& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
mendyk
mendyk
4/28/2018 | 8:14:06 AM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
Thanks, Iain. Your graciousness is exceeded only by your commitment to accuracy.
iainmorris
iainmorris
4/27/2018 | 2:11:08 PM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
Give it up, Dennis. We'll let you off for not realising there were elections this year.
mendyk
mendyk
4/27/2018 | 9:09:00 AM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
Any party elected to office is going to tailor its decisions to a pending election, regardless of which branch specifically is facing the voters. -- Normally, yes. We are far past normal. But back to the original point: All that was needed was a quick edit for accuracy. It's too bad your editor wouldn't help you out with that.
R Clark
R Clark
4/27/2018 | 4:56:36 AM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
Any party elected to office is going to tailor its decisions to a pending election, regardless of which branch specifically is facing the voters.

Interesting point that the ZTE components ban may not hit US electronics jobs, but China has other points of leverage. Beijing responded to the steel and aluminium tariffs by targeting Boeing and soybeans, so its next move may not involve electronics at all. That said, Qualcomm lobbyists are likely putting in long hours right now.

 
mrblobby
mrblobby
4/27/2018 | 12:57:10 AM
Re: No US jobs will be lost over this
OK, let me change that to "no net US job losses after a transition period of a few months".
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli
4/26/2018 | 6:06:08 PM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
@mendyk: True enough, but they are typically seen as a pseudo-referendum, in part, on White House approval. And, of course, in this particular case, a shift in Congressional majority could pave the way toward impeachment.

That said, this article does seem to overstate it. The Administration faces the election insofar as the results will have implications for the President, his policies, etc. -- but it's not the President's own election, which is the intuitive way to read the way the article phrases it IMHO.

*I* know what he's talking about, *you* know what he's talking about, and *he* knows what he's talking about. But I don't think it's pedantic, as Iain indicates, to suggest that it was a little confusingly put.
DanJones
DanJones
4/26/2018 | 3:33:47 PM
Re: No US jobs will be lost over this
No US Jobs? Really?
DanJones
DanJones
4/26/2018 | 3:31:42 PM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
t sould be more accurate to say it could stymie the Trump administration in significant ways. i.e. See the way that a Republican house hampered the Obama administration.

Losing the house didn't kill Obama's presidency though.

 

Besides, Trump has a lot of power around trade, especially if national security is invoked, witness the decree that blocked Broadcom from buying Qualcomm.
James_B_Crawshaw
James_B_Crawshaw
4/26/2018 | 2:51:41 PM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
Oi, you leave the house of lords out of it! You'll be attacking the Queen's corgis next. Grrr
mendyk
mendyk
4/26/2018 | 2:40:58 PM
Re: Would that it were, but it ain't
It seems that fact-checking has been outsourced to CNN. Good move.
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events