I would be very happy with Jon Huntsman for secy of state

[Motley13]

He is the best one they have, reasonable, intelligent, fingers crossed. He knows China, speaks mandarin.

[still_one]

1. I did think that also until I heard him complimenting trump for his "nontraditional thinking" in

regard to trump;s call taiwan

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4667017-155/jon-huntsman-trumps-nontraditional-thinking-could

[exboyfil]

2. He has to serve in the administration

It is the price of entry. I think we are going to see a cosmic shift in China policy, and Huntsman may be the best Republican to lead us through it.

[still_one]

5. Cosmic shift. They push this, China will just take over Taiwan, forget reunification talks, and

there wouldn't be a damn thing they can do realistically

[stevenleser]

12. Well, the response from a US President to that would be to cancel that portion of the US debt

owned by China and slap massive tariffs on Chinese goods.

The Chinese economy is already experiencing some issues and that would probably be enough to bring about a general collapse. The risk is, of course, that this might be enough to trigger a shooting war, maybe even by proxy. "Hey Kim Jong-Un, if you invade South Korea, Chinese divisions will back you."

[still_one]

20. While they wouldn't be thrilled about the U.S. defaulting on their bonds, they wouldn't give it a

second thought if they thought the U.S. was supporting independence of Taiwan.

It is very unlikely China would support a proxy war against South Korea via North Korea. It isn't in their interest, however, if the U.S. was stupid enough to engage militarily on behalf of Taiwan, it won't matter, game over.

[exboyfil]

22. Would directed cancellation work?

Bonds are freely traded. It is not like the special bonds only held by the Social Security Trust Fund.

[stevenleser]

25. A number of ways to do that. One way is, cancel all, and then anyone else but China is free

to turn their cancelled old bonds in for new bonds of the same value.

[metalbot]

29. Why do you think that to be true?

That china would simply take Taiwan?

I mean, they want it, but they want not just the territory but its economic power. If they invade, they get a chunk of land and major economic sanctions.

Taiwan is a democracy with a high degree of freedom. Why should we be insisting that it belongs to the PRC? Just because we adopted a one china policy 35 years ago? Taiwan is already a nation, except apparently for weird rules like their president can't talk to ours, and when their military comes to train in the US they can't wear Taiwan army uniforms.

[still_one]

30. It is historical, much of it because of what happened during WWII, and Chiang

Kai-shek's refusal to unite with the Chinese communists to fight the Japanese, but other issues to.

Without going into the very complicated history involved regarding its Civil War, since the mid 1990s the relations between between Mainland China, and various factions within Taiwan have warmed, especially in regard to economic ties.

While mainland China has been very insistent on reunification, the status quo has been pretty much accepted until a negotiated agreement can be arrived at.

The problem is with the U.S. trying to involve itself with issues relating to Taiwan and Mainland China, either presumably for economic leverage, or because they are trying to reverse the clock back pre-1949. In my opinion, the U.S. is playing a very dangerous game.

Without the U.S. interference, there is a very real possibility of a negotiated agreement between Taiwan and mainland China. However, with the U.S sticking its nose into the middle of this, they could force mainland China's hand, and if that happens, there is a very real possibility that they will take over Taiwan, which might not ever be the case if the U.S. left well enough alone.

We are painfully aware of the disaster our invasion of Iraq caused. It destabilized the entire middle east.

The resulting "Arab Spring" did not help advance "democracy", but gave way to more instability.

We are playing with fire with this one, and we should not be stirring things up with a situation that would very likely be resolved by the two parties

[Me.]

6. Indeed

And his nonsense about how having a businessman in charge will finally give us someone who knows strategy. He criticized the Rump before he was put on the SOS list. which makes him an hypocrite in my book.

[Vinca]

9. That's exactly what put me off.

Suddenly he's sucking up as much as all the rest. It's amazing how much self respect Huntsman and Romney are willing to lose.

[Kathy M]

23. Huntsman endorsed trump in May 2016

"We've had enough intraparty fighting. Now's the time to stitch together a winning coalition," said Huntsman. "And it's been clear almost from the beginning that Donald Trump has the ability to assemble a nontraditional bloc of supporters ... "

http://kutv.com/news/local/jon-huntsman-jr-endorses-trump-says-it-is-time-to-create-winning-coalition

[Vinca]

26. He should try to keep that a secret. LOL.

Endorsing Trump reflects more on the endorser than the endorsee.

[REP]

18. I'm hoping this is an exhibition of his diplomatic skill

I feared Huntsman getting the presidential nomination when he ran because he's rational. I don't agree with much he has to offer but he's not an idiot.

[leftynyc]

28. I detest don the con

and think he's surrounding himself by nothing but swine but what exactly would be wrong with pushing back on China? What have we gotten by giving china MFN status? Have they straightened out their human rights problems which is the reason we vote for that every single year? Huntsman would be a very reasonable choice - which is exactly why he has zero chance of being chosen.

[Motley13]

3. He can suck up, just so he gets the job

Ghouliani could be the one, could you stand 4 years of Rabid Rudy screaming & snarling?

[JaneQPublic]

4. He'd be a tolerable choice.

In the 2012 primaries, Huntsman was my choice if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to vote for a GOPer. (Kasich was my choice in 2016).

Perhaps the greatest testament to Huntsman's qualifications is that of all the 2012 GOP primary candidates, he was the only one who didn't have a turn leading the pack.

Besides, he speaks fluent Chinese. Regardless, he'll still have to execute Trump's policies, so...

[Motley13]

8. Our choices are limited

I want Jon Huntsman, he is not a maniac

[spanone]

11. it's sad when that's the benchmark....

.
.
.
.
.
...not a maniac

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. He'd last less than a year if chosen. nt

[peggysue2]

16. Agreed!

The very fact that Huntsman is sane, logical and knows China very well (he speaks fluent Mandarin, something that was held against him in his POTUS bid--too oily and hoity-toity, his detractors claimed) would mean he would underscore Trump's true incompetence and be an unnerving contrast to the Ignoramus-in-Chief. Plus, there are moral decisions one must make when signing onto an autocrat's agenda. Once that decision point comes, Huntsman would be out on his ear. Because I honestly do not think the man would 'go with the flow' or start goose-stepping to The Donald's every command.

This will be a time when good men are sorely tested. And I tend to think Jon Huntsman is a good man.

[flamingdem]

36. +1 yup

[Atticus]

10. Let's be clear:

ANYONE who would lower themselves to the subterranean level of the fascist monster who likely will win over 270 electoral votes, would treat him with respect without gagging and would agree to try to implement whatever "policy" he yanked out of his anal sphincter from time to time is, by definition, a "chancred whore" of the first order. Questions?

[stevenleser]

13. I'd prefer Huntsman lower himself to the status of "chancred whore" in your eyes if that means some

level of Trump's buffoonery and dangerous behavior on the international stage is attenuated.

[Atticus]

31. If this is not appeasement, the term has no meaning.nt

[stevenleser]

32. It's not appeasement. It's injecting a dose of sanity.

If you need the definition of appeasement, let me know.

[Atticus]

35. It is not I who needs a definition of appeasement.

Perhaps you need to look up "sanity".
This type of sanity gave us "fair and balanced" news and "Democrats" like Lieberman and Manchin.
If you aren't pissed off you are accepting and condoning this fascist crap. And, if you are pissed off, decline any "opportunity" that can be claimed as approval of the Orange One.
That said, we are on the same side and I respect your view. I just don't agree with it.

[Motley13]

14. I prefer to think that some repugs want to save us from prez maggot

[Oneironaut]

15. Huntsman is far too rational and moderate for Trump

[femmocrat]

17. He seems over-qualified for that bunch.

But I wouldn't worry about him creating an international incident or worse! I would be OK with Romney too, although he did insult the British Olympics. LOL

[UTUSN]

19. There's *NOTHING* "good" to be associated with DRUMPF n/t

[rumdude]

21. If he picked Huntsman, Romney, or Patreus

it would be a huge relief.

[Kathy M]

24. Would feel a lot better if trump picked huntsman ......

wanted to add Romney is okay too .. would prefer the above

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Huntsman would help normalize Trump.

Why would anybody want a normal person to give an abnormal leader like Trump a false patina of normalism?

[stevenleser]

33. Trump is going to be enough of a disaster domestically. I would prefer not to have international

disasters if that can at all be avoided.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I certainly hope and pray he doesn't get us in hot wars.

But I won't lose sleep if he causes foreign debacles and it hastens his and his party's demise.

[StevieM]

37. I think he will pick Dana Rohrbacher. He needs someone who is pro-Russia. (eom)