Biden Defends China on Human Rights Record

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Who says we are and who says we should?

So what do you want to do?  Go to war?  Be the world's policeman?  Send our armies? Go it alone or shut them out by acting with our allies?  What happened to America First and getting out of foreign wars and entanglements? 

China has been a totalitarian state for 2000 years.  Before the communists, it was the whim of emperors that saw the extermination of Chinese people.  How about if we fix our own problems and make sure that does not happen here as our first priority.

 

I want a trade coalition and military coalition in the pacific to put a check on China's influence and to assure our allies. To put a check on both it's economic strong arming, and military bullying. 

 

[Tatetopa]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, you know, Biden is going to be president for four years. Then what us he and the family to do? 

Yes, they have to protect those 14 new copyrights including the one for voting machines that Ivanka Biden got while her dad was president.

Instead of playing my crooks are better than your crooks, lets get rid of them all.

[aztek]

it is not liberalism that builds strong economies, capitalism does that, china is doing everything right in that regard, they are light years away from what they were 30-40 years ago, totally different nation,  however there is always the other side of the stick, in everything, we see how liberalism does not help to create stronger nation on our own example,   china is absolutely correct about fighting it, however i do not see how treatment of minorities has anything to do with it, it has purely political roots, not economic.

[Tatetopa]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I want a trade coalition and military coalition in the pacific to put a check on China's influence and to assure our allies. To put a check on both it's economic strong arming, and military bullying

Very reasonable.  That sounds to me like pragmatically strengthening our own position rather than hoping we will influence China.

[odas]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The idea back then was that globalization and bringing international trade into China would inevitably liberalize the county.

And it seemed like that was working for a whole until Xi took power and decided a crack down was needed.

The push away from liberalization and back towards authoritarianism is why people are changing their minds on trade. 

The "least liveable" is silly and sounds more like baiting. 

Agree, the idea was good but coincidently this crosses our conversation about communism and what it is/was as opposed what it should be. There is no difference between Xi and any other authocrat, including Trump.

Again, I agree with your second statement about pushing away from liberalization and that IS the case under Trump too, as well as with Brexit AND China.

As for least livable, well, look up the data, health index, student debt, happiness of average population, old age security...the US lags way behind of all western countries.

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Very reasonable.  That sounds to me like pragmatically strengthening our own position rather than hoping we will influence China.

Ideally an economic coalition could be used for nations to stop trading with China when extreme rights violations are going on like with the Uyghurs. By opening other trade routes.

 

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, odas said:

Agree, the idea was good but coincidently this crosses our conversation about communism and what it is/was as opposed what it should be. There is no difference between Xi and any other authocrat, including Trump.

Again, I agree with your second statement about pushing away from liberalization and that IS the case under Trump too, as well as with Brexit AND China.

As for least livable, well, look up the data, health index, student debt, happiness of average population, old age security...the US lags way behind of all western countries.

Trump didn't systematically send millions of people to "reeducation camps" where people get raped and tortured. 

The U.S is vastly different where you are and with how much money you have. As someone in poverty, sure you probably would rather be in Europe. Middle-class I would stick to the U.S.

Edited February 20, 2021 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

it is not liberalism that builds strong economies, capitalism does that, china is doing everything right in that regard, they are light years away from what they were 30-40 years ago, totally different nation,  however there is always the other side of the stick, in everything, we see how liberalism does not help to create stronger nation on our own example,   china is absolutely correct about fighting it, however i do not see how treatment of minorities has anything to do with it, it has purely political roots, not economic.

I was using the term liberalism as classical liberalism.  Free markets and open trade is " classical liberalism"

[aztek]

Just now, spartan max2 said:

I was using the term liberalism as classical liberalism.  Free markets and open trade is " classical liberalism"

i disagree, liberalism and free markets are totally different concept, one is trade, other is social relations, even classic liberalism all about social structure, not economy and trade.

[odas]

6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Trump didn't systematically send millions of people to "reeducation camps" where people get raped and tortured. 

The U.S is vastly different where you are and with how much money you have. As someone in poverty, sure you probably would rather be in Europe. Middle-class I would stick to the U.S.

@Third Eye gave you a hint. Did you understand it?

Edit to add Especially the middle class has it good in other countries.

Edited February 20, 2021 by odas

[spartan max2]

38 minutes ago, odas said:

@Third Eye gave you a hint. Did you understand it?

Edit to add Especially the middle class has it good in other countries.

I try not to talk to him 

[spartan max2]

44 minutes ago, aztek said:

i disagree, liberalism and free markets are totally different concept, one is trade, other is social relations, even classic liberalism all about social structure, not economy and trade.

Quote

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America.[1][2][3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#:~:text=Classical liberalism is a political,an emphasis on economic freedom.&text=As a term%2C classical liberalism,century liberalism from social liberalism.

For example, John Locke.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by spartan max2

[aztek]

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#:~:text=Classical liberalism is a political,an emphasis on economic freedom.&text=As a term%2C classical liberalism,century liberalism from social liberalism.

For example, John Locke.

 

well we are not dealing with classic liberalism today, but you bring up an interesting point, i'll look into it and get back,   so far i do not see much in JL's ides about prospering  economy, teh whole idea of his on limits of accumulation is kind of hurt the whole idea of wanting to be more, thus drive of creativity,  but i'll read more. i promise it is not a fk off speech 

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

well we are not dealing with classic liberalism today, but you bring up an interesting point, i'll look into it and get back,   so far i do not see much in JL's ides about prospering  economy, teh whole idea of his on limits of accumulation is kind of hurt the whole idea of wanting to be more, thus drive of creativity,  but i'll read more. i promise it is not a fk off speech 

I was just referencing what I meant when I said liberalizing in my earlier post. I was using the classical liberal term.

Quote

The idea back then was that globalization and bringing international trade into China would inevitably liberalize the county.

 

And it seemed like that was working for a whole until Xi took power and decided a crack down was needed.

 

The push away from liberalization and back towards authoritarianism is why people are changing their minds on trade. 

The idea was that opening up trade with China would inevitably lead to them embracing more things like capitalism, civil rights, and democracy. 

It was working some until Xi took over and did a clap down because he saw what was happening. Sadly.

Just a miscommunication.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

How did it make it more difficult? WTH are you talking about? 
 

Biden is going to do exactly what Obama did. Nothing. Biden is a total sold out piece of trash who is more interested in making China the dominant world leader than he is worried about human rights. That’s why he is about to send our boys back to war, for no good reason. That’s why in the last 47 years Biden has accomplished two things. Making China richer, and putting more black people in prison. I wouldn’t leave any issue with Biden and his team. I wouldn’t put them in charge of shoveling my driveway after a snow storm. 
 

Trump was our only chance at taking China down a peg or two. He was well on his way to doing so economically. That’s why China couldn’t wait to get another establishment hack in office. 
 

 

Biden et al all think they can “deal with” China the same way they dealt with the USSR, some espionage, a bit of spying, the occasional assassination and the rare bit of crisis diplomacy but fundamentally just wait for the system to fall apart and for them to come begging to the table with a bit of Glasnost. 
 

China OTOH sat there watching the USSR making notes of what not to do. 

[odas]

22 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I try not to talk to him 

I hear you. He is ok though. Just a bit less polite that is all.

[aztek]

23 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I was just referencing what I meant when I said liberalizing in my earlier post. I was using the classical liberal term.

The idea was that opening up trade with China would inevitably lead to them embracing more things like capitalism, civil rights, and democracy. 

It was working some until Xi took over and did a clap down because he saw what was happening. Sadly.

Just a miscommunication.

i've read more on JL, he was fond of wealth distribution, and his thought on economy  and trade, was not much we can relate to today, 

he profited from slave trade, supported child labor,  his ideas have roots in capitalism, as well as what we'd call communism today, it was actually his idea that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, is based upon,  but enough  about him.

in case of china,  opening up trade is not what lead them to embrace capitalism, imo, it is because of capitalism  they were able to open the trade,  they did trade with communist countries before, my wife's parents tell me in 60s ussr was flooded with Chinese goods,  which by those standards were of the highest quality,  but only after  adopting capitalist model, they were able to open up global trade,

as  far as Xi, he is creating, an empire of 21sr century,  so he does everything to keep modern liberalism out,  modern liberalism\progressivism uses , or better word would be highjacks concepts ad democracy and civil rights,  which in reality means more rights for some groups at he cost of another, 

Edited February 20, 2021 by aztek

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, odas said:

I hear you. He is ok though.

Thanks... 

~

2 hours ago, odas said:

Just a bit less polite that is all.

Now that's not polite at all is it? 

The right palm fits the right sock @odas , that's the old ways of the old school... 

~

[odas]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Trump didn't systematically send millions of people to "reeducation camps" where people get raped and tortured. 

 

Let me be clear. What is happening to the Uighurs, according to all the information we have, IS a genocide. We need to help.

However, WHY is Saudi Arabia not in the forefront? UEA? QATAR? Pakistan? They do what they did when the bosnian muslims needed help-nothing. Schmucks. All of them.

All I am saying, as a Friend, be carefull. You are getting milked by Saudi Arabia and Israel for decades and got nothing in return. If you want to help the Uighurs, be sincere, honest and cautious. Instead to threaten China, talk, talk, talk.

[odas]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Thanks... 

~

Now that's not polite at all is it? 

The right palm fits the right sock @odas , that's the old ways of the old school... 

~

My socks are unifit.

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, odas said:

My socks are unifit.

Which are rejected stockings... If it weren't for the way shoes are generally made today, unifit is unfitting 

~

 

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, President Wearer of Hats said:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/joe-biden-suggests-chinas-uighur-genocide-is-part-of-different-cultural-norms/news-story/86a85d79ca830f6b7601a3638798c5ab
 

soyes, it looks like Biden didn’t OUTRIGHT say the Chinese treatment of Hong Kong, Taiwan etc was solely a result of “cultural differences”. However, I reiterate - no career politician should be so inept at reading a speech as to make it look like he’s excusing cultural genocide. 

I don't see that in there either.

The cultural norms comment was describing what the Chinese people expect of the Chinese government. It wasn't referencing an outside view. 

It's just his words being twisted. With so many still braying stolen election claims, this sort of garbage is bound to happen. This seems to be sensationalism to demonise Biden. 

He outright stated there will be repercussions for the behaviour. What he said is it won't be by force. With all the unrest in the middle east over the last couple decades, I would have thought a non violent solution would be welcomed. None of that seem to be making its way up through all the mud slung already. 

“Well, there will be repercussions for China, and he knows that. What I’m doing is making clear that we are going to reassert our role as spokespersons for human rights at the UN and other agencies that have an impact on their attitudes. China is trying very hard to become the world leader, and to get that moniker and to be able to do that, they have to gain the confidence of other countries. And as long as they are engaged in activity that is contrary to basic human rights, it’s gonna be hard for them to do that.”

He added, “But it’s much more complicated than that, I shouldn’t try to talk China policy in 10 minutes on television here.”

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

So what exactly do you think Biden is gonna do to influence China to stop being a horrific monster? 
 

I think we both know the answer to that. 

A non violent solution. If possible.

That should always be a first option.

Edited February 21, 2021 by psyche101

[acidhead]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

He added, “But it’s much more complicated than that, I shouldn’t try to talk China policy in 10 minutes on television here.”

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Ideally an economic coalition could be used for nations to stop trading with China when extreme rights violations are going on like with the Uyghurs. By opening other trade routes.

That would be ideal.  I'm not sure who competes with China cost wise, but I think a few countries do.  India might be one and certainly our EU allies could strengthen the effort.  China has been aggressively seeking partners with their belt and road initiative.  We might have to engage in more trade and agreements with Africa and Central and South America.