politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It means nothing for Taiwan, the US has supported the One China policy regarding Taiwan for decades and still do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan
The US has been arming Taiwan for decades. Why would that be necessary if the US considered Taiwan to be part of China? You're confusing diplomacy for policy.
You tell me
Maybe you can tell us why China hasn't gone ahead and invaded Taiwan yet, if the US has supported the One China policy for decades?
China, the US, and Taiwan view Taiwan as belonging to China as per the One China doctrine.
No, they dont
As is confirmed in your first link, the USA acknowledges that the Chinese position is that Taiwan is a part of China, and recognise that the PRC is the government of China, they deliberately do not say if they consider Taiwan a part of China or not.
You should read up on the policy of strategic ambiguity with regards to China.
Generally speaking it's a "speak softly but carry a big stick" approach. "One China" policy is speaking softly. Sailing warships through the Taiwan Strait is brandishing the big stick. That tells China the reality of the situation... One China means Taiwan is de jure part of China, but is de facto an independent country. Why would China invade Taiwan if it's already part of China? Such a thing wouldn't make sense!
But if China were to invade Taiwan they would be an explicit action that indicates Taiwan is not already part of it. There would be no more One China policy because China ended it through their actions.
When Biden was President he made a typical Biden gaff when he was saying things that didn't conform to the One China policy. Whoopsie! Didn't mean that... seriously, the One China policy is still going strong *wink*. Was that just a typical Biden gaff, or was that him saying the real policy on Taiwan? We can't know for sure, but China got the message. That's strategic ambiguity.
Needless to say Donald Trump has no understanding of the nuance of strategic ambiguity. In fact he's more worried about not upsetting his good friend Xi.
Username does not compute.
Did you think you were being clever?
Did you?