> TikTok is not a Chinese company, it operates under US laws.
TikTok is a subsidiary of ByteDance which is headquartered in Beijing. It operates under US law, and it operates under the control of a parent company that operates under CCP control.
> You're just repeating disinformation spread by the US government.
The claims made by the person you are responding to are not things the US government has said. In fact, you can file suit against foreign companies in the US -- this person's misunderstanding of the situation has nothing to do with the US government's stated concerns.
Many Chinese Americans use it to communicate with family. Some of them work on sensitive programs and are easily monitored by a multi app with broad permissions.
Chinese immigrants are the primary users in the states, and they don’t use it for any economic transactions in the USA, obviously (stores might support wepay, but that is targeted at Chinese tourists).
The joke is, kids/K-Pop fans communicated on TikTok to "prank" Trump by buying tickets to his rally and not showing up, making him look bad, and 10 days later Trump started roaring about the app.
Of course Fox News, etc, claim "this Chinese app is subverting democracy", etc, but IMHO they were just using it to communicate...
I would hope the majority of people who are aware of international affairs do not think so lowly of the American people, so dimly of American government, and so shallowly of international politics, that they'd believe our president would (or be allowed to, for that matter) coordinate a government-wide subversion campaign with far-reaching consequences over a prank
I mean this is the same President who falsified a weather map using a sharpie because it violated what he had said earlier in mistake (I am guessing it was a mistake).
He was allowed to coordinate a government-wide campaign that was impacting a large amount of people, and violated various integrity codes of NOAA and resulted in citizens being provided with false information, as well as eroded the trust of people in an integral agency.
But on being "allowed to", incredibly Trump is surrounded by Yes-Men, and it seems only fools dare accept his appointment, even fools whose reputation was great so far in their lives: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/10/john-kelly-le... . Of course there are a lot things Congress and Senate can do to block him (but Mitch McConnell is another Yes-men, what is it with conservatives and their lack of spines?), but in the example of TikTok, he used executive order to demand the stuff.
You do realize Barack Obama fucked his wife right? Multiple times as they have 2 children. They probably talk dirty to each other when they're alone, like almost every other couple that exists.
Should I now think less of Obama on the off chance he secretly spanks his wife in bed?
My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours. And to then equate vulgar chat in private conversation somehow with the idea that nonsense is suddenly an acceptable state for Americans. You can think what you want.
>My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours.
Using vulgar phraseology is not the issue here. I'm not sure how you came away with that impression.
Yet it is, but for the sake of fast-forwarding the disagreement, let's assume for now that Drake, or any other male rapper celebrity, or any other celebrity period, or any semi-famous man has never in private conversation talked about how easy it is for them to take advantage of their celebrity status to get what they want from women.
When you assume that, then the president looks quite like the rare unique case, wouldn't you say?
At the very best then, it'd be the way he said it (so, the phrasing) combined with the fact he's the president (or was running to be), a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens, and combined with the fact that just because Drake might do it, it doesn't mean it's an OK thing to do. I don't know about other people, but I'd definitely criticize anyone for not only using their status to grope people, but then to brag about it. To brag about it betrays a certain mindset and characteristic of disrespect for people, and in this case, women.
In other words, I'd think lesser of my friend for saying something like that to me, or overhearing him in another conversation. The same goes doubly for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.
You're perfectly free to decide how you view someone based on what they've said. My issue is do not then assume that everyone who isn't as offended is somehow being unreasonable or that the world has descended into nonsense. I don't condone what he says, but I understand that people do say those things, and I separate what he says in confidence from how he acts in situations where it matters - I see a 0% chance that the president will talk about groping when having a discussion with Vladimir Putin.
>a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens
That has never been the case. Nixon was known to vilify journalists, Clinton had already been known for his womanizing and sexual unforwardness, and LBJ pissed in the street casually. Never have we had a highly curated robot as a president, they all have quirks that would turn off segments of the population if it were common knowledge.
Why are you focusing on the vulgarity of the comments and not the fact that it would be non-concensual?
> I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Those very heavily imply non-consent. The vulgarity comes much later as an issue.
More so, Obama spanking his wife in bed is a hopefully consensual private act between husband and wife. Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
I honestly cannot see why you'd think I would listen to what he said and use that to form a general opinion of his leadership capabilities. How one talks about fondling random women is not something I'd use as a measure of their ability to lead a country
>Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
I'd rather not have a discussion on the ethics of gossip, as it would achieve absolutely nothing
> How one talks about fondling random women is not something I'd use as a measure of their ability to lead a country
Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?
On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star, that's not gossip since the courts have basically confirmed Stormy Daniels told the truth.
How shallow does your judgement go (oh I can guess, but I thought I'd prompt you to do some self-reflection)? Being a leader is mostly about people skills, and his rapey hands should make you ask whether he respects women or not, and whether that would extend to him respecting other people or not. OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast.
I don't agree with this. Being a leader is more about vision, about where he wanna go. Like Jobs, everyone under him thought he was an asshole. A lot of great leaders in human history were just pretty bad examples in terms of personal life. It is nice to have a high moral standard for political figures. But it is just difficult to be perfect. Obama, from my point view, is a nice man. But a failed president achieved nothing during his presidency.
From your 2 replies I'm presuming you are a Trump defender, at least you're denying parts of reality and twisting facts so they conform to your image of the world (that he's a good, at least decent president, and that you're not an idiot for supporting him).
Sorry, the issue isn't the private conversation, the issue is that the contents of that conversation was him saying he can get away sexually assaulting women because of he's a "star". If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?
I can't reply to your other post, presumably because the thread is too deep. For one, you continue to make assumptions about me. By all means feel free, if this year has been any indication I can only expect the vilification of anyone not immediately damning the president will continue.
>Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?
I don't know how to get across to you the point that people talk about dirty things in private. If you want to believe that that kind of conversation is the domain of devils, be my guest, you don't seem like the type to be swayed by reason.
>On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star
I still don't care, unsurprisingly. It really isn't that hard.
>How shallow does your judgement go
Because I choose not to base your abilities on how you talk to your friends in private? Then release all of your text messages for the public to see, since you seem to be living in a reality where people all hold hands and sing kumbaya, and talk about science and hand-holding every waking moment of the day. You have a job, don't you? Would you also be so deaf to posit to me you don't have any skeletons in your closet? I'm able to make the reasonable judgement that the president doesn't go around for his scheduled 2 PM rape session every Thursday, but apparently that's too much, and I should dial back my comparisons to the guy's humanity.
>OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast
Truly ironic that you're simultaneously able to make the distinction there is not a 1:1 correlation with leadership capability and personal action for a literal rapist but not for the president. If anything this discussion has shown me how disgustingly vapid people can become when they are unable to refrain from having their emotion leak through every single post when the word "Trump" is brought up.
Yes of course, because anyone who would dare to not fill their post with detriment of the president, must in fact also support the president, contrary to any information otherwise.
Assume what you want, I don't support Trump and apparently I don't need to attract hate from others like you, not that I am in any way suprised.
>If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?
I wouldn't care. Not a single bone in my body would resonate emotionally with what he said, because seemingly I have the rare, esoteric knowledge of understanding that humans will talk about particularly dirty topics when they're with friends.
