|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 09 2019 03:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2019 13:52 Bagration wrote:
Here's thought for the thread: I wonder if democracy will continue to make sense as we move into the 21st century and see greater changes and disruptions at faster rates. I feel like the masses just are not equipped to make educated, rational decisions, and its been reflected starkly over the past few years:
1. Debacles in some of the most prominent democracies, with Brexit and Trump in UK and USA
2. More hard-liners, right-wing, anti-science leaders being elected worldwide
3. Heck, some people even argue that China would be more aggressive if it was a democracy, and that the CCP actually restrains some of the nationalist fervor (e.g., 2012 anti-Japanese protests)
For me personally, I'm college educated (which is a privilege that not everyone gets), and I'll be the first to admit that there's tons of policy areas where I have no expertise on, nor could I tell you which candidate has the best policy. Do we really want societies where increasingly fragmented and polarized people are just making "gut decisions"? Wanted to come back to this post because you assign blame improperly. The reason why the far right is on the rise isn't that we have democracies and that's what happens in democracies. There are examples of periods in time in just about every one of our democracies where the far right was very weak. There is a specific context that causes the far right to rise, and by identifying that context, we can find a more accurate culprit: as usual, neoliberalism (and capitalism by extension). The most basic question that you can ask yourself about politics is whether what we're doing right now is mostly okay, or whether we need to change stuff. Then you get into details on what those changes are, but this is already past the first divide. Capitalists benefit a lot from having the group that wants change on the right rather than on the left, because the changes that the right demands do not question their position of power in the system. When the left demands change, the hierarchy is questioned, when the right demands change, it's mostly about having different people at different places. This is why the far right is propped up and this is why it does better than it should based on the merit of its ideas. The neoliberals also benefit from framing themselves as the party of rationality, which is another reason why they'd much rather face a far right opposition than a leftist opposition, and another reason why the far right is propped up. The advantages in terms of argumentation are easy to see. Are you rational? Well of course you need to support Hillary, what else are you going to do? Unity!!! It is really important that you understand that you not knowing enough to make educated decisions about some stuff is actually not a problem at all. The very large majority of political decisions contain some moral questions. It is impossible to be educated about morality, there is no correct morality. The rational decision maker that you posit as an excellent leader would have to arbitrarily choose a morality that they follow in their decisions, and it would reflect their moral bias (or those of its creators if we're talking AI) If you're interested in improving democracy, go left. A more educated population makes better decisions, and that happens on the left. Less power imbalance leads to less propaganda in favor of maintaining the power imbalances, and that happens on the left as well.
That’s an interesting perspective - would you be in favor of a Chinese-style economy that was democratic and had certain protections for human rights and individual liberties?
|
On October 09 2019 10:15 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 03:53 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2019 13:52 Bagration wrote:
Here's thought for the thread: I wonder if democracy will continue to make sense as we move into the 21st century and see greater changes and disruptions at faster rates. I feel like the masses just are not equipped to make educated, rational decisions, and its been reflected starkly over the past few years:
1. Debacles in some of the most prominent democracies, with Brexit and Trump in UK and USA
2. More hard-liners, right-wing, anti-science leaders being elected worldwide
3. Heck, some people even argue that China would be more aggressive if it was a democracy, and that the CCP actually restrains some of the nationalist fervor (e.g., 2012 anti-Japanese protests)
For me personally, I'm college educated (which is a privilege that not everyone gets), and I'll be the first to admit that there's tons of policy areas where I have no expertise on, nor could I tell you which candidate has the best policy. Do we really want societies where increasingly fragmented and polarized people are just making "gut decisions"? Wanted to come back to this post because you assign blame improperly. The reason why the far right is on the rise isn't that we have democracies and that's what happens in democracies. There are examples of periods in time in just about every one of our democracies where the far right was very weak. There is a specific context that causes the far right to rise, and by identifying that context, we can find a more accurate culprit: as usual, neoliberalism (and capitalism by extension). The most basic question that you can ask yourself about politics is whether what we're doing right now is mostly okay, or whether we need to change stuff. Then you get into details on what those changes are, but this is already past the first divide. Capitalists benefit a lot from having the group that wants change on the right rather than on the left, because the changes that the right demands do not question their position of power in the system. When the left demands change, the hierarchy is questioned, when the right demands change, it's mostly about having different people at different places. This is why the far right is propped up and this is why it does better than it should based on the merit of its ideas. The neoliberals also benefit from framing themselves as the party of rationality, which is another reason why they'd much rather face a far right opposition than a leftist opposition, and another reason why the far right is propped up. The advantages in terms of argumentation are easy to see. Are you rational? Well of course you need to support Hillary, what else are you going to do? Unity!!! It is really important that you understand that you not knowing enough to make educated decisions about some stuff is actually not a problem at all. The very large majority of political decisions contain some moral questions. It is impossible to be educated about morality, there is no correct morality. The rational decision maker that you posit as an excellent leader would have to arbitrarily choose a morality that they follow in their decisions, and it would reflect their moral bias (or those of its creators if we're talking AI) If you're interested in improving democracy, go left. A more educated population makes better decisions, and that happens on the left. Less power imbalance leads to less propaganda in favor of maintaining the power imbalances, and that happens on the left as well. That’s an interesting perspective - would you be in favor of a Chinese-style economy that was democratic and had certain protections for human rights and individual liberties?
I don't know enough about China to have an interesting conversation, but I should know more. Can you send some links my way? The picture that I have is basically state capitalism, on overdrive due to delocalizations. Not a fan, and not really sure that this system is compatible with democracy (?)
|
On October 09 2019 09:27 farvacola wrote:
The only context in which unitary executive power has any judicial support is in terms of removal powers of those exercising executive duties; there is a lot of case law on whether Congress can create government bodies headed by individuals that the President cannot remove, and the related question of whether the heads of those bodies must be appointed by the President in order for them to be constitutional.
Any stretching of that narrow context is the “means to an end” dynamic I referenced above, it’s basically grasping at the closest straw in service of some other goal, which is basically always a question of someone making a ton of money.
Absent explicit written procedures governing a given situation we are in uncharted waters. You might call it a state of exception. Carl Schmitt's argument that the sovereign decides in the state of exception is almost taken for granted these days in political theory, and Giorgio Agamben suggests that the founding gesture of Western politics, which designates an inside and outside to "Law," always already produces a state of exception in which bare life is exposed to sovereign power. As Agamben puts it, there is a unique symmetry with respect to the body of the sovereign and the body of homo sacer, in that both can be killed but not sacrificed (i.e. put to ritual death under the law). It seems rather natural, I think, to assume that under an American constitutional form of government that the President is the site of this sovereign power, and therefore exists at the porous boundary layer between the law and its outside. It is the President who declares a state of emergency, after all.
|
On one hand, I agree in the sense that our common law top-down constitutionalism creates and then occupies a liminal space between the rules it deigns to empower and the various acts of those in a position to either uphold or break said rules. Stare decisis is only the rule until there's a good reason for it not to be, and the scope of the power of any particular facet of the government is limited only to the extent that an empowered actor is not ambitious enough to extend it, and so on and so forth. The concept of the continuous state of emergency, or the state of exception in perpetuity, as it were, is indeed the rule here in the US. The most American things that Americans in power have ever done deal in breaking rules and tearing down the norms upon which political equilibrium rests.
On the other hand, not all "one step in, one step out" split problems in the rule of our constitutional common law are equally susceptible to the whims of power that doesn't know what it doesn't know. In that sense, I am saying that, specific to the current ploy of the Trump White House to test the boundaries of executive power and the checks that sometimes limit it, there is good reason to think that Trump is rapidly approaching the end of his line, and that's precisely because he no longer has the benefit of plausibly uncharted waters given that he's now treading directly onto a well-worn path in which the executive loses. It may be hollow, poorly conceived, and usually misreferenced, but the legitimacy of the "checks and balances" system, when viewed in concert with the character of the actors at the loci of the power needed to uphold it, points to a likely sequence of events in which "no one can force the President to do x, y, and z" loses the fight.
|
On October 09 2019 02:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pcgamer.com/blitzchung-removed-from-hearthstone-grandmasters-for-liberate-hong-kong-comments/Show nested quote +
Blizzard has ruled that Hearthstone pro Chung "blitzchung" Ng Wai will been removed from Hearthstone Grandmasters, following the player's call for Hong Kong's freedom during a post-match interview. Additionally, Blizzard has stated that it will no longer work with the two casters who appeared in the now deleted broadcast.
Blitzchung has been found in breach of Section 6.1 of the 2019 Hearthstone Grandmasters Official Competition Rules, which forbids:
Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.
That's the extent of what I know about it.
It's interesting to pivot to this after the discussion on democracy. To me, the biggest challenge facing democracy is that it's a gaping weak point in any cold conflict with a hostile totalitarian state.
None of the big autocracies have any qualms about turning the core mechanisms of democracies against themselves, as we've already seen. The level of misdirection, economic strong-arming, and good old fashioned literal strong-arming that social control enables is very scary.
Manipulation of voters and discourse like this, as well as straight penetration and even infiltration are all possible, and much harder to point back the other way.
|
On October 09 2019 11:09 farvacola wrote:
On one hand, I agree in the sense that our common law top-down constitutionalism creates and then occupies a liminal space between the rules it deigns to empower and the various acts of those in a position to either uphold or break said rules. Stare decisis is only the rule until there's a good reason for it not to be, and the scope of the power of any particular facet of the government is limited only to the extent that an empowered actor is not ambitious enough to extend it, and so on and so forth. The concept of the continuous state of emergency, or the state of exception in perpetuity, as it were, is indeed the rule here in the US. The most American things that Americans in power have ever done deal in breaking rules and tearing down the norms upon which political equilibrium rests.
On the other hand, not all "one step in, one step out" split problems in the rule of our constitutional common law are equally susceptible to the whims of power that doesn't know what it doesn't know. In that sense, I am saying that, specific to the current ploy of the Trump White House to test the boundaries of executive power and the checks that sometimes limit it, there is good reason to think that Trump is rapidly approaching the end of his line, and that's precisely because he no longer has the benefit of plausibly uncharted waters given that he's now treading directly onto a well-worn path in which the executive loses. It may be hollow, poorly conceived, and usually misreferenced, but the legitimacy of the "checks and balances" system, when viewed in concert with the character of the actors at the loci of the power needed to uphold it, points to a likely sequence of events in which "no one can force the President to do x, y, and z" loses the fight.
insofar as you are saying that the President can be impeached, yes I agree
|
Northern Ireland25337 Posts
On October 09 2019 11:35 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 02:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pcgamer.com/blitzchung-removed-from-hearthstone-grandmasters-for-liberate-hong-kong-comments/
Blizzard has ruled that Hearthstone pro Chung "blitzchung" Ng Wai will been removed from Hearthstone Grandmasters, following the player's call for Hong Kong's freedom during a post-match interview. Additionally, Blizzard has stated that it will no longer work with the two casters who appeared in the now deleted broadcast.
Blitzchung has been found in breach of Section 6.1 of the 2019 Hearthstone Grandmasters Official Competition Rules, which forbids:
Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.
That's the extent of what I know about it. It's interesting to pivot to this after the discussion on democracy. To me, the biggest challenge facing democracy is that it's a gaping weak point in any cold conflict with a hostile totalitarian state. None of the big autocracies have any qualms about turning the core mechanisms of democracies against themselves, as we've already seen. The level of misdirection, economic strong-arming, and good old fashioned literal strong-arming that social control enables is very scary. Manipulation of voters and discourse like this, as well as straight penetration and even infiltration are all possible, and much harder to point back the other way.
This much is true, I don’t personally consider it as big a threat as some do, for various reasons which I won’t go into now.
What worries me is a seeming lack of resolve to indulge in strong-arming of basically any kind when it comes to defending certain values of said democracies, and I’m not talking about invasions and the like.
Added to that with this Brexit fiasco and the US (at least under Trump specifically, the general decline in multilateral organisations and cooperation that are supposed to help do these things.
With the Blizzard example, I await more information. What concerns me is that, at least to outward appearances it doesn’t appear they were particularly leaned on in order to make those moves.
‘We’re’ going backwards in certain regards, especially with employing soft power effectively.
|
And Turkey has attacked the Kurds. Didn't take long for that to happen. Apology Tour 2.0 is about to just be brutal.
Turkish forces began crossing the Syrian border on Wednesday, launching an operation in Kurdish-dominated areas of the country's north, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced.
The Turkish offensive jeopardizes Kurdish-led forces who have been a key U.S. ally in the bloody fight against ISIS. Turkey says those same forces are linked to militant groups who stage attacks in a separatist movement against the Turkish government.
Late Sunday, the White House abruptly announced it was pulling troops away from the border and that Turkey planned to launched an offensive — a major shift in U.S. policy that followed a phone call between President Trump and Erdogan. Senior officials have said they were not consulted or informed about the change.
The Turkish military is working with the Syrian National Army, Erdogan said, adding that they area targeting Kurdish fighters as well as ISIS extremists.
"Our mission is to prevent the creation of a terror corridor across our southern border, and to bring peace to the area," Erdogan said.
Source
|
|
|
Trump has essentially allowed other countries to dictate American foreign policy. Did Erdogan promise to attack his political opponents? Was his recorded conversation with Erdogan was one of the conversations placed on a secure server for intelligence secrets?
|
On October 09 2019 23:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump has essentially allowed other countries to dictate American foreign policy. Did Erdogan promise to attack his political opponents? Was his recorded conversation with Erdogan was one of the conversations placed on a secure server for intelligence secrets? Yes, the call with Erdogan just before Trump announced the withdraw could be most interesting.
|
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101.
|
On October 09 2019 23:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101.
It is getting to the point where you cant trust our country at our word.
Iran,
Ukraine,
Kurds
The list is just going to grow of the countries we betray
|
On October 09 2019 23:54 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 23:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101. It is getting to the point where you cant trust our country at our word. Iran, Ukraine, Kurds The list is just going to grow of the countries we betray
Only if we don't get him out of office. I feel like the next president will more than likely reverse literally everything that this admin has done.
|
On October 10 2019 00:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 23:54 IyMoon wrote:On October 09 2019 23:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101. It is getting to the point where you cant trust our country at our word. Iran, Ukraine, Kurds The list is just going to grow of the countries we betray Only if we don't get him out of office. I feel like the next president will more than likely reverse literally everything that this admin has done. Yeah sure, you only get betrayed and killed for a little bit until the next President. That aint so bad /s.
|
On October 10 2019 00:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 00:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 09 2019 23:54 IyMoon wrote:On October 09 2019 23:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101. It is getting to the point where you cant trust our country at our word. Iran, Ukraine, Kurds The list is just going to grow of the countries we betray Only if we don't get him out of office. I feel like the next president will more than likely reverse literally everything that this admin has done. Yeah sure, you only get betrayed and killed for a little bit until the next President. That aint so bad /s.
I wouldn't trust us if I was someone else. Before trump if a president made a promise others would keep it. Now that is out the window
|
|
|
On October 10 2019 00:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 23:54 IyMoon wrote:On October 09 2019 23:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101. It is getting to the point where you cant trust our country at our word. Iran, Ukraine, Kurds The list is just going to grow of the countries we betray Only if we don't get him out of office. I feel like the next president will more than likely reverse literally everything that this admin has done.
Even if the next president is great that doesn't matter.
The rest of the world understands that this is not only Trumps fault. Congress/Senate could have stopped him from breaking old promises and safeguarded American allies if they wanted to but they have chosen not to.
That signals a diplomatic failure of not only the office of the President but all of US politics.
So the rest of the world knows that even if the next president is great at keeping promises you are at most 4 years away from a potential break on any given promise.
Trump has also fucked over many more people than Iran/Ukraine/Kurds. It's just the Ukraine/Kurds are military allies which is especially aggravating. Can NATO countries really trust the US anymore for example? If they can't, is such an alliance worth anything.
It's going to take decades for the US to rebuild the destroyed trust, and just blaming it on Trump is wishful thinking.
|
On October 10 2019 00:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2019 00:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 09 2019 23:54 IyMoon wrote:On October 09 2019 23:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's made even worse because the Kurds were scaling back their defenses on the border because of US assurances of support. Why foreign policy shouldn't be made on the whims of a narcissist whose opinions are as changeable as the wind (but far cheaper to change) 101. It is getting to the point where you cant trust our country at our word. Iran, Ukraine, Kurds The list is just going to grow of the countries we betray Only if we don't get him out of office. I feel like the next president will more than likely reverse literally everything that this admin has done. Yeah sure, you only get betrayed and killed for a little bit until the next President. That aint so bad /s.
That's a fair critique and I don't have a rebuttal to it really. It's just embarrassing. I wonder why the boots on the ground didn't defy the order and stay there until something better came along. I doubt Turkey would have attacked with US troops still nearby. That would have given someone somewhere pause. But conventional wisdom is out of the window with this admin.
Even if the next president is great that doesn't matter.
The rest of the world understands that this is not only Trumps fault. Congress/Senate could have stopped him from breaking old promises and safeguarded American allies if they wanted to but they have chosen not to.
That signals a diplomatic failure of not only the office of the President but all of US politics.
So the rest of the world knows that even if the next president is great at keeping promises you are at most 4 years away from a potential break on any given promise.
Trump has also fucked over many more people than Iran/Ukraine/Kurds. It's just the Ukraine/Kurds are military allies which is especially aggravating. Can NATO countries really trust the US anymore for example? If they can't, is such an alliance worth anything.
It's going to take decades for the US to rebuild the destroyed trust, and just blaming it on Trump is wishful thinking.
True. That is the worst/saddest part about it. There is no amount of goodwill that can be done to fix what this admin has destroyed. If the dems take over both chambers and the presidency, wishful thinking is that they start implementing more rules/restrictions on what the president can do unilaterally. Example: without majority in favor in both chambers, no withdrawals from treaties, pacts, support of allies. All military matters must be given 90 days to either engage/withdraw with support from allies in region, in order to establish/begin transitions.
I think that republicans have screwed themselves for at least a generation if not more from ever being taken seriously on the international stage, as other countries will just disregard what they say since they had the power to stop trump and didn't and allowed this clusterfuck of foreign policy to be tweeted haphazardly during midnight bathroom breaks.
I don't have the first clue how to repair any relationship but we have to start with an overhaul of the way government actors in this nation, are held accountable.
|
On October 09 2019 10:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 04:36 raga4ka wrote:On October 09 2019 00:53 JimmiC wrote:On October 09 2019 00:47 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2019 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:
This Chinese stuff with Blizzard and the NBA is extremely spooky. I am wildly uncomfortable with it and it needs to boil over. There needs to be a massive response to this. The CCP can NOT be allowed to have this level of influence. For a long time everyone assumed Western capitalism would overwhelm Chinese restrictions on free speech, when it turns out Chinese restrictions on free speech are using capitalism to silence speech everywhere; from the NBA’s bowing and scraping, to this Blizzard BS, to TikTok's censoring of "sensitive" subjects. It’s only going to get worse. I agree, as their economic growth increases the likelihood of any sanction, or even if the world was willing to sanction such a big market, making them change course is unlikely. I'm not sure that if they marched their military into Hong Kong and said "One China, our Rules now" the rest of the world could do anything about it. I think people are just unaware of how awful the Chinese government is to its people and are just too impressed with how it has done economically and their big projects. The human cost is incredibly high. How would you know that if you haven't lived in China? As far as I know the overwhelming majority of Chinese are happy with their government, because having a safe home and jobs that earn them something to eat is far more important then a political view. You must read and understand the sad history of China before the CCP came to power and even though Mao's reign was terrible, after him the CCP did what is described as a miracle by it's people. On October 09 2019 02:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2019 01:29 Nouar wrote:On October 09 2019 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Huge weakness of capitalism being showcased. The Chinese market is so gigantic that every single company will make the same choice if they are put in the same situation. This needs to be addressed somehow. So long as companies are offered the prospect of more than doubling their revenue, they are going to drool over it and do anything to get it.
The US needs to impose some sort of regulations around something specifically described as "violating human rights by appeasing foreign governments". Make it a new law. Laws are man-made and we are seeing a clear need. You seem to be surprised. The rest of the world has already suffered this exact kind of thing for the last xx years coming from the US. One cannot ignore what the US does or says as if it imposes sanctions on you, you do not get to trade at all with the rest of the world or barely. All that while the US does not recognize most of the international courts, conveniently enough :-) Some kind of bully, that thinks itself benevolent but still a bully usually. The fact that there are now two powers doing that is new, but that's about all. This is quite the leap. When has someone been ejected from a tournament for opposing the war in Iraq? The idea that the US is deeply involved in other people's business is a huge leap from "speaking against US atrocities literally ends your career". There is no comparison to be made between mentioning Hong Kong and the ways the US imposes itself. There are varying degrees of intervention. What China is demanding is complete and total submission for even minor disagreements. This is a different level of what you are right to say are the same thing. But we can appreciate the differences and don't need to label them as the same. US just like China would sanction any foreign company or people if it infringes it's interests resulting in hundreds to thousands of lost jobs and careers ending. To the chinese the topic of any form of Hong Kong separatism views is a taboo. It's not like Hong Kong is severely oppressed by the CCP, like it's some middle east dictatorship... Young Honkongers just seem to hate mainlander's political system and mainlanders themselves, maybe like Catalonian people in Spain. That won't change much, since Hong Kong is part of China, and violence will only discredit their efforts. Supporting violence in Honk Kong will undoubtedly be sanctioned by both China and it's people. I think you would struggle to find someone in China complaining about the government because they effectively use technology to make sure it does not happen and when it does the penalties are severe. That is before you get into the the Muslim "re-education" camps, the forced relocation of millions, the various human rights abuses and so on. There is no denying that the Chinese government has made a BUNCH of money and that there has been a trickle down effect to many of the people. There is also no denying that human rights abuses happen daily on a mass scale. My part of the World their is a ton of Chinese immigrants, many from Hong Kong, but no all, if you talk to them you get a different message than the official message from the government, go figure.
If the Chinese are so concerned about their human rights, they are not forced to live in China, as you know millions of Chinese are living all over the world. There are human rights abuses sure, but the majority of Chinese prefer economical stability, security and safety over political views. Also the majority trusts the CCP as their livelihood is getting better. I'll just quote from the book: China and the Global Politics of Regionalization:
"There is for example, the "grand but unspoken bargain" between the Communist Party and the Chinese public. If the party delivers "economic growth" and promotes China's "global standing" it will get "public acquiescence to it's autocratic rule and anachronistic idology" (Keller and Rawski 2007, 194). A downturn in growth, however, would likely constitute a failure by the CCP to keep its end of this bargain..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
