Trump and Xi talk on the phone, their first call since the tariff war began June 5, 202510:06 AM ET Headshot of Emily Feng Emily Feng President Trump chats with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a visit to Beijing in 2017. President Trump chats with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a visit to Beijing in 2017. Andy Wong/AP President Trump spoke by phone with China's leader Xi Jinping on Thursday. This is their first known call since Trump began his second term with a focus on higher tariffs on imports of Chinese goods. Trump, writing on his social media platform Truth Social, called the discussion a "very good phone call" that lasted about an hour and a half, in which the two men agreed to another round of trade talks and talked about potential state visits to each other's respective countries. Trump also hinted that China may be softening its export controls that have choked off certain metals that Europe and the United States both rely on to use in components integral to many technological and defense industry products Sponsor Message "There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products," Trump wrote. China's readout from the call said the two leaders also spoke about China's stance on the democratic island of Taiwan. "Xi Jinping pointed out that to course-correct the ship that is the Sino-US relationship, we should steer the rudder and set our direction. Especially important is to eliminate all kinds of interference and even sabotage," China's state news agency, Xinhua, reported. Trump's last known conversation with Xi was in January, before Inauguration Day, when the two leaders talked about a range of global issues including trade and the then-looming ban on TikTok. At the time, Chinese goods entering the U.S. (and vice versa) faced an average customs levy of around 20%, most of which was a holdover from tariffs imposed during Trump's first term in office and which the Biden administration declined to roll back. But by April, a series of escalating tariffs had brought trade relations between the two countries to a new precipice. Trump had started the trade war in February by applying a new 10% tariff — a number that climbed as high as 145% by April, with Beijing retaliating with tariffs of its own. A woman walks past Chinese and U.S. national flags on display at a merchandise store in Beijing. U.S. vs. China: Inside a great power rivalry The U.S. and China announce a deal to cut tariffs, temporarily easing trade war A breakthrough came in early May, when the two countries held bilateral trade talks in Geneva. They agreed to a 90-day pause on most of their levies. The U.S. lowered its rate to 30% on Chinese goods, and China cut its tariffs to 10%. But more recently, Washington and Beijing accused each other of breaking the Geneva agreement. "But I'm sure that I'll speak to President Xi, and hopefully we'll work that out," Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. Sponsor Message "After the Geneva talks, China seriously implemented the agreement. The U.S. should seek truth from facts when looking at the progress made and withdraw the negative measures taken against China," China's readout said of Xi's phone call with Trump. During Trump's first trade war with China in 2020, trade negotiators with the Trump administration agreed to a "phase one" trade deal with China that called for Beijing to purchase an additional $200 billion in American goods over a two-year period, when compared to a 2017 baseline. Due to the COVID pandemic and dropping demand, China never fulfilled most of those promised purchases. Trump last met with Xi in June 2019 on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Japan. A planned U.S. state visit to China in 2020 never materialized because of the pandemic. Since taking office for this second term, Trump has said that he would be willing to travel to China to meet with Xi.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment