Biden Meets Xi | Hoover Institution

[@electricmonk1134]

Probably very informative if you can tolerate hearing "you know" every ten seconds.

[@kathycarraher5014]

It is very distracting if the speaker goes Ah, Umm at every breath.

[@somika87]

Gosh darnit lady. I know. I do know. Sheesh

[@dhokanson55]

To give Biden credit for anything is ridiculous and disingenuous. The only remarkable events regarding this meeting are that San Francisco was actually cleaned up and that Joe didn't fall down, or fall asleep. Good bye.

[@Semper_Iratus]

Well done and informative. Thank you for the discussion.

[@_cipriangg_]

Thank you!❤

[@jowarrior]

So you know…

[@allenwarren1269]

Wonderful to notice we have common cause.

[@benhudson4014]

Can the adults in the room recognise the play on the people regarding fentanyl? So obvious to many sensmakers!

[@desmosedici1000]

WSJ’s Chief China correspondent Lingling Wei, speaking to the host Michael Auslin on the recent APEC summit.

[@BitcoinMeister]

Never heard the term "Mil-Mil" before

[@stooge389]

I want to know what color the Zhongnahai-White House phone is. The Kremlin-White House phone was Red. Surely it can't just be ANOTHER red phone. Then there's two red phones. That would just be silly. Frankly, we should make the new Beijing-Washington phone red, and turn the Kremlin-Washington phone pink. Actually, this makes me wonder if there are any other direct Krelmin-Washington style phone-lines between the White House and other countries. Does the Oval Office have a closet offshoot where there's like 200 phones, one for each country in the world? Cause we're gonna need a LOT of colors for that many phones.

[@stooge389]

I think it makes a lot of sense that China/Xi didn't want to talk about trade or economics in this conference. If we're not even sure if our two countries are about to sleep-walk into World War 3, why the HELL would China be willing to talk about trade? If we can't even agree that we're not going to nuke each other, if we can't even have our militaries talking, why the FUCK would they be interested in increasing trade ties? Considering what I believe must be factoring into their decisions: Stalin and Hitler signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939. the USSR was supplying Hitler with millions of barrels of oil per year. Stalin could be forgiven for thinking he'd placated Hitler. And yet, we all know what happened in June 1941. When she says "are we friends, or are we foes?" that is ABSOLUTELY the crux of the issue. Are we going to live through a 21st century WITHOUT a World War? Or are we enemies? And doing it publicly is the best possible way to send that message that the US and China ARE at LEAST partners, if not best friends. To me, this is EITHER a sign that our deterrence strategy is working against China and they have decided to be our friends, OR that Xi has decided to go down the Hitler route: milk as much out of the enemy as you can between now and the attack, "improve" relations to set the conditions for as much of a surprise attack as they can. That said, I think it's the former. China doesn't want a massive war with the United States and its allies, any more than we want war with China. China has never wanted to be included in that "axis of evil" that George W. Bush laid out. From their point of view, they want to be leaders of the free world.

[@fredm5180]

Thank you for this very lucid interview. I apologize in advance for my infinite ignorance. It seems to me that the US and China have very different and conscious strategies. China says it just needs time to achieve what it wants - "so please, let's keep things flowing the same way they were in general." The US is now very aware that it has to reinvent itself to achieve what it needs to achieve, fix, and maintain. These clarifications are important to give them something to negotiate and intrinsically do not mean that peace and broader agreements are impossible. Altogether, this means that different trajectories are needed for each one. In this way, everything will depend on how both will accommodate perspectives, interests, recognized challenges and inevitably deal with frustrations on this journey. In general, it seems that both, after this crucial meeting, have formally started a rational kick-off for the next phase of their complex relationship. For me, the message from both was: “We don’t yet know how to pacify our interests, but we are willing to try.” I also believe it is important to understand, that it seems impossible for them to share a broad spectrum of values. From now on, it will always be similar to a football game final, but only then will it be possible to keep the tournament running for everyone. Finally, it is essential to accept that peace and humility are the only possible options, this way it would be possible to let the championship trophy go from here to there and vice versa. That's still a good thing, it's football. Thank you again.

[@cd0130]

Two world leaders definitely took it easy. I dont think there were many ideas produced.

[@chiltondaniel]

First! On a roll!!

[@orangetuono38]

Bit light, sophomoric "talking points" discussion for the Hoover Institution.

[@Pdotta1]

She did a good job getting behind the front of all the talk. Soft-balled it tho - there’s a lot here to be worried about.

[@briancarl5566]

Great discussion!

[@animalspirit77]

Great interview

[@oliverdean9303]

🙄