTE a stay of execution like this.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's the case, just that it's not out of question. However I do suspect this was more likely the condition for the trade deficit related concessions Trump got out of China not too long ago.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    3. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ZTE will easily recoup the $1B

      So this is interesting, because I'm not sure recouping the cost really matters. Perhaps they will, and that might be an added bonus.

      Lately, China has been investing a lot of money into the world for both direct and indirect benefit. The direct benefit comes from monetary benefit such as an interest payment on a loan or beneficial trade agreements. The indirect benefit comes from increased influence around the world and increase in soft power. Some of China's investments are substantial monetary costs/losses, but come with other advantages. A few sources for what I'm saying:

      - The "One Belt One Road" initiative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Belt_One_Road_Initiative
      - "Chinese investment in Africa grew from USD 210 million in 2000 to 3.17 billion in 2011" https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/chinas-aid-to-africa-monster-or-messiah/
      - "China spent $354.3 billion over the 15-year period from 2000 to 2014 — a figure approaching the $394.6 billion spent by the U.S. over that same time frame. " https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/31/560278615/find-out-some-but-not-all-the-secrets-of-chinas-foreign-aid
      - China loaned Sri Lanka (IIRC) ~$6B and they spend ~$1.3B building the Hambantota port, but Sri Lanka couldn't repay. So they worked out an agreement that China would "lease" the port for 99 years as part of the repayment. https://www.ft.com/content/e150ef0c-de37-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c

      Not mentioned above, but China prefers to give money to more authoritarian developing countries. They are probably pleased to be able to work around Iran sanctions, especially considering how quickly they were able to work out the $1B fine.

    4. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1B is a lot of money for selling a few phones to Iran. Also based on sanctions that are not justifiable. Agree?

    5. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      1B is a lot of money for selling a few phones to Iran. Also based on sanctions that are not justifiable. Agree?

      True. But that doesn't defend the graft taken to lift the sanctions.

  6. Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The message seems pretty clear: laws don't matter if you pay enough money.

    This is essentially an open invitation for other businesses to bribe the Trump administration. Just pay the right "fine" to the right department, and any violation of those pesky rules will just be forgiven. Either Trump will start negotiating on your behalf, or he'll just pardon the liable people. Either way, "consequences" will be left for those poor people who lack the business skill to blatantly ignore morality.

    ...Where's Martin Luther gone off to now?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Open for business by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "The message seems pretty clear: laws don't matter if you pay enough money."

      If you _have_ enough money is enough.

    2. Re:Open for business by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      They're called "fines".. what a novel idea. The fact that he got ZTE to admit any wrongdoing at all is pretty remarkable.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The message seems pretty clear: laws don't matter if you pay enough money.

      This has always been true. It's why you don't go to jail for blasting heavy metal at 2am, or for speeding, or jwalking, or parking illegally.

    4. Re:Open for business by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      Seems you've been blissfully unaware that in the US, committing mass fraud to the tune of billions and paying a fraction of that in fines has been the standard business model for over 20 years. This is nothing new, Trump is just making it globalized. The rule of law has been supplanted by rule of "who has the most money"

    5. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In case you missed the news, Hillary isn't our president, and neither is Obama any more. I complained plenty when the Democrats were in charge, but now it's the Republicans who are undermining the Constitution, so they get the complaints.

      I know it's shocking, but it is actually possible to criticize an authority without caring what party they represent. It's called "having strong principles", and it appears to be an utterly foreign concept to this administration. I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats' principles, but at least they have them.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They already had admitted the wrongdoing, and said they'd make amends... then they didn't follow through. That's what triggered the last round of sanctions, adding a US business ban on top of their existing billion-dollar fine.

      In a functional administration, this wouldn't be something the White House would interfere with at all. The DOJ would make their recommendations, following any directional guidance the White House would establish in policy. That's a nice and predictable process, where one can review the law and policy before committing crimes, and know with a good degree of certainty how things will turn out.

      Now we've defenestrated the rule of law. The policy doesn't actually matter. If you think you have enough money, you can go ahead and break the laws, and just buy an ad on Fox or host a party for Kanye, and you won't need to worry about anything the DOJ says.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with blocking US chip technology is that it then preempts China to start making their own chips, reducing their reliance on the US. So theres a very good reason, especially as US doesnt want to compete with chips subsidized by the Chinese government, they would flood the US pretty quickly.

    8. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's shocking, but it is actually possible to criticize an authority without caring what party they represent. It's called "having strong principles", and it appears to be an utterly foreign concept to this administration. I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats' principles, but at least they have them.

      Uh, that's the entire damn point: the Democrats principles change depending on who's in office. The Obama administration starts a policy of separating children from their families: not a peep. The Trump administration continues it: outrage! Obama uses Facebook to mine private information to influence voters: who innovative! Trump does the same thing: #DeleteFacebook!

      There are two sets of standards the Democrats have, one that applies to them and one that applies to everyone else. That's the point. That's why people constantly point out that Democrat Outrage is all about things that they, themselves, are more than happy to do. They have no principles other than outrage.

    9. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, goody! It's time for a history lesson!

      When slavery was a major issue in the United States, the parties looked very different from what we have now. The Democrats and Republicans had a lot of dissent within the parties, on pretty much every issue except one: slavery.

      It seems weird to say it, but prior to the founding of the Republican party, political movements were more like sports teams than they are today. There was heavy anti-federalist sentiment, so people would usually support their state's party at a national level, mostly just to promote their own state's interests. Handling important issues federally was a rarity.

      Then the civil war broke out.

      The newly-formed Republican party was literally started as a one-issue party. They wanted to end slavery. They also absorbed a lot of the old Whig supporters (mostly from northern states), who wanted strong business support and social reform. When the southern Congressmen left their offices to join the Confederacy, the Republicans took over, by wide margins.

      Obviously, slavery didn't last very long. The Union won the war, leaving Republicans in charge as the heroes of social equality, which worked until the Democrats came back a decade later. That's when segregation and Jim Crow laws came in from the Democrat side, and the Republicans pushed the Whig legacy of strong business.

      The next big shift came with the Great Depression. All of that business-central policy collapsed on the Republicans, and people started leaving the party. Notably, the folks mainly concerned with social reform ended up in the Democrat camp, slowly reversing the Democrats' position on social equality. By the 1960s, with still no major opposition on that front by the Republicans, the Democrats actually ended up pushing to reverse their own segregation policies.

      That support for the civil rights movement was very unpopular among the traditional southern Democrats, so they left the Democrat party, just like the Republicans had 30 years earlier. They ended up in the Republican camp.

      In short, through the middle of the 20th century, the two major parties swapped their positions on social policy, while keeping their position on economic policy. That's pretty much the situation we have today, where the Democrats push for strong social equality and small-business economics, and the Republicans want big business and try to ignore racism entirely.

      To wit, then: Democrats have principles today, but the Democrats we have today aren't the Democrats we had when the Democrats supported slavery.

      (For clarity, I mostly align with the Whig ideas, mixed with a bit of socialism and statism... I don't really care who you are or how you were born, but if you follow the law you should have an equal opportunity for success as anyone else)

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Obama had no policy of separating children from their families. That is completely made up. A lot of Trumpsters point to Obama dealing with unaccompanied minors which is a very different situation.

      You should really open your eyes, the Democrats are not some evil organization. If they had the same discipline as Republicans then would be in charge. Republicans fall in line with their leadership, leading Democrats is like herding cats. They go every which way which is why we ended up with Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary.

      If you actually believe Obama's use of Facebook is at all equivalent to Cambridge Analytica you have some serious issues. You can tell because another country put them out of business for severely corrupt practices such as blackmail.

      Given the whole comment I suspect you're just a troll though.

    11. Re: Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too big to fail... four words

    12. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint, China is doing this anyway

    13. Re:Open for business by halivar · · Score: 1

      That support for the civil rights movement was very unpopular among the traditional southern Democrats, so they left the Democrat party, just like the Republicans had 30 years earlier. They ended up in the Republican camp.

      Then you would expect deep southern states to have turned red during that period, except they did not. They did not turn Republican until the 90's (some early, some late). For most so-called "dixiecrats", political identity was second only to God.

    14. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrat principles:
      Ignore mass killings of blacks in Chicago for decades because it won't get them more votes.
      Support MS-13 murders/rapists over US citizens.
      Support raising taxes on the middle class.
      Support multiple horrible misogynists statements against first lady and her daughter.
      Raise funds for campaigns using sexual predators/rapists like Weinstein and Bill Clinton.
      Call half the country deplorable and have the entire party leadership support that statement.

    15. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie supporters didn't vote for Hillary because Hillary RIGGED the primary so she would win.
      We have evidence of this, its not even debated at this point once the DNC chairwoman came out and wrote a book explaining how it happened.

      Not sure why you think people should vote for someone who made their votes in the primary worthless.

    16. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC here. "herding cats" as a euphemism for stunning levels of corruption and betrayal really is intellectual dishonesty in a class of its own, but is all too typical from Democrats anymore anyway. No they aren't evil, but they aren't democratic either.

      Especially while stomping on free speech and promoting the balance of power to be shifted completely to the side of government. Maybe authoritarian would be a better way to describe them. Or autocratic.

    17. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama flew multiple planes with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in each plane. Where did each plane land? Only in Iran?

    18. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of things have changed, sure. Pre-Civil War, it was the South that wanted no/low tariffs so it could export cotton and import cheap finished goods. They were also losing population as there was little economic opportunity (something like two people moved North for every person that moved South).

      But these days slavery has been replaced with mass immigration, whether illegal or by visa abuse. Out corporate overlords want cheap labor and low tariffs. And perhaps the epicenter of this problem is California, which is having an exodus of citizens (check out UHaul moving costs to and from California). Sound familiar?

      Of course, saying "Republicans good, Democrats bad" or vice versa is idiotic since there's plenty of people in the GOP prepared to sell out the country to the highest bidder in the name of capitalism. And Democrats are prepared to take massive risks to the economic/political/cultural health of the nation in the name of winning elected office.

    19. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That support for the civil rights movement was very unpopular among the traditional southern Democrats, so they left the Democrat party, just like the Republicans had 30 years earlier. They ended up in the Republican camp.

      Then you would expect deep southern states to have turned red during that period, except they did not. They did not turn Republican until the 90's (some early, some late). For most so-called "dixiecrats", political identity was second only to God.

      Then you would expect deep southern states to have turned red during that period, except they did not.

      Except they did.

      Which is what Sarten X already said.

      Sorry man, but it's not worth being in denial about. Your political correctness while a partisan tenet, is not based on fact or reality.

      They did not turn Republican until the 90's (some early, some late). For most so-called "dixiecrats", political identity was second only to God.

      Only if you mean the Almighty Dollar. Otherwise, they are brazenly crass in their false appeals to any form of respectable deity in order to serve their agenda.

      Just like today.

    20. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the Dixie states voted from the late 60s on:

      1968: the Dixie states voted for a third-party candidate, Wallace.
      1972: solid Republican
      1976: Democrat resurgence in the south, generally credited to Democrats fielding the governor of Georgia as their candidate.
      1980: solid Republican, except Georgia (Carter's home state)
      1984: solid Republican, without exceptions
      1988: solid Republican
      1992: southern states split fairly evenly between Clinton (a southerner himself) and Bush
      1996: split again, but mostly Republican

      Whatever the "dixiecrats" did, the states as a whole clearly had no strong loyalty to the Democrat party from the late 60s on.

    21. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may have had something to do with majority-minority redistricting law. Localities were required to redistrict voting districts so that more minorities would be elected to Congress. It turns out that this helped Republicans quit a bit, so Newt Gingrich was all for it.

    22. Re:Open for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, slavery didn't last very long. The Union won the war, leaving Republicans in charge as the heroes of social equality, which worked until the Democrats came back a decade later. That's when segregation and Jim Crow laws came in from the Democrat side, and the Republicans pushed the Whig legacy of strong business.

      The next big shift came with the Great Depression. All of that business-central policy collapsed on the Republicans, and people started leaving the party. Notably, the folks mainly concerned with social reform ended up in the Democrat camp, slowly reversing the Democrats' position on social equality. By the 1960s, with still no major opposition on that front by the Republicans, the Democrats actually ended up pushing to reverse their own segregation policies.

      Going to point out that you've got some things wrong. Republicans actually left the idea of social equality behind, in the election of 1876, where they literally gave away any pretense of supporting it in order to arrange Hayes's election as President.

      Then there were some big (at the time) shake-ups in the late 1800s and early 1900s, including two or three naval build-ups, a call for imperialism, Teddy's Square Deal, Bryan's Cross of Gold, and that's before the Great Depression.

    23. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I should have worded that a bit better... I meant that immediately after the war, the Republicans were literally social justice warriors. For a few years, they had fought and won for social equality. You are right, though, that the glory faded away pretty quickly and the Republicans focused on business. As I understand, that's why the Democrats were able to enact segregation with little cohesive opposition.

      While the economic events around the turn of the century certainly didn't help the Republican party, they didn't cause it to implode like the Great Depression did. When the Great Depression hit its hardest, it came right at the end of three Republican presidencies, which had covered the "Roaring Twenties"... so the Republicans were blamed for taking all that nice prosperity and ruining it. The success of the Democrat-led New Deal then pushed a lot of the on-the-fence voters toward the Democrat side, and set in motion the rest of the 20th century's political changes.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  7. China Is Buying America's Elites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/
    https://nypost.com/2018/03/17/how-mcconnell-and-chao-used-political-power-to-make-their-family-rich/

  8. What does Trump get out of it? by satsuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

    Also, who will appoint the compliance team proposed? If it's Trump controlled cronies instead of competent engineering talent, what will that mean for national security going forward?

    1. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they were allowed to do anything under Obama right? lmao

    2. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      Ivanka's trademarks in China? The funding of the Trump resort in Indonesia? I'm sure there are a few more things goin on that we don't know about yet.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      China gave Trump a favorable business deal in the tune of a few hundred million dollars just before he wrote his tweet about "so many jobs lost in China, we must do something".

    4. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Trump gets a talking point to show how great of a deal maker he is.
      Trump doesn't care about money, it is about his Ego.

      However the key problem with the Trump Administration is a lack of any long term strategy. Most countries are playing nice right now, as to avoid losing out on existing effort and investments. However for the long term, countries, and companies, will start to look for a more diverse trading base to help keep their market stable. Historically counties likes to work with the US because we were consistent and stable.

      For businesses with long term customers, the good customer who pays their bills on time, and treats the business fairly, will often get a discount. For the company owner he knows he could be making more money with a less stable customer because you can charge them more, but the steady predictable customer will help make sure the business runs more smoothly.

      Trump was in real estate, which is more about the short term customer. You probably will never need to deal with them again, so milk them for all you can get away with.

      Now ZTE may or may not be a National Security problem, But a deal was made, both sides agreed, but the question is for the long term relationship with ZTE will it keep trying to work with the US market, to deem it too risky to use again. Just as if you buy a car, and then you realized that you got a lemon of a car, the next one you get will be with a different dealer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      China provided a $500M loan to an Indonesian development project of which the trump organization has a licensing deal with and will profit from directly:

      https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/is-china-straight-up-bribing-donald-trump-zte

      The next day trump tweets we need to save Chinese jobs. Whats it going to take for all you die hard trumpers to realize you're the ones hes fucking over worse than anyone!? The second you question you're undying devotion to him he'll sell you out like "poor" Jeff Sessions.

    6. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      $500million

      May 8th: Trump announces sanctions on ZTE.
      May 9th: ZTE announces it will shutdown phone business.
      May 11th: $500m investment from China http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/...
      May 13th: Trump tweets concern about Chinese jobs lost with ZTE, confirms he spoke to Xi, and tells the commerce department to "get it done".

    7. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      A pair of tiny handcuffs, hopefully.

    8. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when Hillary does it, she skirts, and everyone fawns over it.

      Either they both go to jail for corruption, or no one does.

    9. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by blind+biker · · Score: 0

      If the Trump-hate doesn't completely blind you, you might consider that this move would be in exchange for China leaning on Kim Jong Un to start negotiating with the US on denuclearization.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    10. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademarks are cheap and easy anywhere. You can grab one in the US by filing online and spending $400. Do you really think it matters?

  9. Secret part of the dealio... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    ZTE has to embed NSA spyware into their US-market devices... or maybe all of their devices.

    1. Re:Secret part of the dealio... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also agree to blame it on Obama if they're caught

    2. Re:Secret part of the dealio... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's what the "u.s. appointed compliance team" is really for? well, that. plus to find more bribe money and profits for the 'president', his buddies or family.

    3. Re:Secret part of the dealio... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      ZTE has to embed NSA spyware into their US-market devices... or maybe all of their devices.

      Don't be daft. Trump is in this for personal gain not to prop up the NSA: https://www.huffingtonpost.co....

  10. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    This is how a master negotiator gets his things done. All you whiny libtards and SJW's need to sit down and shut your mouth and let the adult room people get on with running things.

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by "get on with running things," you mean, "Sell out our country to line our own pockets."

    2. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      smart people dont end up fighting in wars, just the dumb peons

  11. I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and I still wouldn't lose any voters"

    I would expect no less of idiotic trumptards than to continue defending a man who basically called them all morons to their face, and who still got elected.

  12. Where have I read this before? by moonracer · · Score: 1

    It's pay to play. Before long we'll have have tariff micro-transactions to boot.

  13. Update Servers... by GrpA · · Score: 1

    So does this mean they will turn the OTA update servers online? The disruption wasn't just to ZTE's future business. It really caused problems for millions of ZTE phone users also.

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  14. So ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

    ... fining a company and getting it into compliance is bad, because?

  15. Now how about a deal for Carrier? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh wait, they got one. Massive tax subsidies for the owners and the jobs still got shipped to Mexico. And _still_ his poll numbers don't budge.

    Show up to your primaries people. If we're ever going to fix this mess that's where we're gonna do it. And yes. that means registering for the Democratic party if that's what it takes to vote in their primary. The Dems aren't blameless, but they're not so far gone that they couldn't be made into a pro-working class party again.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. infrastructure expertise by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

    Have you seen America's crumbling infrastructure? How about China's country spanning high speed rail network? If you wanted to fix up your infrastructure, say build a wall maybe, who would you ask to help? China made a pretty good wall back in the day, imagine what they could do now with all that home grown advanced technology they have been developing.

    Mexico was never going to pay for it, but maybe China will, it would certainly help the trade balance too.

  17. Is being unpredictable his strategy? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I think lots of countries don't know what to make of the current situation. When you put someone in charge of a country who has no prior political experience, I think the more established politicians are just trying to figure out what's going through his mind.

    I don't think he's totally incompetent, having at least dealt with running a business, and hopefully he's listening to someone in his administration who has had some experience in international trade negotiations. But I do think someone needs to telegraph the fact that trade policy isn't the same as lowballing a property/business owner on an offer, or paying a local politician a bribe, or dealing with some construction union boss. Because if that's the experience he's drawing from, the results he's expecting aren't going to come about.

    One thing I worry about is national politics getting as openly corrupt as local politics. Local businessmen don't even try to hide it -- it's pretty much out in the open that the mayor or city council or town supervisor will do whatever a business owner wants for the right amount of cash in a paper bag. National politics is still a little veiled -- you have the veneer of lobbyists, etc.

    1. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      As a negotiation tactic, the goal isn't to kill the other side, the goal is to let them realize you can kill them. From a game-theory perspective, you don't actually want to use your big weapon, because once you use it, you have no more threats. Again we can see the same principle from a cold-war perspective: Russia (or America) can say, "If you do that, I will use nukes," and influence America. But if Russia ever used nukes, then they have no more influence over America's actions.

      So the threat of action is more powerful than the actual action.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's not in the least bit incompetent. He is doing the thing he knows how to do best: Enrich himself through corruption. ZTE had nothing to do about politics. https://www.huffingtonpost.co....

      5 days. That's all it took. 5 days from May 9th where Trump helped kill ZTE, to getting a major investment from the Chinese, to Trump helping bail ZTE out tweeting about his concern for Chinese jobs.

    3. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

      Because if that's the experience he's drawing from, the results he's expecting aren't going to come about.

      Well, so far the track record of these "Trump will fail because idiot" predictions is pretty poor.

      Just from the man from Mars perspective.

    4. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by gtall · · Score: 1

      "dealt with running a business"...errrr....you mean the ones that bankrupt four times?

      Foreign leaders should not bother attempting to figure out what's going through his head. There isn't anything other than hatred of "them others". Never feed a troll. Giving him any sort of appeasement only makes him think he can go back for more. Best thing to do is kick him in the balls really hard. And when he comes back (and he will), kick him in the balls harder.

      Germany is kvetching over the U.S. Ambassador saying he wants to support right-wing nuts. So Germany calls for the State Department for clarification. Wrong move. The correct move would have been to send his ass packing and tell him he will never be allowed to represent the U.S. in Germany again, ever. When el Presidente Tweetie retaliates, and he will, kick out more U.S. diplomats. When he retaliates again, and he will, start charging the U.S. more for bases there since it is clear he doesn't want to defend NATO so Germany will need the money to bolster its defenses. Keep upping the ante and never give that asshole an inch. You will only lose by doing so. Better to dictate what your losses will be from your own positioning.

    5. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by lorinc · · Score: 2

      I know your domestic politics is none of our concern, but seen from the rest of the world, a president that tweets he can pardon himself looks pretty damn ridiculous and is not really a good negotiation signal...

    6. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What would that man from Mars consider a failure? He is pretty good at pissing off allies, which surely will have consequences in the future, but he is also pretty good at getting bribed. So it is true, there is a point of view from which he is not a failure.

    7. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am glad you're not in change of German Diplomacy. As satisfying as a few kicks in Trump's balls would be, even only metaphorically, there must be a smoother way to teach Donald not to shit on the carpet. A rolled-up newspaper is probably not enough, though.

    8. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that. He's had pretty much nothing but consistent failure since he took office.

    9. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counterpoint: a competent crook would enrich himself through corruption without making it so blatantly obvious that he was doing so. As it stands, Trump's trademark corruption easily passes the 'moron in a hurry' test for being unmistakable as anything else.

  18. Thanks Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you Iran for making my country more safe by helping defeating terrorism, bringing peace and security to Syria which help Syrian refugees return to their home, and keep up the good work. Don't be afraid of the incompetent dumbfucks in Washington and Tel-Aviv.

  19. MCGA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making China Great Again!

    So much Winning it makes our heads spin.

  20. Fines? to who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the $1 Billion paid to Trump personally or to his business?

  21. where does the billion dollars go? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    make check payable to Donald J. Trump

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  22. War with Canada but Buddy with China by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WTF!!!!!

    We are in multiple trade wars with multiple democratic allies of ours. Allies that share our democratic ideals, share our common defense, and are not actively trying to undermine our global economic and military leadership position. Yet, we are openly helping authoritarian countries that violated our sanctions, aim their missiles at us, rams our ship and planes. Let's not kid ourselves. In authoritarian states, all large companies are organs of the state, subject to the bidding of the government. Helping companies in China is no different than helping the Chinese government itself. ZTE is a prime example.

    Do evangelicals know that China actively suppressed the Christian faith and all non state-organized religion in China? Doesn't Fox News cover this topic?

    1. Re:War with Canada but Buddy with China by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Since when did democratic ideals have any relevance? Otherwise, Aramco wouldn't be the most valued company in the world, and China would never have been given favored trade partner status to begin with.

  23. Some men just want to watch the world burn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And fuck all of you Americans who voted for it. Yes, Fuck you. Fuck you right in every hole you got, because that's whats coming for you. A fuckstorm. Get ready cunts.

  24. âoeAdult room peopleâ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you stab yourself with your fork when you eat?

  25. Re:Fines? to who by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Maybe he should open a 'Trump Global Fund' and collect his bribes into that? You are apparently fine with that...even after the politician loses and it becomes obvious to all it was just a bribe stream, as the flow disappears overnight.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  26. Dem primaries, this time we mean it by eaglesrule · · Score: 1, Troll

    With the proven reliability of a super delegate block to help make sure your vote really matters!

    Care about the working class? So do we! We're ready to import all the workers our wonderful corporate sponsors will ever need to keep those costs low low looow. Rule of law got you down? No problem, sanctuary cities got you covered! H1B's? Yes, please!

    Vote Dem!*

    white males and other deplorables need not apply.

  27. Cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we hear from the deranged troll

    That's the first time I've seen you announce your arrival. Is it a one-off or is this a new modus operandus?

  28. SITUS BANDARQ ONLINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://situsplayerqq.blogspot.com/2018/05/kumpulan-situs-bandarq-online-terbaik.html

  29. situs bandarq online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://situsjudi.id/game-poker/