Biden team faced "tirade" at meeting with Chinese over America's poor human rights record in "Diplomatic humiliation"

[Trunkage]

"Look, you failed your family when I shot your dog and stole your car, I don't see why you expect me to give your car back or compensate you in any way, it's not my responsibility"

I thought laws were made as a deterrent. But hey, every man/country for itself...

I also say pointing out these crimes made the US is a great way to stop it from happening again. (Well, not great. But at least more effective than saying they deserved it.)

 

[Trunkage]

The moment they hit mexico they stop being refugees since mexico is safe, once they go on from there to try and get here they become economic migrants, so economic migrant rules should apply.

The first non-warzone you reach should be the place you stay at, and the worldwide community should pitch in to fund such an endeavor. It's much more efficient than having people do needless and dangerous traveling which ends up costing the world that much more and has worse results.

The US has like almost 20 million illegal immigrants already so I dunno what number you saw that made you think it's not enough.

You said mexico reacted to trump's policy and enacted something that in effect puts migrant kids at risk, I was just reacting to that with the natural thought everyone would have. Mexico is not powerless in how they react to things, they can handle being big boys and acting responsible.

economic migrant

1. a person who leaves their home country to live in another country with…

dictionary.cambridge.org

asylum seeker

1. someone who leaves their own country, often for political reasons or because…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[fOx]

I'm not sure that exonerates the Taliban per se. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks. They could have turned him over. They didn't. That's not even getting into the Taliban themselves.



Um, yes, with China.

It's not the same as the old Cold War in that trade is still going on, but it's still a Cold War in that it's diplomatic spats instead of war, and competing for influence.

Nah bruh, we're just now getting into the end of the honey moon phase, where we stop loving chinese money and cheap labor, and start realising that they've replaced us as the dominant world power.

This is where shit starts to get interesting (terrifying)

 

[Trunkage]

Nah bruh, we're just now getting into the end of the honey moon phase, where we stop loving chinese money and cheap labor, and start realising that they've replaced us as the dominant world power.

This is where shit starts to get interesting (terrifying)

I dont think we have done any of that... except they have probably already replaced the US. The CCP were able to figure out Capitalism works and then exploited it to their own ends. Marx apparently did something similar, exploited Capitalism and won big on the stock market

 

[McElroy]

Marx apparently did something similar, exploited Capitalism and won big on the stock market

Karl Marx was stinkin' poor monetarily for most of his life. Health-wise too later in his life. edit. Ah okay, "big" is relative here. He did a stock market bet that got him a profit.

 

[Trunkage]

Karl Marx was stinkin' poor monetarily for most of his life. Health-wise too later in his life.

He didn't keep the money. He didn't care for it. It's part of the ideology..... It's also a story I heard and would not be surprised if there wasn't any truth in it.

 

[McElroy]

He didn't keep the money. He didn't care for it. It's part of the ideology..... It's also a story I heard and would not be surprised if there wasn't any truth in it.

Spending money was a big part of his life. In fact, he normally spent everything he had. Then again if one's plan is to never get rich (and in fact die poor, depending on Engels' alms), he succeeded.

 

[fOx]

Spending money was a big part of his life. In fact, he normally spent everything he had. Then again if one's plan is to never get rich (and in fact die poor, depending on Engels' alms), he succeeded.

"I wish karl would stop writing about capital, and make some"
-his momma

 

[Hawki]

Nah bruh, we're just now getting into the end of the honey moon phase, where we stop loving chinese money and cheap labor, and start realising that they've replaced us as the dominant world power.

This is where shit starts to get interesting (terrifying)

China hasn't replaced the US though. It's rivalling it, but it hasn't replaced it.

The US still has the larger economy, and has far more military bases around the world. China can't project military might in the same way that the US can.

 

[Generals]

China is expanding asymetricly. People think that, because they aren't expanding their territory (currently) they aren't a major imperialist threat. This is inaccurate. They are practicing economic imperialism and expansionism. They're investing untold billions into infastructure in third world countries around the world, most notably in Africa. They are buying up land, stock, and corporations, in other countries all over the world, allowing them to integrate themselves into the economies of the world. This allows their government to influence foreign governments through economic pressure, and to use companies as mouth pieces for the CCP's propaganda.

I've said it before. I want a second cold war. It's preferable to the alternative: a world where china becomes the chief global super power militarily, economically, and culturally.

It's far worse than that in Africa. They don't just "invest", they lend money for infrastructure projects which offers them the ability to take ownership of the now/soon to be vital infrastructure or ask disproportianate compensation in exchange of their investments. I have heard of countries pretty much handing over their fishing rights in exchange of large useless roads. Consequence? The local banana republic president can claim he is investing in awesome roads that will somehow improve the country and local fishermen are even poorer than before because massive chinese boats are stripfishing their waters. China is doing what the Colonial powers did with Yuans instead of guns. They are not trying to integrate themselves in the economies they are trying to own them.

 

[Dreiko]

I dont think we have done any of that... except they have probably already replaced the US. The CCP were able to figure out Capitalism works and then exploited it to their own ends. Marx apparently did something similar, exploited Capitalism and won big on the stock market

Isn't the point of capitalism exploiting it to your own ends?

Like, is there some other goal there? I thought the idea was you make money and then get to do what you want with it. If what you want to do is use it to form a communist system, that's also still just capitalism that's letting you do that.

 

[Trunkage]

Isn't the point of capitalism exploiting it to your own ends?

Like, is there some other goal there? I thought the idea was you make money and then get to do what you want with it. If what you want to do is use it to form a communist system, that's also still just capitalism that's letting you do that.

Only if you're Ayn Rand. But then I don't think Capitalist have realised that regulations are necessary to make Capitalism function. At all. Which might you are right, and removing the barriers would finally help Capitalism self implode

Edit: I'll be less flippant about it. There are feedback loops in Capitalism. The MOST important one is you providing something that someone wants to buy. Otherwise, you fail, economically. You could say that it's in your self interest to make items, but the feedback is that you ONLY create something that value to someone else. Anything else is pointless

 

[Seanchaidh]

The MOST important one is you providing something that someone wants to buy.

Not exactly.

It's owning the means to produce something that someone wants to buy and hiring people to operate those means of production.

 

[tstorm823]

Looking at wikipedia (take with grain of salt), you might be right

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Asylum in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2017 is the latest listed on Australia. Taking the average over the years, we take in 15Kish people. Which is similar to Trump policies which reduced refugee intake to 18kish (and this year 15 but this may have already been rolled back). Noting that it hasn't been this low before.

On top of that, the US number is needlessly opaque, because the US immigration system is trash. The whatever tens of thousands number of "refugees", be it 15k or 30k, is a defined number of people who are permanently moved to the US. This number is kept separate from asylees, which are allowed temporary residence for purpose of asylum.

 

[Silvanus]

Such as..?

The CFR, the ASPI, Chinese researchers from Nankai University, the BBC, Amnesty. Several of these feature in-depth reports with their own citations. We also have the leaked first-hand documents published by the ICIJ (see below), and the testimony of every single escapee so far.

This is speculative.

It's as "speculative" as pretty much any mass repression or massacre taking place within a dictatorship. That is to say, attested by numerous escapees and survivors, leaked documents, and anybody conducting independent work in the area; and only endlessly denied by corporate-apologists or those in the direct employ of the dictator.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The CFR,

I did a quick ctrl-f for the word 'genocide', and all references appear to be "Mike Pompeo said so" or "the Biden administration agreed", which is basically the opposite of what you were intending by suggesting that it's not just shills of the State Department saying so. Would you like to review your other sources to make sure they don't share that pattern before I look at them?

It's as "speculative" as pretty much any mass repression or massacre taking place within a dictatorship.

It's extremely speculative. We might come to the opposite conclusion based on similar reasoning from population sizes; given that the numbers of people involved are less per capita than the prison population of the United States even if we include Xinjiang and that there is likely to be an amount of "normal" (for lack of a better word) crime in any country, there may not be a significant number of political prisoners at all, because after all there is likely to be an amount of people incarcerated for more mundane reasons, and that could conceivably be basically everyone in prison. Do you think that's right? If you don't, then you should see the problem with the reasoning you employed and that I called 'speculative'. Because that's what it is. You need more than numbers and "surely...".

That is to say, attested by numerous escapees and survivors, leaked documents, and anybody conducting independent work in the area;

You keep using words like "only" and "anybody" that I very much doubt you have any solid foundation to so haphazardly deploy.

leaked documents

I don't think I can take seriously any source that approvingly cites Adrian Zenz or the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation given what I've seen of their work.

 

[Trunkage]

Not exactly.

It's owning the means to produce something that someone wants to buy and hiring people to operate those means of production.

I'm pretty sure hiring people is very unnecessary. If Bezos could make the jobs all robots, he would

 

[Trunkage]

On top of that, the US number is needlessly opaque, because the US immigration system is trash. The whatever tens of thousands number of "refugees", be it 15k or 30k, is a defined number of people who are permanently moved to the US. This number is kept separate from asylees, which are allowed temporary residence for purpose of asylum.

Well, I think Australia doesn't report temporary residence either. I understand that you have to draw distinctions. I dont know how many we would have.

Nor are the refugees we've had locked up for years been counted because we don't want to process them... because it's likely we would legally have to let them in

Side tour: An old city I used to live in got cranky when one temporary residenced family was deported because they were well liked in the community. And to understand why that's a suprise to me... they were generally super conservative and said my girlfriend at the time couldn't visit (in case we had marriageless sex.) When I was there, they were pretty anti-immigrant... (despite having immigrants from Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Canada and England.) Hopefully, they've grown up a bit.

 

[Dreiko]

Only if you're Ayn Rand. But then I don't think Capitalist have realised that regulations are necessary to make Capitalism function. At all. Which might you are right, and removing the barriers would finally help Capitalism self implode

Edit: I'll be less flippant about it. There are feedback loops in Capitalism. The MOST important one is you providing something that someone wants to buy. Otherwise, you fail, economically. You could say that it's in your self interest to make items, but the feedback is that you ONLY create something that value to someone else. Anything else is pointless

See I'd consider using your capability to make something of value others want the method through which you're exploiting capitalism, since you can do that while still staying ahead. The only wrong thing is to just make some money and close up shop and go burn it on drugs and hookers or something.

You can still spend some money to remain solvent and keep making profits and do what you want fully with the rest. I mean, China does actually build those useless african roads and whatnot too right? They don't just take the money and run away. So yeah you do pay some cost and provide something of value, but you still come out ahead afterwards. That's what you're supposed to be doing.

The real issue is that value is subjective, cause a road in a first world country is invaluable but when your people are too poor to even own bicycles in some cases that equation changes.

 

[Kae]

Cuba and Vietnam? Really?

Okay, let's start with Cuba. I'm aware of Baptista and Castro and all that, but the US hasn't blockaded Cuba since 1962, the EU is Cuba's largest trading partner, and Cuba survived through the Cold War via subsidies via the USSR. You've also conveniently left out Cuba's human rights record. You could make the argument that normalizing relations would help, but relations with China have been normalized for decades, it didn't make China more liberal. Cuba beats the US in a number of areas (e.g. life expectancy per capita), but Cuba isn't some worker's paradise. There's a reason why even now, people are leaving the island.

As for Vietnam, again, that's a simplification. I'm going to give you the credit of assuming that you know of the history of Vietnam in the 20th century (French colony, then divided between North and South, Vietnam War occurs, North wins, massive Vietnamese diaspora as a result), but I don't see how anyone can claim the moral high ground in that conflict. The North was supported by China and the USSR, the South by the USA and its allies. However, Vietnam is doing much better than Cuba. Paradoxically, it's seen as a key US ally. And a lot of the increases in wealth came from liberalizing the economy, even if the state still has a lot of control.

Frankly, the US is insanely capitalist to me, but those above examples you gave aren't exactly cheerleaders for communism or socialism.

So?

The point of mentioning them was was about revolutionary movements that succeeded and the great cost that success had, in this both of of these countries are great examples and the different ways in which they've had to compromise their ideals are a great example of this, if you ask the Vietnamese they do consider themselves communists just market communists and while we could sit here and discuss the incredibly complicated history of how it got to that point that simply misses the point or rebuke the obvious lie that the USA hasn't interfered with Cuba's economy's since 1962, I meant that's just denial of a flat out provable reality which simply googling American Cuban trade relationships will give you so many academic papers that prove it as false that I'm not even going to bother responding to that further, sure it's not a flat out trade blockade but it's still imperial economic interference that goes on to this day.

In any case my point was ultimately not about Vietnam or Cuba so there's little point in discussing them as it adds little to nothing to the conversation other than distract from what I was actually saying, my point is that American Imperialism has been so abhorrent, violent and atrocious that to claim that they have some sort of moral high ground over China is absolutely absurd and hypocritical, it's the pot calling the kettle black as you Americans say, if you're going to criticize China that's fine they have done horrible things, but don't for a second claim that America is better, not after what they have done to México, Perú, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Bolivia and many, many other countries, seriously they're easily one of the worst empires that has existed throughout the entire history of humanity.