Trump 2.0 official thread

[siegecrossbow]

I mean, this is the point of tariffs, if supply chain didnt collapse it would arguably be even funnier.

Makes you wonder what they thought tariffs did, only explaination I can think of is MAGA really did think advanced industrial goods are comodities thats grows on farms everywhere just like their corn.

The MAGA regime is the first government in history to impose successful embargo on itself.

 

[TK3600]

Most Chinese people do not dislike John Mearsheimer—in fact, many even somewhat admire him. I’m among them. Yet I disagree with one aspect of his views, as do many Chinese scholars. We believe the world can achieve win-win development. Our admiration for him stems from his intellectual honesty—he speaks truths unvarnished. We welcome disagreements, for bridging divides across cultures demands sustained dialogue and mutual understanding. When he (and you) truly grasp China’s history, culture, and strategic mindset, it will become clear why we see coexistence as possible. Your belief that Sino-U.S. conflict is irreconcilable—framed as an inevitable clash between the reigning power and its challenger—is shaped by your cultural lens. That is your worldview, not ours.

I agree partially with your assertion: China will inevitably ascend to preeminence, while the U.S. will decline. China’s rise stems from its scale and size, coupled with cultural traditions that have honed the core competencies of a great power. Any nation possessing these attributes could claim a seat at the table. America’s problem is self-inflicted: it has squandered its advantages through repeated missteps, thus dooming its reign.

There’s no need to fear a post-hegemonic America. It need only adapt to new rules. One such rule is critical: no nation will—or should—replicate America’s former dominance (the “America First” paradigm). The world detests that model; no one desires its return, least of all China.

Remember my words: Aspiring to become a superpower wielding supreme authority is sheer folly. Such ambition accelerates an empire’s demise. The Chinese, heirs to a 5,000-year civilization, are no fools—especially those steering national governance. None would pursue an imperial model that shortens their nation’s lifespan.


Trust me, most Chinese people are not as tense or angry as you assume. You might think I am, but my concern is your miscalculation—of China’s resolve and intentions. You must break free from preset assumptions and rethink.

As Professor Gao Zhikai noted: “For 5,000 years, China thrived without America. It will thrive for another 5,000 years without America. Neither needs the other to survive.”

Short-term Sino-U.S. relations will remain strained, primarily because America refuses to confront its own flaws. China cannot yield, as compromise would embolden the U.S. to escalate demands, worsening tensions. Over the past 7-8 years, America has repeatedly proven this: any concession is temporary, inviting greater aggression.

Only by inflicting deep, tangible pain on America can China force it to soberly reassess. Without this, dialogue is futile—mere theater for humiliation.

As for U.S. military prowess, especially naval dominance: rest assured, many of us dismiss it. China possesses methods to collapse U.S. military power but refrains from deploying them.

In China, many jokingly call Russians a "martial nation," but Russian scholars retort: "Compared to the Chinese, Russians are amateurs." When Chinese hear this, they chuckle inwardly, thinking: "The Russians are shrewd—they’ve earned their status as a global pole."

To China, advanced weaponry is but one facet of strength. America’s current arsenal holds no technological edge—not even numerical superiority.

In Chinese discourse, “strong” (强) and “large” (大) are distinct. Russia is “small but strong”; America is “large but weak.” True strength lies in choosing formidable opponents. Russia’s “strength” stems from confronting NATO (even with its bungled Ukraine war). America, however, only bullies weaker adversaries—like a “street thug” beating nursing homes and kindergartens. A Chinese doggerel mocks this:
“Punching the elderly in South Mountain,
Kicking toddlers in North Sea,
Shouting in the morgue:
‘Any dead dare defy me?’”

America’s wars target weaklings—opponents China and Russia disdain. Fighting such foes brings no honor, only shame. Imagine a heavyweight boxer fighting featherweights: it’s either propaganda or self-degradation. Does America not grasp this?

You deem U.S. naval power formidable? Only because China has not truly acted. Look at the Houthis: their anti-ship capabilities mirror China’s 1990s tech. If China openly armed U.S.-sanctioned nations, America’s maritime hegemony would crumble.

China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) already exceed 5,000 km ranges. Technically, establishing 10,000+ km maritime strike capabilities is feasible (military research papers confirm this).

Thus, overstate not U.S. power. China has no interest in challenging its hegemony—unless provoked. Let America exhaust itself playing “global cop.” China cares not for geopolitical quagmires; it’s content watching America squander its imperial vitality. China’s real stance: “Be the ‘leader’ if you must—just don’t drag us down or target us.”

When will Americans realize that the era of imperialism is long gone? Do they truly believe global trade requires the protection of the U.S. Navy? To the Chinese, America’s naval force has never been a guardian of commerce but a tool to reshape geopolitical landscapes in its favor—overthrowing nations (to secure client states) and asserting maritime control. None of this serves "trade."

The modern world is deeply interconnected. Every nation trades to improve its people’s lives. If trade flows freely and populations are fed, who would threaten shipping routes?

Why do the Houthis target maritime assets in the Middle East? To plunder wealth? No—it’s a response to Israel’s prolonged atrocities in Gaza. They aim to block support for Israel. Do they harass ordinary cargo ships? No.

Thus, today’s world needs no U.S. military to "protect" sea lanes. When America claims to safeguard trade, it does so not for China or others but for itself. U.S.-backed wars provoke retaliation against its own shipping routes, necessitating armed escorts.

From China’s perspective, the solution is straightforward:

• Foster robust trade ties with all nations.
• Build channels for dialogue.
• Collaborate with neighboring countries to resolve disputes.
• Assist others in addressing challenges.

To the Chinese, free trade requires no naval escorts, let alone the illusion that the U.S. Navy protects China’s trade corridors. Treat others with goodwill, and they’ll reciprocate. Occasional disruptions (rare as they are) seldom demand naval intervention. This is the fundamental divide between China and America.

Is this deepseek? Dumbest shit I have read today. It only takes one side to start a fight. If American believe a fight is inevitable and Chinese do not, a fight will still start, by Americans. Peace can only happen when both sides respect peace.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

You sound like a Chinese version of Francis Fukuyama.

Ideology doesn't matter, economic substructure determines political superstructure.

I was thinking more an LLM if you gave it the prompt "write an extended fortune cookie."

 

[TK3600]

The reality is far simpler than you imagine. If China truly ascends to global leadership, it will strive to forge a fairer international order—one where geopolitical conflicts diminish because nations prioritize balanced development. People everywhere demand food security, decent housing, and dignified work (low-stress jobs that sustain middle-class lifestyles). If most countries achieve the prosperity and modernity China enjoys today, would interstate strife persist?

Absolutely. War will persist. If I can have a powerful and richer life style, I will strive to attain more. This is human nature. You think Israel is not a wealthy country? They start wars all the time using their wealth advantage. You think Europeans and Americans are not wealthy at their peak? Their advantage embolden them to attain more using the said advantage. You are completely out of touch with reality. You remind me of delusional Chinese scholars 1000 years ago and I am not expecting to see your kind in 21st century. Except even ancient Chinese knew from experience “夷狄，禽兽也，畏威而不怀德”。So really you are dumber than people 1000 years ago.

This is the duty of a global leader: not to build a system that parasitically enriches itself at others’ expense (as America’s model does), but to create frameworks where all nations thrive. Only when societies attain widespread wealth can domestic stability flourish—women walk safely at night, night economies boom, and citizens afford global travel to appreciate diverse cultures. History proves this: China’s dynastic cycles repeatedly show that good governance fosters these outcomes, while missteps plunge populations into misery.

No, that is just common sense. You want your society to be safe so it can become powerful. But having a stable society does not stop one from expanding outward. It only helps expansion because you are less distracted by internal conflicts. We see this in western history, their expansion is at peak when their society is stable. When they fight among themselves in the 60s, there is less war. When they get their shit together in 90s, more wars starts. Again, completely out of touch with reality. Completely out of touch with common sense.

Admittedly, my vision is imperfect and distant (30-50 years). Just two years ago, I dismissed communism’s feasibility. But I offer this: global leadership need not rely on stoking geopolitical crises for self-interest.

China proposes a new paradigm: leadership measured not by coercing vassal states or dominating rivals, but by lifting impoverished nations into modernity. Let competition pivot to this metric. If the U.S., India, Russia, Europe, or any nation outperforms China in empowering others, China will gladly crown them leaders.

In this new world, China seeks no hegemony. It desires a system where any nation capable of guiding humanity forward can lead. Under such rules, even if China isn’t the “sole leader,” it will still benefit. That suffices.

Your own words contradict yourself. So end of the day it is still about self interest, because a global leadership benefits China. It just so happens that Chinese model is more efficient and less harmful to others. But end of the day, it is still in the interest of China. If it were not, it would be wrong. And you will be sillier than 郑和 and his silly boats giving stuff for free to others.

I ask you this, why does China still trade with US, EU, Israel, if they are war mongers? Why does China still trade with Russia who starts wars? The answer is it is to China's interest. These country will use the wealth they gained trading with China for more wars, but it will be fine, as long as China gain more in the long run.

 

[BillRamengod]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Code designation:
8471: Automatic data processing machines (e.g., laptops, servers)
8473.30: Parts and accessories for data processing machines
8486: Machinery for manufacturing semiconductors or flat-panel displays
8517.13.00: Smartphones
8517.62.00: Wireless telephones or other wireless networking devices (e.g., routers, switches)
8523.51.00: Solid-state non-volatile storage devices (e.g., SSDs)
8524: Recorded or blank optical discs, magnetic tapes, etc.
8528.52.00: Liquid crystal displays (e.g., LCD monitors for computers)
8541.10.00: Diodes
8541.21.00: Single-crystal semiconductor chips
8541.29.00: Other semiconductor devices
8541.30.00: Optoelectronic devices
8541.49.10, 8541.49.70, 8541.49.80, 8541.49.95: Other specified types of semiconductor devices
8541.51.00: Solar cells
8541.59.00: Other photovoltaic (solar) energy devices
8541.90.00: Parts of semiconductor devices
8542: Electronic integrated circuits (ICs)

So, basically no tariffs on electronics and solar products.
Deepseek told me that these products make up around 43-45% of China’s exports to the US—that’s somewhere between 225 and 236 billion for a year.

Update:
From Weibo

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Department of Commerce Announcement (April 28, 2025) (Note: The webpage displays April 28, 2025, despite the current U.S. date being Saturday, April 26, 2025—no further questions accepted.)
Plans to partially revoke anti-dumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China.

Affected Products:
Small, low-wattage off-grid solar cells mounted on aluminum frames, designed for natural light control (e.g., skylights or architectural lighting).

Eligibility Criteria:
Per-panel power output ≤20W;
Per-panel surface area ≤1,000 cm²;
Excludes panels with integrated inverters.

Current Status:
Preliminary decision reflects no opposition from the U.S. Solar Manufacturers Coalition, indicating minimal impact on domestic industry.
Public comments are invited within 30 days after April 28, 2025. Final determination will be issued within 270 days after October 21, 2024.

 

[TK3600]

Times have changed. Formulaic applications of history are futile—like “carving a boat to mark where your sword fell into the river” (刻舟求剑). Understand this: modern society requires not conquest through war but cultural competition—mutual integration where common ground is sought amidst differences. Chinese culture shares overlapping values with Christianity, Catholicism, and Islam.

China’s advantage lies in possessing humanity’s most reliable and continuous historical records. Studying these successes and failures exposes the absurd traps of modern geopolitical rivalry. These are no secrets—Western arrogance and bias simply ignore or distort them.

I would say the epitome of arrogance is expecting others to give up everything they learned and copy you. This is the arrogant mindset of Fukuyama "End of History", and indeed arrogant mindset of past Chinese dynasty. If there is one thing in common with Ancient China and the West, it is this same arrogance.

Once China surpasses America in national strength and governance, the world will study its success, seeking reasons for their own failures. Only by deeply understanding Chinese culture and logic will they devise countermeasures. Yet herein lies China’s trap: those who truly grasp historical lessons and adopt Chinese-style thinking will realize their own civilizational flaws.

Naive chicken strikes again! Completely out of touch with reality. When China surpassed US these days, their response is between "China cheated from us" to "we were right all along if not for Trump/Biden/Obama" to the more reasonable "our failures is us straying from the path that brought us success in first place" to "China is successful because they are just like us". They realize the flaw alright, but they take entirely different lessons.

Western civilization’s core is plunder-based culture (land or maritime predation of others’ wealth), while China’s foundation is agricultural culture (building homelands). Historically, the Chinese survived nomadic invasions (also plunder-based) by out-developing them—creating new wealth until conquerors were either expelled or assimilated. Chinese culture endures.

Your poor history is showing again. The richer Chinese are, they more attractive they are as target of plunder. The plunder was only ended with might, not be richer than others. No, being richer than others only attracts jealousy and anger. Only through might do you obtain peace. So if the peace is your goal, the only way to attain peace is through might, and wealth only serves to create might.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And sometimes, even war is not enough. Some culture respect neither might or wealth, like the nomadic tribes. They were ended with ethnic cleansing, and thus ended the thousand years of Han vs Nomadic tribe struggles. The reality is far different from this Neo-confusian ideal. I am not saying ethnic cleansing is the answer, but to illustrate living a wealthy civilized life does not always inspire change around you, sometimes the opposite.

Western civilization, dominant since the Age of Exploration, now crumbles after just 400 years. Its predatory essence persists, merely cloaked in sophistication. Today, America must turn even allies into blood bags to sustain its global plunder system. Humanity must abandon predation and build a new order centered on development—lifting all 8 billion people into prosperity. Only then can consumption systems expand, trade thrive, and futures be secured.

The West’s colonial model sacrifices the many to feed the few. China’s agricultural ethos demands collective resilience against disasters and shared prosperity—aligning naturally with communist ideals.

When the world recognizes this civilizational divide, most will choose construction over plunder. Even Western nations can no longer easily steal wealth. All must learn China’s developmental methods.

This cultural integration is the starting point. Once societies adopt similar problem-solving logic, conflicts fade. China seeks no surrender from others—meaningless in a world where even the combined might of America + NATO + Japan/South Korea cannot militarily harm it. China’s goal is to reshape global governance through its cultural logic: replacing Western zero-sum madness with collaborative fairness. This is China’s ultimate safeguard—and the world’s salvation (for it distributes “candy” to all).

The western plunder ended when Soviet Union funded proxy war across the globe to decolonize. Most of these efforts are extremely bloody, and the west fought tooth and nail to retain the colony. You speak as if people one day just ceased to fight and strive for peace. The sheer disrespect for the communist revolutionaries across the globe is astounding. You glaze China on the surface, but you only show disrespect to communism, including the founding fathers of PRC that aided decolonization.

 

[jiajia99]

Your should change your name to naive chicken.

There's a reason Chinese dynasties never last much longer than 300 years. You can't change human nature.

Dynasties fall but the Chinese people never do. I see the fall of dynasty’s more as a change in government party but no nation has subjugated China before, at least like it neighbors like Japan and Sth Korea that are literally Americas bitch. China can thrive no matter that state of the world, still expecting China to become some sort of visionary hegemon is a bridge to far, America and the British empires have shown the folly of that

 

[zscstephen]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916177259632988233

 

[siegecrossbow]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916177259632988233

I’m really worried for China — how could it continue to cross the river by feeling the stones when the MAGA regime keep dropping them on their own feet?

 

[enroger]

Update:
From Weibo

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Department of Commerce Announcement (April 28, 2025) (Note: The webpage displays April 28, 2025, despite the current U.S. date being Saturday, April 26, 2025—no further questions accepted.)
Plans to partially revoke anti-dumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China.

Affected Products:
Small, low-wattage off-grid solar cells mounted on aluminum frames, designed for natural light control (e.g., skylights or architectural lighting).

Eligibility Criteria:
Per-panel power output ≤20W;
Per-panel surface area ≤1,000 cm²;
Excludes panels with integrated inverters.

Current Status:
Preliminary decision reflects no opposition from the U.S. Solar Manufacturers Coalition, indicating minimal impact on domestic industry.
Public comments are invited within 30 days after April 28, 2025. Final determination will be issued within 270 days after October 21, 2024.
View attachment 150762

This and 3000% tariff on solar panels from SE Asia, they're trying to help Chinese solar sector now? Mind you SE Asia solar industry are mostly Chinese owned or deeply dependent on Chinese supply chain but still