Senate Passes Bill That Could Delist Chinese Companies From U.S. Stock Exchanges (marketwatch.com) 161
The U.S. Senate approved sweeping new legislation Wednesday that could ultimately bar many Chinese companies from listing shares on U.S. exchanges, or otherwise raising money from American investors. phalse phace shares a report: Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, submitted the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act for unanimous consent, a bill co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. The bill was approved without objection. The bill would require Chinese companies to establish they are not owned or controlled by a foreign government. Furthermore, they would be required to submit to an audit that can be reviewed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the nonprofit body that oversees audits of all U.S. companies that seek to raise money in public markets. "I do not want to get into a new cold war," Kennedy said on the Senate floor. "All I want, and I think all the rest of us want, is for China to play by the rules." Steve Dickinson of Harris Bricken wrote in the China Law Blog that American companies seeking to raise money publicly must be audited by an accredited firm and that these audits are further monitored by the PCAOB. China has refused to allow its companies to follow U.S. securities law, arguing that Chinese law bars auditors' work from being transferred out of the country, Dickinson wrote.
This implies that (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, what are you talking about? The problem here is that China won't allow American auditors from accounting... which is a violation of Wall Street rules!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Wall Street has rules? Since when?!
I thought all they did was make insane profits out of thin air, and if they didn't make any then the government gave them free money anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, Wall Street has rules? Since when?!
The rules are made in the Continental Hotel. You may have heard of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of bureaucrats.
Underlying Aim (Score:1)
Re: Underlying Aim (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The word you are looking for is "citation".
Can't pretend C a 3rd world start-up anymore (Score:2)
"I do not want to get into a new cold war,..." but we are getting into a new cold war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been a new cold war for a long time now. Only thing that has changed is that the US is starting to respond.
Re:Can't pretend C a 3rd world start-up anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because when it comes to China, trade, IP theft, currency manipulation, territorial expansion, naval right of ways, resource disputes, etc. Started only after 2016.
You sound grossly misinformed if you think "until a certain moron" (Trump) came a long. Don't give Trump that much credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Disingenuous. What's the talking point? Something 100+ years ago justify something less than 10 years ago? Be sure to let the South East Asian countries whose claims are being stolen by China's artificial islands that you think the US is evil while China is "progressing". With enough Chinese money and ethnic replacement, like what is happening in Africa and Tibet, I am sure those countries won't care in time.
But at least you seem to agree that the cold war between China and US started many years ago before
Re: Can't pretend C a 3rd world start-up anymore (Score:2)
How exactly is the US the aggressor? The US isn't the one illegally inflating its money or dumping their product across the world. The Chinese government will subsidize the full cost of shipping for its companies while claiming they paid shipping to the UN postage system so they basically get subsidies from the UN for every incoming package.
Re:Can't pretend C a 3rd world start-up anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
The US aren't the ones creating islands in the middle of international trade routes and claiming them as sovereign territory. The US isn't the one persecuting ethnic minorities. The US isn't the one stealing the intellectual property and personal data of the companies and citizens of nations they are ostensibly at peace with. But sure yeah. Go ahead and tell yourself China are the good guys here. You Chicom bastard.
Re:Can't pretend C a 3rd world start-up anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
The US were and are the ones [eh.net] doing [wikipedia.org] all [wikipedia.org] of those [wikipedia.org] that you listed. I will definitely tell you that the USA are the evil guys.
Re: (Score:3)
China is building artificial islands and claiming they entitle it to the 200 mile EEZ. A ridiculous notion since if recognized, it would precipitate a massive build-off. The U.S. could build a string of islands just off of China's coast, and claim almost the entirety of China
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually believe your own bullshit? The US thought it was perfectly OK [wikipedia.org] to deny due process in their territories and tax them without representation. It took a very bloody war [wikipedia.org] to get the the US to recognise the rights of Filipinos at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually believe your own bullshit? The US thought it was perfectly OK to deny due process in their territories and tax them without representation. It took a very bloody war [wikipedia.org] to get the the US to recognise the rights of Filipinos at all.
Your own link doesn't say anything of the kind. The Philippines lost that war, and the last of the insurrectionists were crushed a decade later. The Philippines were granted peaceful independence almost 50 years later, well after the end of WWII. There weren't any armed rebels for more than 30 years prior to independence, so no, fighting that war did not get the Philippines independence and their actual departure was indeed without issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Because centuries of colonialism and slavery and apartheid makes it rather difficult for them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a new cold war for a long time now. Only thing that has changed is that the US is starting to respond.
Hahahaha, no. The US is the aggressor. Things were pretty quiet until a certain moron decided to stir them up because he desperately needed people to not see his persistent failure.
You must be posting from China as anyone in the US, even the most clueless of people on either the right or left, know that China has been knocking off US products for years. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say otherwise who didn't have a direct stake in saying otherwise. This started way before Trump, and indeed is a major factor in why Trump got elected. Like Trump or not he was the only one since 1988 to not bend over and take it from China.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be completely unaware of the history of plagiarism. Your invalid fallacy ("only somebody that is with the enemy could ever dispute my position") is just pathetic. The actual truth is that _everybody_ is stealing IP. The US does it a bit more clandestinely, but it has been stealing for a long, long time and is still doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be completely unaware of the history of plagiarism. Your invalid fallacy ("only somebody that is with the enemy could ever dispute my position") is just pathetic. The actual truth is that _everybody_ is stealing IP. The US does it a bit more clandestinely, but it has been stealing for a long, long time and is still doing it.
I'm aware but nobody in the history of the world has done it at the scale of China over the past 30 years. And state sponsored to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be completely unaware of the history of plagiarism. Your invalid fallacy ("only somebody that is with the enemy could ever dispute my position") is just pathetic. The actual truth is that _everybody_ is stealing IP. The US does it a bit more clandestinely, but it has been stealing for a long, long time and is still doing it.
I'm aware but nobody in the history of the world has done it at the scale of China over the past 30 years. And state sponsored to boot.
a) That is pure allegation. The US is stealing a lot. b) Why do you think the NSA has all those Internet taps? Terrorism is just a pretext.
Re:Can't pretend C a 3rd world start-up anymore (Score:5, Funny)
That's a bad time to enter a cold war, summer is coming!
I don't see how that helps. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the same companies can just buy the stocks of US companies still, and have them perform as puppets one way or another - how does that make the story better?
The resources at play are still the same.
At least when they're mostly playing with their own horse in the race, you can compete evenly with that horse - even if they have more resources in the end, you can identify them on the track in the clear.
I guess it's a stalling tactic, but it just seems like it's not dealing with the real issues at play.
But that does make sense too - it's the way the modern market mindset works, all for the valuable short term, until a crash, but cash out first. Then, it's not your problem.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:1)
I would hope that if any one company or the percent of stocks from another given country exceed a threshold, then they'd be subject to similar scrutiny and rules.
I'm not expert (obviously) (Score:4, Informative)
Re: So we've got 25% unemployment & GDP is on (Score:2)
Why is the market down while unemployment is up? Because the stock market is a LEADING INDICATOR. If you invest in something AFTER good news has already been announced then you missed out. The stock already went up before when other smarter people correctly predicted THE FUTURE.
And right now what Wall Street is p
Re: (Score:2)
If the same companies can just buy the stocks of US companies
It's a start. You don't have to look at this as the one and only action that will ever be taken.
all for the valuable short term
Making (or trying to get) China play by the rules is on the contrary a long-term gamble. In the short term play is to keep taking their $.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making (or trying to get) China play by the rules is on the contrary a long-term gamble.
What rules? The US should start playing by the rules itself, instead of banning random companies under the pretense of the "national security". As it is, right now the US is starting to be seen as a toxic country that just uses its weight to gain advantage. In the long term (since you're so fond of it), it will result in market power shifting towards Europe and Asia with the US standing alone.
Re: (Score:3)
What rules?
Rules about protection of trade secrets and IP.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
it will result in market power shifting towards Europe and Asia with the US standing alone
Sounds like that'll suite you fine, so be happy.
Re:I don't see how that helps. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rules about protection of trade secrets and IP.
Like the US did in 19-th and the first part of the 20-th century with European patents? But anyway, this is not a problem anymore. China is generating its own IP now at a prodigious rate. This is actually a major source of angst against Huawei, they are actually ahead of the US companies at 5G technologies. The US sanctions are simply a futile attempt to kill off a competitor.
Sounds like that'll suite you fine, so be happy.
Sure. I'm planning to move to Sweden eventually. Learning Swedish now...
Re: (Score:2)
Like the US did in 19-th and the first part of the 20-th century with European patents?
Yes, let's use that logic. Every nation (and person) has some black mark in their history... so this justifies any other country breaking any law they want, because someone else once broke a law once.
Like when you were 9, and you took that candy bar from the store without paying. This makes it okay for me to take one today. After all, it's not fair you got that free candy bar when you were 9. Where's my candy bar?
Sure. I'm planning to move to Sweden eventually. Learning Swedish now...
Ah Sweden, the same Sweden that had legal slavery 40 years after the US and UK outlawed it.
Slave trade was outlawed in Britain in 1807, and in the United States in 1808, after which other countries started to follow suit. Sweden made the slave trade illegal in 1813, but allowed slavery until October 9, 1847.
htt [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down. You are confusing slavery and slave trade.
The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: I don't see how that helps. (Score:2)
Re: I don't see how that helps. (Score:2)
"still fully legal".
The next phrase is only some nonsense about when it would be. Of course that shit is not true and you're a fucking idiot for thinking so.
And that you made an account based on my alias is super fucking funny. I've never seen someone so super triggered before. You have won the Triggered Snowflake Safe Spaces Trophy! Yay, you!
Your mom is soooo proud!
Idiot.
Slavery legal in the US under
Re: I don't see how that helps. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is trying to steal Chinese IP. The attack on Huawei is largely because they invented most of the 5G tech and are years ahead delivering products. It gives US companies a chance to catch up and clone Huawei products.
I'm waiting for documents from reputable sources to back that up...
Re:I don't see how that helps. (Score:4, Insightful)
As it is, right now the US is starting to be seen as a toxic country that just uses its weight to gain advantage. In the long term (since you're so fond of it), it will result in market power shifting towards Europe and Asia with the US standing alone.
I look forward to Europe and Asia getting the shaft from China. Probably never in the history of mankind has a nation been more benevolent than the US post WW2. The US isn't perfect, but if you think China is better I'm happy to watch how that works out for you and stand aside. The sooner the US goes back to minding its own affairs the better.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has done a lot of fucked up stuff since WW2. Does it not count if it's "classified" or outright denied?
I think there's a lot of false blame put on the US but their government definitely needs a good smack.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has done a lot of fucked up stuff since WW2. Does it not count if it's "classified" or outright denied?
I think there's a lot of false blame put on the US but their government definitely needs a good smack.
Not saying the US is perfect. Merely saying it's better than the alternative. By all means I'd love to pull back and let the world go to hell without us. The US at its worst is still better than China on their best day.
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to Europe and Asia getting the shaft from China. Probably never in the history of mankind has a nation been more benevolent than the US post WW2.
Unless you live in Vietnam, Korea, Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Syria and some other countries that the US didn't like.
But I get your point, the US actually prided itself at being fair to other countries and this made the US a great place to do business. You just set up a company, hire people (with easy "at-will" employment) and off you go. The reporting requirements are minimal, trading is easy, no VAT, very responsive customs, etc.
This is being rapidly lost now, as the US trade policy is ra
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently to Americans, the history of mankind only have 200 years.
China has been the dominant power in Asia since the first Emperor in Qin dynasty more than 2000 years ago.
Yeah, it's a shame that Americans, such as myself, only know the last 200 years, since anyone with even a passing awareness of history could easily disprove what you just said by pointing out that the Mongol Empire not only dominated Asia in general within the time period you claim China was the dominate Asiatic power, it also dominated China specifically in the 13th and 14th centuries.
I don't agree with the previous poster's notion that my country is the most benevolent one in the history of the world, but
Re: (Score:2)
If the same companies can just buy the stocks of US companies still, and have them perform as puppets one way or another - how does that make the story better?
Seems like it would be the job of the SEC to enforce the rules. If they haven't addressed the issue in the Bill already then it's only a matter of time before a new Bill lays down those rules.
Money is like the one thing that Congress actually cares about, so I have no doubt they will stay on top of this issue.
Boards (Score:2)
If the same companies can just buy the stocks of US companies still, and have them perform as puppets one way or another - how does that make the story better?
Unless they are doing a complete takeover, legally all they have the right to, as stockholders, is to ask questions of the company, and vote for board members. The largest Disney stockholders wanted Eisner booted out as CEO, and it took years for that to happen. Owning stock does not confer direct control.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's a stalling tactic, but it just seems like it's not dealing with the real issues at play.
Well, that seems to be a good summary of how the current "management" of the US approaches problems.
Re: (Score:2)
US companies are required to abide by the accounting and auditing rules right now, Chinese companies were the ones allowed to list on the stock exchange without any checks.
As a result, many Chinese companies exist solely to list, get huge IPO money from investors told about this being the next big thing, and then go bust. With their executives and major shareholders walking away with all the cash.
Happens on the UK's AIM market for a long time. Of course the stock exchanges don't care - an IPO is an IPO is
China a scapegoat? (Score:1, Troll)
Sounds to me like the conspiracy theories are somewhat right on saying this this is an excuse by the USA to stay on top. Makes us wonder if the virus was planted or somewhat aided by US labs / military. How many times did USA mess up big time? Or kill millions in wars they started for oil and resources, and the whole world sits idle?
Re:China a scapegoat? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds to me like the conspiracy theories are somewhat right on saying this this is an excuse by the USA to stay on top. Makes us wonder if the virus was planted or somewhat aided by US labs / military. How many times did USA mess up big time? Or kill millions in wars they started for oil and resources, and the whole world sits idle?
Chinese stealing IP / trade secrets isn't a conspiracy theory.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
I'm sure they do want to stay on top, but this in particular is about a level playing field.
Makes us wonder if the virus was planted or somewhat aided by US labs / military.
Luckily you don't have to wonder. Every epidemiologist in the world is looking for the origins of the disease. Right now the only part implicated is the Chinese govt. Little things like silencing (or worse) the doctor that was dumb enough to try to warn the rest of the world.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/08... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese stealing IP / trade secrets isn't a conspiracy theory.
https://www.google.com/search [google.com]?... [google.com]
That's a great generalisation, now care to say why it should punish specific unrelated companies as a result?
I'm sure they do want to stay on top, but this in particular is about a level playing field.
Forcing someone to prove a negative simply to get investment is not leveling the playing field, in fact if anything it is further driving these companies deeper into seeking their own shady government's support. Quite a consistent approach for America: tax the poor harder to make them poorer, make it harder for criminals to get a job so they return to crime, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing someone to prove a negative simply to get investment is not leveling the playing field
What are you talking about? Foreign companies aren't forced to list themselves on US stock exchanges. They can list themselves on exchanges in their respective countries and follow the local rules.
The idea here is that foreign companies should play by the same rules that US companies must abide when involved in US stock markets.
Do you think countries should give foreign companies preferential treatment for some reason?
Re: China a scapegoat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, fight back.
We'll never learn unless you guys fight back. EU should've kicked our military out for starting Iraq, if they had any backbone.
Hell, kick our militaries out now until we stop ME war. See how long we keep fighting wars over there without German bases. We don't even need the oil.
Re: (Score:2)
EU should've kicked our military out for starting Iraq, if they had any backbone.
It's because the EU has no backbone that we're still there. I'd wager that >80% of the US would love to see us pull our troops out of every other country and bring them home. Only politicians love having troops everywhere.
Re: China a scapegoat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. First mention of reducing our armed forces ANYWHERE and the cowardly fucking republicans go ballistic. For a group of people who "support our military'" they sure do seem to want to keep sending our people into meatgrinders, and then not give them a fucking thing when they get home shot up and disabled.
I said bring them home, you jumped to reducing. Bringing home the troops is a wildly popular notion. It is possible to bring home the troops and still have them be troops. In peacetime the military is one of Americas most successful social programs. Takes young people and gives them a job, responsibility, and gets them basic skills, college money if they want to go that direction. In wartime you also get PTSD and other problems, but in peacetime it really is great purely on its own merits.
This obsession is getting massively unhealthy (Score:2)
Also, why are so many people going along with this? Desperately looking for somebody to blame for their self-inflicted problems?
No, I am not a "China lover". Stop claiming that.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't pretend to have a deep understanding of this particular issue, but [asking honestly, here] what is the problem with having everybody play by the same rules? That's ostensibly what this is about, regardless of whatever other [imaginary or otherwise] concerns may be related.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "cult" sounds about right. The rest too. Those that cannot do specialize in blaming others instead. Unfortunately, it works in many clueless people and these are in ample supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting for an answer [to my response to your initial post] about what's wrong with having foreign and domestic companies play by the same rules on a domestic stock exchange.
It's a lot easier to say "Yeah!" to someone spouting your own ideology than to logically explain your position. Sounds like you're part of a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't. You are just looking for something to apply fallacies to, to ridicule and to posture on. You are asking in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
You are asking in bad faith.
No, not at all. I'm wondering what your problem with equal rules is, because I honestly don't see how anyone could take issue with it. I haven't seen any explanations in this discussion that have anything at all to do with people playing by the same rules. Your reasoning seems, on the surface, to be something like "People (Republicans?) are just blaming others", which is not mutually exclusive with the current rules being bad/unfair. Seems like a logical fallacy to me, so I'm hoping you can enlighten my und
In principle I don't object. (Score:2)
Companies should follow the rules, but *which* rules? Are they the same for everyone? Are we going to delist the Royal Bank of Scotland (NYE:RBS), Volkswagen (OTCMKTS: VWAGY), and our own Fannie Mae and Farmer Mac?
If this just sets up *special* rules just for *China*, it's not about adherence to "the" rules. It's just politics.
What's good for the Goose (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually just turning Chinese rules back on themselves.
If you want to do business in China, you are required to adhere to Chinese laws. Period. Or you don't do business in China.
The same rules apply in reverse.
If you want to do business in the United States, you will be required to follow US laws in order to do so. If you don't want or wish
to do so, take your business somewhere else.
It really is that simple.
Muddy Waters Research (Score:2)
I've been following MuddyWatersResearch (@muddywatersre) for years on Twitter. They're bears in general, but I think examining these Chinese companies was their forte at some point. IIRC, their name comes from a Chinese proverb about muddy water concealing things. So. This comes as no surprise to me, and in fact they tweeted out their vindication 4 hours ago. Maybe 10 years ago it was important to inform people about all this--when China was a "story" for gullible investors; but at this point if Americ [wikipedia.org]
Why is a special law needed? (Score:2)
v American companies seeking to raise money publicly must be audited by an accredited firm and that these audits are further monitored by the PCAOB.
If this is currently the law, and Chinese companies are not following this law, why are the currently on the stock exchange?
Text of the Bill (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the text of the bill in question, S. 945:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Black Box (Score:2)
Since the overall market started talking about stock market investments in China it's been said that they are a big black box. Now that box has gotten too big, and we have to open it if China wants to grow more.
At some point China has to do this, and they're going to suffer massively for it, I suspect (why else would they yell so loudly about it? I'm open to ideas)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's likely to put them very far behind in "economic statistics" (read: made-up numbers). What China needs,
STOCK Act (Score:2)
...is still good and dead.
We'll delist Chinese companies cause Murika!
We can still get rich by legal insider trading cause...Murika! FUCK YEAH!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, because you are biased and don't know it, believing all the shit Rush and Hannity tell you because it fits your world view.
Re: (Score:1)
You bet *your ass* if I want to operate a business in China, it's rule-city and I would be required to follow every single one of them, to the T, without *any* exception, whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:5, Informative)
The text of the bill is straightforward enough, and it does not reference any country by name. Just "is located in a foreign jurisdiction." Text of the bill is very short and can be found here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:2)
Could this âoeaccidentallyâ zap the âoeregistered in some tax havenâ companies?
Re: (Score:3)
On top of that US has a habit of passing laws like this without really thinking about whether it applies to them too. There is a whole slew of US companies who have a civilian operation but who are so connected to the US government through the military side of their business that they are practically organs of the US government. Case in point being Boeing, which is so connected to the US govt. as to have a virtual monopoly on airliner based military aircraft that even the US Air Force is not allowed to buy from anybody else. Given that history, and if this law applies to more than just China, there is no reason why a whole slew of foreign countries could not retaliate against a law like this by excluding the likes of Boeing from their markets.
There is a HUGE loophole for US companies and the US government though. The US government isn't a foreign government (at least as it applies to US law).
8^)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just another step in the US cutting itself off more and more from the rest of the world. Why would Chinese companies care when they can list on the SSE or SEHK?
The further the US takes this, the more every country will have to decide who to go with, the entire world (including China) or just the US by itself. Since the entire world is a much bigger market and rarely apply arbitrary restraints of trade on their trade partners, it'll be a painful move when it comes, but will be increasingly less painfu
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:3, Informative)
Sen. Joe Biden is responsible for the amendment to Sarbanes-Oxley that exempted Chinese firms from the audit requirements that every other company on earth must follow. I doubt you'll see that reported anywhere though.
Re: (Score:3)
Link it, don't just claim it. A lot politicians gave them favors for various reasons, especially when their economy was smaller. If you can show statistically that Democrats did it more, please do. Otherwise, cherry picking doesn't give a full picture and will be pointed out for the cherry-picking it is, which looks like partisan spin to most.
Re: (Score:2)
Link it, don't just claim it. A lot politicians gave them favors for various reasons, especially when their economy was smaller. If you can show statistically that Democrats did it more, please do. Otherwise, cherry picking doesn't give a full picture and will be pointed out for the cherry-picking it is, which looks like partisan spin to most.
There is always the bi-partisan approach of prosecuting people in pairs, one from each side. When you run out then stop. Hint - you'll never run out as they're all crooks.
Re: I blame out winner take all voting system (Score:2)
If it were possible, the solution to parties is to ban them outright but that would violate the right to associate.
Your other list of "fixes" fix nothing.
Re: I blame out winner take all voting system (Score:4, Informative)
The winner-takes-all elections causes the two parties. In countries with active and relevant smaller parties it is usually because there is a more proportional election method. This leads to minor parties being able to join other parties in order to create a ruling majority coalition, and prevents the minority parties to being irrelevant seat warmers. As you may have noticed recently in France there was a defection from Macron's party who went and formed their own protesting party; and last year there were defections from both tories and labour in the UK.
In the US, the coalitions are formed during the primaries, but it often comes down to party loyalties deciding which candidates get the most funding and the minority views within a party are often just ignored. The parties themselves have a lot more control this way, rather than the voters (especially as most voters are closer to the center than leadership of the parties).
Re: I blame out winner take all voting system (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't see a real way to enforce that.
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:2)
Biden's ties to big banks has always been a concern, that lobby was his primary constituent as Senator. He basically did what they told him. This well documented, a simple Google search on that will do.
Biden is credited with watering down Sarbo as Senator and was Obama's point-man in easing China's audit requirements.
https://justthenews.com/govern... [justthenews.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A lot politicians gave them favors for various reasons, especially when their economy was smaller. If you can show statistically that Democrats did it more, please do
You probably can, since a Democrat has been president in most of the years since '92.
It's not really relevant since it's all hindsight. It's not like you can punish Clinton for his mistakes by voting against Biden. The real question is what should we do from now? What is a good option?
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:2)
Nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you realize how the US government works. There is no way that Biden is responsible for the amendment, at least not solely as your statement is trying to indicate. It takes a majority vote in the house and the senate as well as the signature of the president (or super majorities in house and senate to override a veto) for a law (which an amendment is a part of) to become law. Are you going to single out any other members of the house or senate that voted for the bill?
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing that Trump's do-nothing kids never managed to be given a leg up by their father and that they earned their way into the white house inner circles. If you're trying to make a point about nepotism then make the criticism fair and across the board instead of incorrectly implying that it only happens to one person or side.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the difference is that Trump wasn't in Congress, or VP. You don't get to do that from public office. Oh, and I'd put Trump's kids in charge of running a business any day compared to Hunter.
Now, before you call me a Trumpette, or some other Trump loving name, I'll tell you that I voted against him in '16, and I still think he's an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news? The bill itself doesn't even mention China: https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
I googled but couldn't find any evidence of this exemption, let along that Biden was behind it. In fact I found lots of stories about how the US is auditing Chinese companies under Sarbanes-Oxley and sites advising Chinese companies on how to handle such audits.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
https://www.china-briefing.com... [china-briefing.com]
The Wikipedia page for Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't mention China either.
Re:Who Passed the Law allowing this? (Score:4, Funny)
Rush sucks, Led Zeppelin rules! Wooo!
Re: (Score:2)
They're not exempt, they're breaking established rules of Wall Street.
Re: (Score:2)
And that $1.7bil gift to Iran?
How did someone as stupid as you learn to type?
How are those guys not in prison?
Honestly there's no point in telling you. The fact you think it was a "gift" means you have no desire to comprehend reality an haven't even done the most basic of research to try and understand. Why did you bother asking the question? The answer is you didn't. You're just making some mindless political statement. I'm just going to leave you in Obamagate world.
Re: Dumb idea. (Score:2)
That's a great way to get killed in the market when reality eventually catches up with the phony books and dumb investor money runs dry. Unfortunately a lot of that money is the 401k retirement plans people are in.
So yeah, don't want to play by the same accounting rules as everyone else? Buh-byyyyyyyye! Don't let the door hit your lying Chinese government asses