Can someone explain to me how they believe the Trump team convinced Biden to sign the ban?

If you think it was a stunt for the benefit of Trump, you’re implying the Biden admin was in on it. Doesn’t make sense to me. Seems the more likely scenario is Biden just royally fucked up again to the point of somehow making Trump look good.

Yep. You’re not wrong.

All Trump’s order does is protect TikTok from the fines and liability. If Biden didn’t intend to enforce, he could’ve done the same. He didn’t.

So again, Biden made an unforced error. How did the Trump team make him do it?

Yes, I remember that. The Israeli lobby has been pushing both parties to do it.

But how is the Trump team responsible for the Biden team following through and actually doing it?

So your defense of Biden signing the ban is that he had to because it was tied to arming far-right Nazis in Europe? And you think this is a good argument?

Then you’re not informed.

Can you walk me through that? You think that Trump’s team coordinated with Biden to make him sign the ban for Trump’s benefit?

That’s fair. Our own platforms are flooded with government astroturfers. They wouldn’t want those leaking in.

We’ll get plenty of “resistance” Dems making excuses for funding all of Trump’s plans, I’m sure.

Bingo.

Actually it’s very easy to know. By design, capitalism concentrates most of the reward among a small number of privileged few.

And people with good sense judge a country by how well it’s working people are doing- not by how much more wealth a few people have been able to hoard.

Fair nuance there, but they seem to be taking reform seriously. But we’ll see if that keeps up.

https://x.com/SpokespersonCHN/status/1380170110736855041?mx=2

They’re putting their spin on it. In reality, the State Dept has been trying to radicalize and train the Uyghurs as an extremist front to destabilize the region. China has been working to detain, de-radicalize, and rehabilitate the extremists.

Even in their own spin, the State Dept does not imply any loss of life or mass casualties.

I wouldn’t. Source?

LoL. You really are just parroting propaganda, without any clue what the words you’re saying actually mean.

What do you think “capitalist” means? It sounds like you think it’s just market participation.

What exactly do you think “capitalist” means? Because it sounds like you think any participation in markets is capitalism.

What do you think “capitalist” means?

I don’t think you know, because by definition there cannot be “alot.” That’s the whole point of capitalism- to concentrate the means of production into the hands of a very few.