https://freebeacon.com/national-security/schumer-stripped-se...
Only conservative outlets are reporting this, and they’re not completely reliable. Then again, sometimes they scoop major stories. I don’t know whether this one’s real or overblown. Maybe someone with more info can fill in here.
The point of this bill is to begin deconstructing this aspect of the globalized economy.
You’re asking how the U.S. government is supposed to enforce its contracts?
And the new act contains way more anti-China language and provisions than the old act. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84...
The problem is, these right-wing "news" sites never cite their sources. They could easily have linked to a version of the bill saying "they removed lines 40-44" and that's the problem. But they don't. Because it's not about news, it's about fake outrage.
The second link should link you to the video of Rubio in session talking about how the amendment was killed.
Rubio's site is the first google result for "democrats block amendment to keep china from receiving chips funds".
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
For one thing, this is Rubio. Wrong senator.
Another thing, did you read his amendment?
This is again, nonsense posturing by people disinterested in the truth. Read his amendment vs the original. The original literally says the Secretary of Defense decides what legacy semiconductors are which aren't protected by the act. His amendment makes congress play a role in that decision in addition to the Secretary. That's it.
It adds no meaningful protections. Unless you think the Secretary of Defense is a Chinese spy.
I may be misunderstanding. The only research I’ve done on this is to read the article you linked.
The same thing could be said of sanctions on Russian oil. Sometimes it has to be about more than pure economics, even as we try to craft rational economic policy.
Indeed. Caveat emptor.
For instance, I'd not expect a far left outlet to look into misdeeds of Bernie Sanders, and I'd not expect a far right outlet to look into misconduct by Trump.
As long as you call a spade a spade and don't pretend things are objective in their presentation, there can be a lot to gain from even super skewed journalism.
Your example is problematic, because the left is willing to hold its leaders accountable and the right simply isn't. If Bernie is discovered to have ever harassed a woman, he'd have to resign in disgrace.
With that background, you have to start with the assumption that the right wing site is making things up and find a reliable source that isn't itself sourcing only from the right wing media universe, as the mainstream media is sometimes known to do.
Horseshit. Pelosi is insider trading like her life depends on it. The leaders on the left generally don’t seem as dangerous to me, but your statement is hilariously false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_an...
And this headline from 2015:
https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-impe...
In fact the Clinton-Epstein relationship didn't "imperil Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects" at all, because none of the major networks reported on it. An ABC reporter had the full story including the Clinton connection as early as 2015, but was told to quash it:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught...
When Biden leaves office I'm sure we'll be allowed hear more about him, just as it's now become OK to discuss Clinton and Epstein on the mainstream left.