world

Chinese paper slams U.S. candidates for playing "China card"

23 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012. Click For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

"However, it expressed hope that the candidates were really only playing to the crowd, and that once the election was over sanity would prevail."

As in insanity before their elections?

There will certainly be some high-pitched mud slinging in the offing, but the only insanity would be electing the Asset Stripper to govern a bankrupt entity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty simple, President Obama and Mitt 'Blowin' in the wind' RMoney are playing to the home team.

But what Job Stripper Mitt needs to understand is that China is America's Banker.

Hope the thousands who lost their jobs thanks to Mitt's career destroying efforts at Bain Capital know this before they vote!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Like Germany in 1920s, America's woes lead to frustrations and anger targeting certain people and country that is helpless for her own good! No matter how toughest they can do when the two so called 'president candidates' in every 4 yaers's little show, none of them might make China compromised! They are just making empty boasting to fool their own people, this is cheating and since Bush Jr, america has lost everything to China! America just cant afford any conflicts with China,her defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan were laugh stocks!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

As the People's Daily said: “Playing the ‘China card’ ... cannot save the U.S. economy.” Why don't the two candidates take aim at their own enterprise leaders who have sent their business overseas, including China, instead of beating up the Chinese? Those at the top of American companies that have outsourced their business overseas should be in the presidential candidates' crosshairs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

$$$ Can not buy happiness many Americans are Slowly understanding this and I hope our Chinese amigos will get over the idea that €$$£££¥¥¥ will make them happy, just an illusion folks so I do hope and pray that lousy carpet bagger Romney will never ever get near the US White House!!!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

i seem to recall a supposedly authoritative chinese paper issued by the mass murderer mao tse tung's current heirs in beijing before the last presidential election confidently declaring that Americans would never elect a non-white to the highest office in the land. reading that we are again being "slammed" by china is as laughable as reading some european try and hold his own discussing romney , or some sentimental leftist from new zealand come and parrot the same nonsense.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

By the way is the so called China card like the so called race card?????

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Why don't the two candidates take aim at their own enterprise leaders who have sent their business overseas, including China, instead of beating up the Chinese?

Business leaders don't manipulate soverign currency or start crap in international waters. Plus China is an easy target.

I honestly don't have that big of a problem with most outsourcing activities so long as they serve a legitimate economic purpose. Frankly there are some consumer goods that nobody would buy if they included the cost of US labor.

But what Job Stripper Mitt needs to understand is that China is America's Banker.

Two common misconceptions. First off Bain acquired failing companies and took them through restructuring, sometimes it worked (Dunkin Donuts) and sometimes it didn't. There were a lot of pie in the sky unsustainable companies that started in the 1990's that were bad ideas from the start or that managers had screwed up so thoroughly that no amount of recapitalization would help save them. I don't really like Romney as a person or a candidate but it serves nobody to muddy the waters on what his job was.

Second point. While china is the largest US foreign creditor the largest amount of US debt is still maintained by domestic bond holders. Foreign central banks make up about 46% of US debt and China represents a fraction of that (about 8% of total US debt only slightly ahead of Japan). Which is actually down from its historic high and trending downward. So while China does have an interest in US debt it is far from being America's banker.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Neither candidate played "the China Card." Also, neither has a problem with bashing China, but no such bashing happened. U.S. elections are in five months; China is instructing its citizens on how to interrupt the election results regardless of who wins.

By the way China, the rest of the world has more than one news source to choose from.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

China can go suck eggs. Foreign policy has ALWAYS been a discussion-point during Presidential elections. China's just whining THIS election cycle because THEY are the one being talked about. Communist China has always hated being spotlighted by foreign countries (after all, if you look too closely then the facade falls away), and their recent activities guarantee they are going to be looked at closely.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I think that a country that does not allow it's own citizens any say in choosing their national leader ought to STFU rather than commenting on "US INTERNAL AFFAIRS".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

just-a-bigguyJun. 28, 2012 - 05:09PM JST Like Germany in 1920s, America's woes lead to frustrations and anger targeting certain people and country that is >helpless for her own good!

Since PRC, a Socialist State has effectively replaced Communism with Natiomnalism, I guess they are noe National Socialists, Gee, which country is the most like Germany in the 1920s?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Grow up PRC!!! This is American politics at its best. Nobody in the US take the politicians word seriously. Don't you know that politicians promise but they don't have to keep their word??? Where did your editors and commentators get their education?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

it was a "tragedy" for U.S. politics that the country’s foreign relations were being sucked in to the domestic presidential election

But the US President is the chief foreign relations diplomat of the US. The executive office is in charge of foreign relations. It's their place to discuss where they stand on foreign issues.

Also, why do they say "domestic Presidential election" ? Is there any other kind of US Presidential election? Are they implying that the US President only deals with domestic matters?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think that a country that does not allow it's own citizens any say in choosing their national leader ought to STFU rather than commenting on "US INTERNAL AFFAIRS".

Take your own advice, please. Or just consume drano.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Thequestion While its true that descriptions of China as 'America's banker' are over the top, you shouldn't understate how important that 'fraction' is. If China decides to pull out ( which is highly unlikely ) it will put enormous pressure on the US dollar - depressing its value even further and causing interest rates to rise. America will have to get used to the idea that their future is not as lone superpower - China bashing is counterproductive. I didn't hear too much China bashing in the 90s credit boom in the US - largely financed by the Chinese.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If China decides to pull out ( which is highly unlikely ) it will put enormous pressure on the US dollar - depressing its value even further and causing interest rates to rise. America will have to get used to the idea that their future is not as lone superpower - China bashing is counterproductive.

Highly unlikely is the understatment. If china made any move against the dollar it would be like disembowling yourself to spite your face I can't even think of a more self destructive euphamism to describe it.

Also, lets not confuse economies with geopolitical power. For a nation to be a superpower it needs money, influence, and leadership. China has money and a limited amount of influence over several developing nations but nobody follows its leadership. It doesn't even have any major supporters on its continent (except NK but I don't think they really count) let alone the rest of the world, they're terrified of the Chinese. And not because of their money, but because of their government. If the Chinese government is willing to kill and imprison millions of its own citizens nobody wants to think of what it would do to another country if it got the chance.

The Chinese economy will eventually grow larger than the US economy, its a simple game of numbers and population, but unless it starts invading a whole mess of countries it will never have more than a passing influence in global matters.

Decrepit as it is even Russia has more sway in geopolitical game than China does.

I can respect their economic growth but using the term superpower is jumping the gun just a bit.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

On this issue, when the Chinese look themselves in the mirror; they will be burned by the heat of "internal policy".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Thequestion I did say 'future' - China is already an economic superpower and it would take a huge stretch of the imagination to think it will be content with that alone. I don't follow your logic about having to invade countries to create a sphere of influence. As to terror of the Chinese, according to a pew global opinions poll most Asian countries, with the notable exceptions of the Phillipines and Japan, viewed China more favorably than the US and saw China as the future economic and military force in the region. Many are suspicious of China, but not it seems as antagonistic to it as they are to the US. Not surprising when you consider invasions of two Islamic countries and China's skillful diplomacy in the region. America's model of capitalism is clearly not one to be emulated given the dire consequences of the crash and as such America's military presence in Asia cannot continue indefinitely - the US will not be able to foot the bill.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

China is already an economic superpower and it would take a huge stretch of the imagination to think it will be content with that alone. I don't follow your logic about having to invade countries to create a sphere of influence.

I never said invade. The USSR used its influence over satellite nations to promote genocidal practices without sending a single troop. Chinese policies towards human rights are abhorant. At least the USSR pretended that it was a government for the people while the Chinese blatently regard people as tools of the government. That is what scares people.

As to terror of the Chinese, according to a pew global opinions poll most Asian countries, with the notable exceptions of the Phillipines and Japan, viewed China more favorably than the US and saw China as the future economic and military force in the region.

Favorability doesn't add up to much. China doesn't provide half the foreign aid the US does. If the US wasn't so persistent in its defense of the international status of so many Asian waterways the Chinese would be looking to tax or impound half the stuff that moves in and out of the continent.

Many are suspicious of China, but not it seems as antagonistic to it as they are to the US. Not surprising when you consider invasions of two Islamic countries and China's skillful diplomacy in the region.

Skillfull wouldn't be my first word. They backed Syria, which is now in civil war, they backed Lybia for a long time before changing their tune, they backed Iran which is slowly backing down to western demands. I'd even argue that they don't even engage in diplomacy, they just drop money and expect a return.

America's model of capitalism is clearly not one to be emulated given the dire consequences of the crash and as such America's military presence in Asia cannot continue indefinitely - the US will not be able to foot the bill.

It's doing better than Europe and the people enjoy a far greater level of social and economic autonomy than China. It's already making moves towards more capitalistic market systems because it's growing middle class is looking at how people in the US live and asking some hard questions as to why they can't live that way. If they don't have a major social uprising in the next 20 years I'd be quite surprised.

Doubtful. While China may one day be able to outspend the US (and 'one day' will probably be a good 50 years off) most of their military assets are locked up keeping their own people in line. Added to the fact that US military tech is several decades ahead of Chinese hardware by conservative estimates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Thequestion I think you need to read your own post. 'I didn't say invade' - 'unless China starts invading a whole mess of countries it will have never have more than a passing influence in global matters'. Sorry, I'm even more confused.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think you need to read your own post.

I may have been a little under when I was making my post, whoops.

My point being that past superpowers were able to create a massive sphere of influence, China has not show itself capable of amassing the kind of support necessary to be anything resembling a geopolitical superpower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The present political situation in America is so desperate that their president candidates were just two flip-flop talk show hosters entertaining their money providers! The American political system has nothing constructive to the whole world besides making a huge populations of hungers, there were 46 million people in America rely 'food stamps' for a living, if that nation was nothing close to Germany 1920s, what else you can suggest me?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites