And here, dear reader, is one of the few times that I will ever quote from the New York Times.

I do so now because when the Times finally gets around to admitting Trump actually knows what he’s doing, that point alone is newsworthy…. Even though they don’t directly say so.

The endgame in the trade war between China and the United States seems near. President Trump, betting with real currency — American strength — apparently has the upper hand, and the concessions President Xi Jinping is likely to make won’t be mere tokens. When — if? — an agreement is finally announced,Mr. Trump will surely fire off bragging tweets, partly to shore up his credentials for a second term, amid personal and policy troubles. For Mr. Xi, almost any deal could mean a very serious loss of face.

The article goes to some extremes to point out the weaknesses in the Chinese position, and is a surprisingly worthy read given who printed it.

The funny part is, these are points that Gordon Chang has been making all along, who got ignored or derided by such outlets as the times for his trouble. After all, it couldn’t possibly be that Trump understands what he’s doing.

Certainly, it is true that China’s troubles come from two sources. The first of course being their dedication to socialism.. appoint the New York Times will never admit to… and within that context a historic level of ineptitude on the part of Xi, a point the article goes into intense detail on.

The difference now is that we have a president who is smart enough to recognize both those situations and take advantage of them. The result of that is that China wasn’t ready for a trade war, and will lose.

It’s a quality that the Obama Administration never did possess… First because like Xi, they’re not very smart and as an extension of that, they think socialism is a worthy system of government.

So it is, China got caught flat-footed by Trump. The long-term trade ramifications of this are going to be more positive than the left in this country and the Times among them, will ever admit to until decades after it’s happened… which in turn is precisely why the article I’m linking to here never bothers to mention Donald Trump in any significant way… And when they do it’s certainly not complimentary.

You would be hard-pressed to find a better example of anti Trump bias in the mainstream media then this.