|
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 August 30 2020 07:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 07:06 Starlightsun wrote:On August 30 2020 03:30 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 02:32 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 01:10 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2020 18:21 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 29 2020 12:50 Danglars wrote:
It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas. Would he? I mean that’s something to be condemned sure, is it that impactful electorally? Would not be a fan of the Uighur situation myself at all but is that an issue that particularly resonates? China's a major foreign policy hot zone, whether or not you think Trump is going to do well on that subject. Biden mentioned China just once in regards to dependence on foreign manufacturing. That ignorance of signalling something strong on China is political malpractice and I'll entertain anyone suggesting this or that advisor stripped it from his speech. Just a few of the more visible aspects to China in America. Buzzfeed investigations has a new longform piece on the construction of internment camps meant to house tens of thousands. The videos of Uyghur detainees with shaved heads and blindfolds sitting unmasked in groups was widely seen. The forced sterilizations and abortions are reported in Western press, amounting to a genocide of a minority of citizens. China is even now on a campaign to retaliate against Hong Kong for their very visible mass protests. The communist party also suppressed and spread disinformation to the WHO in the early stages of the worst pandemic in modern history. Americans saw these things on viral videos and on the news, but somehow it didn't rate in Biden's first pitch to the American people to become their next president. Read and respond to the articles if you have any further questions. This is relatively common knowledge, least in these parts. Outside of the manufacturing/jobs element that Biden and outside the Trump tent is it an issue that particular resonates that strongly in America is what I was asking? I don’t really know from my current transatlantic prism, Trump fans seem rather obsessed with all things China but unsure about the wider populace. I mean ethnic genocide, mass surveillance and arrests, and the early coverup of a massive pandemic tends to cut across people that normally don't pay attention to politics. Obsession might have been true about the types that focus on Chinese trade. The outlook now is more one asking what's obsessive about caring about the internment, re-education, and forced sterilization and abortions? Some things deserve attention and Biden's campaign and advisors have been lacking. If this had been done to a minority population in Northern Ireland, do you think it would be obsessive to make it a primary focus for the rest of the world? Geez spare us your bleeding heart about the Uyghurs in China Danglars. Or does it extend also to the immense suffering caused by our incarcerating people at our southern border, breaking up families and deporting people to their deaths? For no real reason other than that they are poor and not white? Do your concerned voters also care about the mass starvation and disease outbreaks in Yemen and the role we play in that with our profitable arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Even if you are honestly concerned about the victims of the CCP's brutality, going lone cowboy as Trump has done is just setting us back from being able to apply real pressure. It's beyond retarded to alienate ourselves from all our allies and international goodwill to adopt a "strategy" of unilateral tariffs and sanctions imposed on impulse. If Biden does nothing but reintegrate us back into the international community then that is far worse for the CCP than Trump's hamfistedness. People trying to get into a country and a system that was designed for illegal adult day laborers? The media literally used Obama photos to attack Trump before realizing the timestamps. Whataboutism aside, you've managed to avoid talking about Biden and the Chinese issues I raised, so I hardly know if you care or if you think Biden should care. I want that debate to be center stage, and not to go totally ignored by one major party candidate. Maybe then we can get on to Iranian proxy wars in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, and whether or not Saudi Arabia is a necessary ally in the region, or just too bad to obtain a net foreign policy benefit.
Of course you want that debate to be center stage. Anything but the nationwide unrest over racial violence, the out of control pandemic, the tanking economy, or the countless abuses of the last four years. "Whatabout" the human rights abuses of China, which just happens to be Communist? Shouldn't Biden the Communist have a lot to say about that?
|
Not everything Danglars says is wrong. Why react in such a knee-jerk way to everything he says? Agree where he’s right and reiterate the differences. The “emphasis game” is boring. I can go to twitter for that.
|
Northern Ireland26758 Posts
On August 30 2020 07:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 06:20 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 03:30 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 02:32 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 01:10 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2020 18:21 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 29 2020 12:50 Danglars wrote:
It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas. Would he? I mean that’s something to be condemned sure, is it that impactful electorally? Would not be a fan of the Uighur situation myself at all but is that an issue that particularly resonates? China's a major foreign policy hot zone, whether or not you think Trump is going to do well on that subject. Biden mentioned China just once in regards to dependence on foreign manufacturing. That ignorance of signalling something strong on China is political malpractice and I'll entertain anyone suggesting this or that advisor stripped it from his speech. Just a few of the more visible aspects to China in America. Buzzfeed investigations has a new longform piece on the construction of internment camps meant to house tens of thousands. The videos of Uyghur detainees with shaved heads and blindfolds sitting unmasked in groups was widely seen. The forced sterilizations and abortions are reported in Western press, amounting to a genocide of a minority of citizens. China is even now on a campaign to retaliate against Hong Kong for their very visible mass protests. The communist party also suppressed and spread disinformation to the WHO in the early stages of the worst pandemic in modern history. Americans saw these things on viral videos and on the news, but somehow it didn't rate in Biden's first pitch to the American people to become their next president. Read and respond to the articles if you have any further questions. This is relatively common knowledge, least in these parts. Outside of the manufacturing/jobs element that Biden and outside the Trump tent is it an issue that particular resonates that strongly in America is what I was asking? I don’t really know from my current transatlantic prism, Trump fans seem rather obsessed with all things China but unsure about the wider populace. I mean ethnic genocide, mass surveillance and arrests, and the early coverup of a massive pandemic tends to cut across people that normally don't pay attention to politics. Obsession might have been true about the types that focus on Chinese trade. The outlook now is more one asking what's obsessive about caring about the internment, re-education, and forced sterilization and abortions? Some things deserve attention and Biden's campaign and advisors have been lacking. If this had been done to a minority population in Northern Ireland, do you think it would be obsessive to make it a primary focus for the rest of the world? For the record I wasn’t referring to you when I said ‘Trump fans’. Care about it sure, what do people want done about it? The Gulf States do repugnant things but hey we need their oil, we’re too dependent on Chinese manufacturing to be able to exert much leverage. Americans seem to want the impossible, Brits too. All the benefits of globalised capitalism but without any of the downsides. You can’t just turn the tap off when that cheap labour overseas, cheap electronics etc starts to be inconvenient to your native populace. Well you can, but you have to more fundamentally look at how the world’s economic interactions are organised and I don’t think people want to do. This doesn’t mean it’s not politically important to go after China, I just think it’s fucking stupid within the current framework of discussion of trade wars etc. The time for leverage against China was 10/20/30 years ago or whatever. Instead the West at large was rather content with the wee marriage of convenience until it wasn’t. It is worth noting here that, while the nature of the conflict was different Northern Ireland both did have issues and the US actively working as an intermediary between various factions including a large world power in the UK and hey, shit has improved a lot. We’re pretty fond of Bill Clinton over here for reasons surrounding that. We’re also fucking tiny, and America has a general fondness for the Irish for pretty obvious reasons. I think we have a disconnect. If you agree Americans care about it because political incarceration and genocides are pretty big deals, then why shouldn't a prospective candidate use his first major party address to show it's actually on his radar? The jarring thing is that it was entirely missing from the speech, not that people differ on what to do.
I don’t think by and large they care no, it’s a stick to beat China with who people don’t like China anyway because it’s taking their jobs.
And for those who do ostensibly care, let’s offer them a trade on what playing hardball with China would mean materially and see if they’ll take that trade. You’re kind of whittling it down here.
It would definitely be something I’d like to see, personally but I don’t think there’s the stomach to do what would actually be required to drag China into line on these issues.
As Starlightsun mentioned any efforts to globally pressure China are pretty neutered with a US that is doing it in a haphazard unilateral manner.
|
On August 30 2020 07:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 05:36 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2020 05:30 JimmiC wrote:On August 30 2020 05:17 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2020 05:04 Gorgonoth wrote:On August 30 2020 04:18 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2020 03:43 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 03:11 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2020 01:49 Gorgonoth wrote:
Look as someone who has known and tended to support police officers, I have no problem saying what I think is pretty much indisputable; that the police system in the United States needs a large overhaul. There needs to be better training, better psychological evaluations, and combating of implicit biases. The pattern of lethal force as a first response is horrible. They've got to be better at crisis management and deescalating tense situations. I understand those who say it's a hard and increasingly thankless job, but we need police reform, and we need to create more mutual trust between officers and the communities.
No one should be against peaceful, nonviolent protests of this issue. However, this is not all that has happened. Looting was widespread, I witnessed it myself in Philadelphia, these demonstrations became very violent and dangerous. There was not a respect for property, there was chaos and pandemonium. This was a moment for discourse and it was overshadowed by opportunist rioters. This is a breakdown of law and order, its documented that crime surged in many cities. I get the feeling like this may not matter to you, but for the "bad politics" swing voter in PA, It will. I think we've had enough discourse, this problem has been happening for long enough for us to consider discourse to have happened and for society to collectively decided police murdering black people is just okay. This is like having your throat slit and the doctor who is supposed to be stitching you up going,"You know, you're getting blood all over my nice coat, I think you need to stop bleeding all over the place if you want me to sew your throat up." It's equivalent to saying progress doesn't matter as long as we can find videos of police responding poorly across the US. If people can ignore the decline in black deaths at the hands of police, and decide society is just ok with black deaths, then you missed the entire BLM rise (and fall if you look at polling) and all the changes with respect to body cams, no-knock raids, and the rest. If people were fine, BLM would never have gotten its first wave of support. The rhetoric is for change, but the actions correlate to a group that decides change is impossible and the current society must be brought down with violence first. It's a meme on the right that resonates right now: They don't care about black lives if it's David Dorn at a pawn shop, or inner cities with less police to defend black lives calling 911, or anything besides white officers shooting black men. I'm starting to think reform is impossible, because the real energy is on organizing protests and riots as means of retribution to whatever whites they think are guilty of letting the system produce such police forces. Look at the Kenosha and Portland marches through affluent white neighborhoods demanding the homeowners come out and join them. I have to agree with you partially, that one side increasingly believes "discourse [has] happened" and that side has given up on the Democratic means of redress. Reform is impossible because the powers that have the power TO reform choose not to. When the lack of reform is black people dying completely and utterly senselessly to cops with the self control of a toddler then OBVIOUSLY youre going to get fucking riots, because decent human beings have this notion that a human life is more important than property. If it was your family being senselessly gunned down you might be able to extend some empathy or anger towards the ridiculous status of policing in the US. Democratic solutions take too much time, as time passes more people are senselessly murdered and, Time. Has. Fucking. Passed. This is not a problem that should be considered on a "how do we solve this over the next century," as long as people are being literally murdered its a problem that has to be addressed NOW. It won't happen peacefully because people will always find a way to deflect it away, "oh hes disrespecting the flag by doing the thing he asked a literal armed forces member about protesting in the most respectful way!" "oh, look, now they're being all protest-y, you know, they should just go and vote instead of making all this noise!" "wow, now some of them are BREAKING STUFF, you know you should just protest peacefully thats the way to change!" The idea that a peaceful solution to black people being murdered by police exists in a tolerable time frame is idiotic. Reform is not impossible. Reform happened in Camden, its been undertaken in cities like Boston which have demonstrably better police departments. But at the heart of your post is a deeply flawed logic I think. You are seeing the issue in an extremely black and white way. Black people are killed by police officers so, therefore, there is no peaceful progress that can be made?? What are you even talking about at this point? More white people are shot (raw statistics not proportionally) by police, so I guess ill break into the apple store and riot and attack cops because WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING MURDERED. What you are entertaining could be used to justify almost any violent act in the name of any ideology. The idea that a peaceful solution to black people being murdered by police exists in a tolerable time frame is idiotic This is idiotic. Not all black people killed by police officers are done so unjustly. Many are killed unjustly though and in an increasing number of those cases police are held accountable. Do police officers kill American citizens unjustly? Yes. Does this affect blacks the most? I believe so, although not every case is easy to prove. The great leap you make though is in thinking that because that is true that violence, destruction of property in reaction to this is justified. It isn't true, both things are wrong. Your statement isn't bold it's just a platitude that offers no solution. Calling for the razing of social order is one of the easiest things to do because its based in an imaginary world where the mob which you are justifying will create a perfect order with no injustice. It isnt going to happen. No, the deeply flawed logic of this discussion is completely forgetting that time is a factor in this, that if it Happens Eventually its enough because it happened. How many people need to die in the meantime? And yes, you should also be very upset when police murder white people, our fucking police force shouldn't be murdering people for no good reason (and they DO murder people OFTEN for NO GOOD REASON.) The easy solution is to sit back and say, "we'll get to it! Now all of you sit down and wait for it, we'll get there eventually!" these are people who are either at risk of being senseless murdered or actually give a shit about people who are at risk of being senselessly murdered, I 100% believe their outrage is justified. The idea that the urgency of this is something that requires me to make logical leaps just shows the withered holes in the American conscience. The point isnt that reform is impossible, the POINT is that "reform" as we've seen it in the US takes a very long time, and in that very long time people continue to die. This pace is unacceptable and it's clear that without civil unrest it will continue to take a very long fucking time and during that very long fucking time people are going to continue being murdered. The bottom line for concern should be concern for the people being murdered. Are you pro or against gun control like is done in other western democracies? I'd REALLY rather we didn't have access to weapons designed specifically to efficiently murder human beings. I am softer on like, hunting rifles and shotguns. I'll also admit I feel a little more sympathetic towards gun ownership lately due to the unrest. Theres a point where the state is likely enough to kill you without reason that having a gun in that situation might be appealing. As a general rule/in an ideal world though, I'd rather a world without guns save basic hunting rifles and the like that serve non-war-murder-y purposes. You’ll have to explain how having a gun is “appealing.” It only seems you are more likely to get killed by a gun, either another gun or your own. I have to admit that I have been finding the profound lack of numeracy in the general population to be disheartening. In some sense it would have been more rational for you to say that you found gun ownership appealing because murders have spiked in metropolitan areas recently. The case would be even stronger if you were non-white and lived in an urban center since the majority of murders in places like Chicago and NYC are murders of non-white people. But then you’d end up sounding like a white supremacist ...
I imagine if you were in a situation where someone with a gun was after you, be it cop or I guess some gang or something, a gun would seem like an appealing way to defend yourself.
I don't really have it in me to hurt things so I tend to be a pacifist, but the "what about the gov't attacking its citizens!" argument for guns grows a little more understandable for me since the government is attacking its citizens so much lately.
|
On August 30 2020 07:57 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 07:23 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 06:20 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 03:30 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 02:32 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 01:10 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2020 18:21 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 29 2020 12:50 Danglars wrote:
It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas. Would he? I mean that’s something to be condemned sure, is it that impactful electorally? Would not be a fan of the Uighur situation myself at all but is that an issue that particularly resonates? China's a major foreign policy hot zone, whether or not you think Trump is going to do well on that subject. Biden mentioned China just once in regards to dependence on foreign manufacturing. That ignorance of signalling something strong on China is political malpractice and I'll entertain anyone suggesting this or that advisor stripped it from his speech. Just a few of the more visible aspects to China in America. Buzzfeed investigations has a new longform piece on the construction of internment camps meant to house tens of thousands. The videos of Uyghur detainees with shaved heads and blindfolds sitting unmasked in groups was widely seen. The forced sterilizations and abortions are reported in Western press, amounting to a genocide of a minority of citizens. China is even now on a campaign to retaliate against Hong Kong for their very visible mass protests. The communist party also suppressed and spread disinformation to the WHO in the early stages of the worst pandemic in modern history. Americans saw these things on viral videos and on the news, but somehow it didn't rate in Biden's first pitch to the American people to become their next president. Read and respond to the articles if you have any further questions. This is relatively common knowledge, least in these parts. Outside of the manufacturing/jobs element that Biden and outside the Trump tent is it an issue that particular resonates that strongly in America is what I was asking? I don’t really know from my current transatlantic prism, Trump fans seem rather obsessed with all things China but unsure about the wider populace. I mean ethnic genocide, mass surveillance and arrests, and the early coverup of a massive pandemic tends to cut across people that normally don't pay attention to politics. Obsession might have been true about the types that focus on Chinese trade. The outlook now is more one asking what's obsessive about caring about the internment, re-education, and forced sterilization and abortions? Some things deserve attention and Biden's campaign and advisors have been lacking. If this had been done to a minority population in Northern Ireland, do you think it would be obsessive to make it a primary focus for the rest of the world? For the record I wasn’t referring to you when I said ‘Trump fans’. Care about it sure, what do people want done about it? The Gulf States do repugnant things but hey we need their oil, we’re too dependent on Chinese manufacturing to be able to exert much leverage. Americans seem to want the impossible, Brits too. All the benefits of globalised capitalism but without any of the downsides. You can’t just turn the tap off when that cheap labour overseas, cheap electronics etc starts to be inconvenient to your native populace. Well you can, but you have to more fundamentally look at how the world’s economic interactions are organised and I don’t think people want to do. This doesn’t mean it’s not politically important to go after China, I just think it’s fucking stupid within the current framework of discussion of trade wars etc. The time for leverage against China was 10/20/30 years ago or whatever. Instead the West at large was rather content with the wee marriage of convenience until it wasn’t. It is worth noting here that, while the nature of the conflict was different Northern Ireland both did have issues and the US actively working as an intermediary between various factions including a large world power in the UK and hey, shit has improved a lot. We’re pretty fond of Bill Clinton over here for reasons surrounding that. We’re also fucking tiny, and America has a general fondness for the Irish for pretty obvious reasons. I think we have a disconnect. If you agree Americans care about it because political incarceration and genocides are pretty big deals, then why shouldn't a prospective candidate use his first major party address to show it's actually on his radar? The jarring thing is that it was entirely missing from the speech, not that people differ on what to do. I don’t think by and large they care no, it’s a stick to beat China with who people don’t like China anyway because it’s taking their jobs. And for those who do ostensibly care, let’s offer them a trade on what playing hardball with China would mean materially and see if they’ll take that trade. You’re kind of whittling it down here. It would definitely be something I’d like to see, personally but I don’t think there’s the stomach to do what would actually be required to drag China into line on these issues. As Starlightsun mentioned any efforts to globally pressure China are pretty neutered with a US that is doing it in a haphazard unilateral manner.
So we are really far apart on this issue. I think Americans prefer a candidate that at least mentions the state and problems with it, to the candidate that acts like it doesn't rate in important topics. For all Trump's incapacity to formulate a messaging and federal-power response to China, he at least shows up. I don't really think the discussion has to proceed to policy commitments in speeches like these. It sounds like you're all but saying it's important and Biden should've thus put it in his speech, but what it means in terms of policy wouldn't find pluralities behind any response.
I'm still puzzled at your take on a country with a historical response to WW2 war crimes and Cold War-era atrocities, and now Chinese genocide and jailing whistleblowers and Hong Kong protesters just reduces to "it's a stick to beat China with." Maybe you're just really darn committed to an Americans-dont-really-care societal hypothesis.
|
Police shoot people who they think have guns and are willing to use them against police. It’s complete madness to think that having a gun will protect you from the police. The only thing that will protect you from them right now in 2020 is a good lawyer. And that protection is futural.
|
Northern Ireland26758 Posts
On August 30 2020 07:51 IgnE wrote:
Not everything Danglars says is wrong. Why react in such a knee-jerk way to everything he says? Agree where he’s right and reiterate the differences. The “emphasis game” is boring. I can go to twitter for that.
In general I agree, actually in this specific instance I think the emphasis game is entirely appropriate.
Danglars said he wants the magnifying glass turned specifically to China, people are reacting to that. Seems fair enough to me.
I don’t think any of us are in particular disagreement as to China being pretty fucking shit in many areas.
|
On August 30 2020 08:12 IgnE wrote:
Police shoot people who they think have guns and are willing to use them. It’s complete madness to think that having a gun will protect you from the police. The only thing that will protect you from them right now in 2020 is a good lawyer. And that protection is futural.
Youre right, they shoot people who they think have guns. They think a lot of people have guns.
Obviously a world in which police had no guns and civilians had no guns would be great, we'd possibly see less shooting, but we don't live in that world and while I don't own a gun and don't plan to, I could see why someone would see their gun as a potential life saver given that a cop will treat you like you have a gun if you have a gun, or have a knife, or they think you have a gun, or think you have a knife, or think you might possibly have one nearby.
|
But actually having a gun makes it more likely that they think you will have a gun! You would not advise your son to carry a gun around to protect himself from police would you?
Again, the lack of numeracy here is really disheartening. Like you, I can understand why and how people come to bad conclusions. The question for me is whether we are fatalistic or nihilistic about that process.
|
On August 30 2020 07:57 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 07:23 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 06:20 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 03:30 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 02:32 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 01:10 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2020 18:21 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 29 2020 12:50 Danglars wrote:
It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas. Would he? I mean that’s something to be condemned sure, is it that impactful electorally? Would not be a fan of the Uighur situation myself at all but is that an issue that particularly resonates? China's a major foreign policy hot zone, whether or not you think Trump is going to do well on that subject. Biden mentioned China just once in regards to dependence on foreign manufacturing. That ignorance of signalling something strong on China is political malpractice and I'll entertain anyone suggesting this or that advisor stripped it from his speech. Just a few of the more visible aspects to China in America. Buzzfeed investigations has a new longform piece on the construction of internment camps meant to house tens of thousands. The videos of Uyghur detainees with shaved heads and blindfolds sitting unmasked in groups was widely seen. The forced sterilizations and abortions are reported in Western press, amounting to a genocide of a minority of citizens. China is even now on a campaign to retaliate against Hong Kong for their very visible mass protests. The communist party also suppressed and spread disinformation to the WHO in the early stages of the worst pandemic in modern history. Americans saw these things on viral videos and on the news, but somehow it didn't rate in Biden's first pitch to the American people to become their next president. Read and respond to the articles if you have any further questions. This is relatively common knowledge, least in these parts. Outside of the manufacturing/jobs element that Biden and outside the Trump tent is it an issue that particular resonates that strongly in America is what I was asking? I don’t really know from my current transatlantic prism, Trump fans seem rather obsessed with all things China but unsure about the wider populace. I mean ethnic genocide, mass surveillance and arrests, and the early coverup of a massive pandemic tends to cut across people that normally don't pay attention to politics. Obsession might have been true about the types that focus on Chinese trade. The outlook now is more one asking what's obsessive about caring about the internment, re-education, and forced sterilization and abortions? Some things deserve attention and Biden's campaign and advisors have been lacking. If this had been done to a minority population in Northern Ireland, do you think it would be obsessive to make it a primary focus for the rest of the world? For the record I wasn’t referring to you when I said ‘Trump fans’. Care about it sure, what do people want done about it? The Gulf States do repugnant things but hey we need their oil, we’re too dependent on Chinese manufacturing to be able to exert much leverage. Americans seem to want the impossible, Brits too. All the benefits of globalised capitalism but without any of the downsides. You can’t just turn the tap off when that cheap labour overseas, cheap electronics etc starts to be inconvenient to your native populace. Well you can, but you have to more fundamentally look at how the world’s economic interactions are organised and I don’t think people want to do. This doesn’t mean it’s not politically important to go after China, I just think it’s fucking stupid within the current framework of discussion of trade wars etc. The time for leverage against China was 10/20/30 years ago or whatever. Instead the West at large was rather content with the wee marriage of convenience until it wasn’t. It is worth noting here that, while the nature of the conflict was different Northern Ireland both did have issues and the US actively working as an intermediary between various factions including a large world power in the UK and hey, shit has improved a lot. We’re pretty fond of Bill Clinton over here for reasons surrounding that. We’re also fucking tiny, and America has a general fondness for the Irish for pretty obvious reasons. I think we have a disconnect. If you agree Americans care about it because political incarceration and genocides are pretty big deals, then why shouldn't a prospective candidate use his first major party address to show it's actually on his radar? The jarring thing is that it was entirely missing from the speech, not that people differ on what to do. I don’t think by and large they care no, it’s a stick to beat China with who people don’t like China anyway because it’s taking their jobs. And for those who do ostensibly care, let’s offer them a trade on what playing hardball with China would mean materially and see if they’ll take that trade. You’re kind of whittling it down here. It would definitely be something I’d like to see, personally but I don’t think there’s the stomach to do what would actually be required to drag China into line on these issues. As Starlightsun mentioned any efforts to globally pressure China are pretty neutered with a US that is doing it in a haphazard unilateral manner.
Yes pretty much this. Its all very opportunistic.
In the end its all about money,power and influence,a surpressed population group is then added into the equation to win over many people in the centre and left. I do believe most citizens do truly care at least to some extend but most citizens are also ill informed about everything that is going on in the world,they care for what they are presented with on tv and in the media. It used to upset me a lot,but i have come to accept it. Its the way the world works and i dont think it will ever change.
https://www.livescience.com/22109-cycles-violence-2020.html
This article i have posted earlier in this thread,i dont have a lot to comment on it and i know its frowned upon to post links without aditional comment. But this one,published in 2012 i think is so remarkable that i will re-post it anyway.
If this theory is true or not i dont know,the article itself also says that not enough data is there to make a final conclusion but to see such a prediction now come true 8 years later is interesting. The underlying theory about why this 2 generation cycle would be there does make some sense to me but i dont think the theory will hold over a very long time. Society is develloping faster then ever before and i think that will in the end also change the underlying dynamics which this theory sees as one of the reasons for the cycle.
|
Don't underestimate the very real effect the NBA getting on a voter registration kick could do. Lebron James campaign in Ohio and a gianis (Greek guy who plays for the bucks) in Wisconsin are very real very publicly known commodities.
|
On August 30 2020 07:51 IgnE wrote:
Not everything Danglars says is wrong. Why react in such a knee-jerk way to everything he says? Agree where he’s right and reiterate the differences. The “emphasis game” is boring. I can go to twitter for that.
I just find it incredibly slimy to be taking the issues in China and making it all about Joe Biden. "Why hasn't Biden spoken about X yet?" We could all play that game ad infinitum if we wanted, perhaps that would be more entertaining for you.
|
The only two things you can legitimately ask about Biden in that speech is why he didn't talk about China and why he didn't talk about impeachment and Mueller. You can't really go down the line with X Y and Z topics. You literally don't notice and aren't important nationally or globally enough to be a part of a "first" major speech.
|
Northern Ireland26758 Posts
On August 30 2020 08:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 07:57 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 07:23 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 06:20 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 03:30 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2020 02:32 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 30 2020 01:10 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2020 18:21 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On August 29 2020 12:50 Danglars wrote:
It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas. Would he? I mean that’s something to be condemned sure, is it that impactful electorally? Would not be a fan of the Uighur situation myself at all but is that an issue that particularly resonates? China's a major foreign policy hot zone, whether or not you think Trump is going to do well on that subject. Biden mentioned China just once in regards to dependence on foreign manufacturing. That ignorance of signalling something strong on China is political malpractice and I'll entertain anyone suggesting this or that advisor stripped it from his speech. Just a few of the more visible aspects to China in America. Buzzfeed investigations has a new longform piece on the construction of internment camps meant to house tens of thousands. The videos of Uyghur detainees with shaved heads and blindfolds sitting unmasked in groups was widely seen. The forced sterilizations and abortions are reported in Western press, amounting to a genocide of a minority of citizens. China is even now on a campaign to retaliate against Hong Kong for their very visible mass protests. The communist party also suppressed and spread disinformation to the WHO in the early stages of the worst pandemic in modern history. Americans saw these things on viral videos and on the news, but somehow it didn't rate in Biden's first pitch to the American people to become their next president. Read and respond to the articles if you have any further questions. This is relatively common knowledge, least in these parts. Outside of the manufacturing/jobs element that Biden and outside the Trump tent is it an issue that particular resonates that strongly in America is what I was asking? I don’t really know from my current transatlantic prism, Trump fans seem rather obsessed with all things China but unsure about the wider populace. I mean ethnic genocide, mass surveillance and arrests, and the early coverup of a massive pandemic tends to cut across people that normally don't pay attention to politics. Obsession might have been true about the types that focus on Chinese trade. The outlook now is more one asking what's obsessive about caring about the internment, re-education, and forced sterilization and abortions? Some things deserve attention and Biden's campaign and advisors have been lacking. If this had been done to a minority population in Northern Ireland, do you think it would be obsessive to make it a primary focus for the rest of the world? For the record I wasn’t referring to you when I said ‘Trump fans’. Care about it sure, what do people want done about it? The Gulf States do repugnant things but hey we need their oil, we’re too dependent on Chinese manufacturing to be able to exert much leverage. Americans seem to want the impossible, Brits too. All the benefits of globalised capitalism but without any of the downsides. You can’t just turn the tap off when that cheap labour overseas, cheap electronics etc starts to be inconvenient to your native populace. Well you can, but you have to more fundamentally look at how the world’s economic interactions are organised and I don’t think people want to do. This doesn’t mean it’s not politically important to go after China, I just think it’s fucking stupid within the current framework of discussion of trade wars etc. The time for leverage against China was 10/20/30 years ago or whatever. Instead the West at large was rather content with the wee marriage of convenience until it wasn’t. It is worth noting here that, while the nature of the conflict was different Northern Ireland both did have issues and the US actively working as an intermediary between various factions including a large world power in the UK and hey, shit has improved a lot. We’re pretty fond of Bill Clinton over here for reasons surrounding that. We’re also fucking tiny, and America has a general fondness for the Irish for pretty obvious reasons. I think we have a disconnect. If you agree Americans care about it because political incarceration and genocides are pretty big deals, then why shouldn't a prospective candidate use his first major party address to show it's actually on his radar? The jarring thing is that it was entirely missing from the speech, not that people differ on what to do. I don’t think by and large they care no, it’s a stick to beat China with who people don’t like China anyway because it’s taking their jobs. And for those who do ostensibly care, let’s offer them a trade on what playing hardball with China would mean materially and see if they’ll take that trade. You’re kind of whittling it down here. It would definitely be something I’d like to see, personally but I don’t think there’s the stomach to do what would actually be required to drag China into line on these issues. As Starlightsun mentioned any efforts to globally pressure China are pretty neutered with a US that is doing it in a haphazard unilateral manner. So we are really far apart on this issue. I think Americans prefer a candidate that at least mentions the state and problems with it, to the candidate that acts like it doesn't rate in important topics. For all Trump's incapacity to formulate a messaging and federal-power response to China, he at least shows up. I don't really think the discussion has to proceed to policy commitments in speeches like these. It sounds like you're all but saying it's important and Biden should've thus put it in his speech, but what it means in terms of policy wouldn't find pluralities behind any response. I'm still puzzled at your take on a country with a historical response to WW2 war crimes and Cold War-era atrocities, and now Chinese genocide and jailing whistleblowers and Hong Kong protesters just reduces to "it's a stick to beat China with." Maybe you're just really darn committed to an Americans-dont-really-care societal hypothesis.
In the sense that I don’t think people care, probably reasonably far apart, maybe not. People only care about China because it’s taking their jobs, and it’s the Uighurs used to justify their reasoning, similarly to people only ostensibly caring about black on black crime statistics when the issue of policing comes up.
Slightly generalising there of course. Not a phenomenon unique to Americans by any means, although I feel American exceptionalism amplifies things to a degree. The UK has a similar messiah complex and hence why we fucked off out of the EU.
To reiterate I think these are important issues to attempt to resolve, I’m just cynical that many people particularly care about the Uighurs and doubtful that people would take any of the hits you’d need in an actual pressuring of China to stick it out
|
On August 30 2020 08:37 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 07:51 IgnE wrote:
Not everything Danglars says is wrong. Why react in such a knee-jerk way to everything he says? Agree where he’s right and reiterate the differences. The “emphasis game” is boring. I can go to twitter for that. I just find it incredibly slimy to be taking the issues in China and making it all about Joe Biden. "Why hasn't Biden spoken about X yet?" We could all play that game ad infinitum if we wanted, perhaps that would be more entertaining for you.
This is a fair point. I didn’t listen to the Biden speech. I don’t know what Trump said about China. It seems fair to try and discern from his speech what his agenda will be, although I wouldn’t do that for a variety of reasons. But it is also fair to say that a speech is a speech, targeted for an audience at a specific time for tactical ends. I’m not sure I would actually expect Biden to say something about China. But China is important.
|
|
|
On August 30 2020 08:41 Danglars wrote:
The only two things you can legitimately ask about Biden in that speech is why he didn't talk about China and why he didn't talk about impeachment and Mueller. You can't really go down the line with X Y and Z topics. You literally don't notice and aren't important nationally or globally enough to be a part of a "first" major speech. And if he brought up Mueller you would be talking about Democrats can't let it go.
speaking of which, what's your opinion on the Senate Intelligence Committee finding regarding Russian involvement in the 2016 election?
|
Bit rich for us Americans to talk about China and human rights abuses when our administration intentionally separated children from parents for no real reason beyond enacting human suffering. Not to mention Jared Kushner's main goal of not using the initial coronavirus outbreak to create infrastructure because it was crushing states with Democratic majorities. And the lack of movement to remove Qualified Immunity.
Our house is currently burning down and our focus is on China of all places?
|
On August 30 2020 09:59 StalkerTL wrote:
Bit rich for us Americans to talk about China and human rights abuses when our administration intentionally separated children from parents for no real reason beyond enacting human suffering. Not to mention Jared Kushner's main goal of not using the initial coronavirus outbreak to create infrastructure because it was crushing states with Democratic majorities. And the lack of movement to remove Qualified Immunity.
Our house is currently burning down and our focus is on China of all places?
This is some low quality thinking. The key is that China cannot talk about our human rights abuses and we can't talk about theirs and every people can just go on as if they were their state and their state were a monad. I presume you would say the same thing about Rwanda or Sudan or the Holocaust. Now we can invoke Godwin's law and be done with this.
|
On August 30 2020 09:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 08:37 Starlightsun wrote:On August 30 2020 07:51 IgnE wrote:
Not everything Danglars says is wrong. Why react in such a knee-jerk way to everything he says? Agree where he’s right and reiterate the differences. The “emphasis game” is boring. I can go to twitter for that. I just find it incredibly slimy to be taking the issues in China and making it all about Joe Biden. "Why hasn't Biden spoken about X yet?" We could all play that game ad infinitum if we wanted, perhaps that would be more entertaining for you. This is a fair point. I didn’t listen to the Biden speech. I don’t know what Trump said about China. It seems fair to try and discern from his speech what his agenda will be, although I wouldn’t do that for a variety of reasons. But it is also fair to say that a speech is a speech, targeted for an audience at a specific time for tactical ends. I’m not sure I would actually expect Biden to say something about China. But China is important.
Yes China is important, and credit to Danglars for the relevant links. It's just that if we're going to tie it to the US election, let's be honest that the plight of the Uighurs is going to be far down the list in the minds of the majority of voters. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of "The China Virus" from Trump, but I don't know what Biden should be expected to say about China at this point in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
