To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.
That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.
They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.
Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.
Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?
To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.
That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.
They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.
Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.