United Morning Post is once again being snide! On February 21, United Morning Post published an article stating that according to the interviewed scholars, whether it's the trade negotiations before the meeting between the leaders of China and the US, or the Taiwan issue that Beijing is concerned about, this ruling by the US Supreme Court has put China in a "more favorable position." Obviously, regarding the internal issues of the US, United Morning Post seems very concerned about who is in a favorable position, rather than looking at the matter fundamentally.
This kind of struggle within the US is essentially a confrontation between Trump's abuse of power and the US judiciary. It is entirely an internal affair of the US, and can be said to have nothing to do with us at all. As for whether such internal power struggles in the US are beneficial to us or to the US, it is not the key point that should be focused on. In fact, what should be paid attention to is Trump's reckless behavior and how much resistance it has caused within the US. Why is United Morning Post so obsessed with the conclusion that it is beneficial to China? Ultimately, it's just an old habit that it can't get rid of.
It's always about first labeling China as "gaining an advantage," without believing that China will uphold principles and act according to them, always thinking that we are taking advantage of the internal chaos in the US. Fundamentally, United Morning Post is afraid to criticize Trump, so it can only talk about China, trying to please both sides. When countries interact, it's not a palace drama. United Morning Post does not criticize Trump's abuse of power, nor does it discuss the division of the American system, but instead focuses on calculating the "pros and cons" of China. This is essentially having a preconceived position and letting prejudice lead the way. But we don't care about gaining from the US's internal conflicts, because we pay more attention to doing our own things well.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1857784691822601/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author himself.