If Xi's doing it, why can't Trump?

If Xi's doing it, why can't Trump?

Other urls found in this thread:

chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
nytimes.com/2018/03/01/world/asia/china-xinjiang-rfa.html
foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02/chinese-police-are-secretly-demanding-personal-information-from-french-citizens-uighurs-xinjiang/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism)
abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-orders-states-congressional-map-redrawn/story?id=52532391
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov
independent.co.uk/environment/geopolitical-consequences-of-melting-arctic-ice-russia-canada-us-northern-sea-route-shipping-natural-a8229306.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Imagine being some bogan constantly watching a foreign country's news so you can post screenshots of epic headlines on Sup Forums

I want off this wild ride.

imagine being a dr*mpftard in 2016+2

>B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but O-OBUMMER is going to declare himself King, le King Nigger xD
>Democracy? wtf I want to make LIBKEKS KEKOLDS suffer xD haha MAGA amirite fellow PEDES?

>implying elites will allow a brainlet to do a coup

Trump Empire SOON

Looks AWESOME! cant wait!

yes, but does he believe in GOD? :DDD

t. hillbilly

Xi is competent, Trump is not. He's a clown.

A couple of reasons
Main ones being
>Congress wont pass it
>Xi just purged his ministry and cabinets of their elite
>An entire armed country who takes freedom, liberty and the constitution very seriously

Having Xi be President indefinitely is nothing but bad news for China in the long term anyway, a step like that works if you're respected, but Xi's feared, advisers and high up officials will be less likely to speak up against him and the potential for him to make political missteps will increase. It'll be like Hitler right before Barbarossa all over again.

This

Sup Forums is a disease of the mind

>Xi just purged his ministry and cabinets of their elite
You have absolutely no source for this claim because it is a total lie.

Kill yourself you shill

>when you hate melanin so much you rather go full dictatorship

Who do you think is behind trump?

Would you rather be ruled by the corporate shadow jew government or an autocratic Trump?

I honestly dont know at this point

Autocratic Trump would be Pinochet 2. No thanks.

Killing commies and leftists would be okay as long as Trump and Sup Forums died in the process.

The CIA?
Those fucks are always behind shit like this.

Trump isn't against lobbying so we are controlled by corporate mecha jews anyways. I think it's funny that Conserveratives think Bernie works for the jew when all of his policies directly conflict with jewish interests

Bernie is a socialist Jew, so just like any secular self-hating jew with above average IQ.

...

>wants to tax corporations heavily
>Wants to prohibit lobbying
>Pro unions and other methods to keep jews in line
Trump honestly wouldn't mind if robber barons were a thing again. He'd just praise them and congratulate them on their amazing success and ability to out compete their competittors

It happened not even a fortnight ago, literally look up "Corruption crackdown Xi Jinpin" and there'll be thousands of articles about how he underwent a corruption crackdown, investigated thousands and arrested about 100 people, most of which were political elites Xi seen as rivals and a threat to his leadership.

Part of the reason of him making his terms indefinite is to cover his own ass against all those politicians families he's just pissed off.

>implying Trump won't suicide, be impeached, get a heart attack, or be shot before he can finish even 1 term

Hell no! He'll become a marthyr for rednecks. Imagine them replacing Jesus for Trump.

Because Xi CAN do it. He is the leader of all 4 wings of china.that gave him the absolute power to do this

The bankers who saved him from bankruptcy

sure why not, that country is already a flaming bag of dog shit, mind as well give it a good stomping.

meh, Pence would be worse for Americans themselves in terms of policy, and far more effective at screwing them, but he'd back out of most of Trump's foreign policy bs, he'd be better for us.

It doesn't matter if cheeto becomes a white supremacist che guevara enough boomers will die off in the next decade Trumpsters won't recover from demographic change. Two decades from now Chicanos will be kingmakers in American elections and then we can all breath easy.

Hopefully it doesn't degenerate into some kind of racist civil war. I don't want to have to take in all the whites as refugees.

Xi is more hated than Trump. Were he to do this, I kid you not, expect to see international brigades mobilizing in Canada and Mexico as a way to enter America and help the undoubtedly large rebellion.

I really hate that instead of talking about the fact that Xi Jingping and China are now totally authoritarian dictatorships moving further from democracy, everyone is talking about Trump.

Human rights are one of the greatest inventions (invention, not discovery) of the West, and nobody even seems to be even talking about them anymore, let alone defending them. We only ever seem to talk about the newest dumb shit that Trump has said, and it's allowing the liberal world order that America worked so hard to create to just crumble away while we waste time and energy on non-issues.

>Two decades from now Chicanos will be kingmakers in American elections and then we can all breath easy.
Not so fast

...

Totally disagree with Trump here, he's just praising authoritarian military action against civilians.

I also agree with Trudeau, the fact that in a few years over 70% of Chinese will be middle class, and their economy is still growing, along with their power and influence, it is admirable. I don't like their government, system, methods, etc, but you have to respect and admire what they've done in 50 years on some level.

m8 pls. Nobody with a functioning brain has taken American rhetoric about yoomin rites seriously for decades. Even those who are too young to remember Henry Kissinger's war crimes in southeast Asia have been exposed to American foreign policy's true nature through revelations about Guantanamo Bay, CIA black sites, and the USAFs lies about how accurate their smart bombs and drones actually are.
Trump deserves nothing but plaudits for finally dropping the pretence and openly telling autocracies that America will no longer tell them how to govern their countries.

The difference is that Trudeau is not a narcisist

yeah yeah I know, human rights are a joke etc etc

But the fundamental world order since WW2 based on the United Nations and an international criminal court, while often toothless, at least gives a framework of norms that gives leaders/nations pause when attemping to go full genocide/slaughter/internment camps. Yes it's pretty ineffective, yes it's biased towards America, but at least it's an attempt to give all people protections from those in power.

Without it, we will slide back to allowing those in authority to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect powerful nation's interests. The Liberal world order isn't perfect but at least it is a step forward in allowing all people life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Who was thinking the US is weak?

Mate we are clearly going to be seeing open air child brothels and crazy strongmen within the next 20 years.

The writing is on the wall.

You're joking but if the current world order continues to decline then yeah I don't see why we wouldn't see more misery in the world.

Some humanitarian missions could just be considered a waste of time and money without organisations calling for action to be taken on ethical grounds. And if those organisations are just left to go bankrupt, there'll be nobody with any connections to say "hey lets stop this guy kidnapping children".

Let us hope our countries can protect us. I have higher hopes for you lads than us honestly, when the US falls we probably will too.

I'm wondering where to go, thinking of europe.

Moscow obviously

I'm not super worried about our countries, I'm more concerned for the rest of the world who have no tradition of government respecting their people.

Although I do think the UK is sliding into being a 1984-esque socially immobile hellhole.

Australia SHOULD be ok, we have a fairly good culture of egalitarianism, but we're also apathetic as fuck and might allow our government to rape us before we realise we're being boned.

That's what happened in Canada, so many immigrants

Canada seems to be doing fine.

Because even if trump got rid of term limits, he still has to go through an election every 4 years.

And as far as I know, no other president but FDR even managed a third term.

That's because China has never been a democracy, nothing to lose really.

America is the oldest continuous democracy there is.

That may be, but there's a lot of features about American politics that are distinctly unlike most modern democracies.

What do you want countries to do about china? Any condemnation of them on liberal grounds won't phase them as they are not only not liberal, but they are staunchly anti-liberal (see: chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation). The universal currency of international relations is power, and the west simply doesn't have to power (or if it does, the will to use it) to police governmental changes in china. The liberal world order was merely a manifestation of US primacy, which is currently in decline; expect to see a likewise decline in democracy, human rights, and international law world wide as these were all built on the prestige of the US, not on some force of history or the natural progression of man.

>most modern democracies
Like what for example?

The US is quite old, and any differences from modern democracies is that some of US institutions are a little outdated, but they still work.

I just wish that the people of the west were focusing on and really taking in the fact that China, who is becoming more powerful, are truly not democratic and do not share our values. I want people to take in the reality of China and oppose them on an ideological level, not some "they're fuckin chinks and eat cats" level.

Everyone's outraged at Trump because he's talking about authoritarianism (which he'll never achieve) but nobody is outraged at China, which will become a world leader, taking more steps toward total authoritarianism.

And I do think Western countries can influence China, primarily by influencing through soft power, attracting their wealthy people who feel unsafe/unsteady in China and ensuring that China doesn't have undue influence in our countries. We need to ensure that Chinese students feel free and unwatched in our countries so they can actual engage in critical thinking. Remember that Xi studied in America, and most Chinese leaders' kids live and study in the West too. So even if we can't directly turn them into a democracy that way, perhaps we can influence them enough so they have a soft spot for western tendencies and adopt some of our ways over time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

If you had accepted this, that poster wouldn't have been created 2 decades later

>no source besides "News Corp Australia Network", which doesn't ring a bell
no care

>And I do think Western countries can influence China, primarily by influencing through soft power, attracting their wealthy people who feel unsafe/unsteady in China and ensuring that China doesn't have undue influence in our countries. We need to ensure that Chinese students feel free and unwatched in our countries so they can actual engage in critical thinking. Remember that Xi studied in America, and most Chinese leaders' kids live and study in the West too. So even if we can't directly turn them into a democracy that way, perhaps we can influence them enough so they have a soft spot for western tendencies and adopt some of our ways over time.
That is what we have been doing. At least, that's what our schools are SUPPOSED to be doing.

Wrong war dude.

Did you know North Korea helds elections every few years? Yeah, that could be america as well.

Yeah but we all let the chinese government spy on the students and let them push their own propaganda via Confucius institutes, which we should allow them to build, but not decide the curriculum.

>implying trump isn't the definition of "elite"

>And I do think Western countries can influence China, primarily by influencing through soft power,
Doesn't work when they have their information/security control apparati on panopticon status. The Chinese people who can read English and go out of their way to wander onto the English-speaking parts of the internet are heavily monitored and essentially form a trade with the regime -- they keep quiet about what they're reading and they're not harassed. What happens when they're harassed? They get treated like citizens of Xinjiang, where your community sees 200,000 CCTVs installed, facial tracking, biometric data, the whole shazzam:

>China threatening American citizens who have family in Xinjiang
nytimes.com/2018/03/01/world/asia/china-xinjiang-rfa.html

>China threatening French citizens who have family in Xinjiang
foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02/chinese-police-are-secretly-demanding-personal-information-from-french-citizens-uighurs-xinjiang/

Believe me, I have no love for Muslims because I think their religion is backwards. But that's just an excuse for a police state. The adult thing to do is reform Islam like we reformed Judaism (we as in Germany and the USA, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism) and reformed Christianity (northern Europe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism) to bring it up to date with modern society.

That being said, the West isn't even really in the equation here, even if we like to pretend we're important. China is courting Indochina, Pakistan, and Africa. They provide FDI and then bankrupt the country and move in, which is a neocolonial practice. They build asbestos-ridden hospitals and charge the Africans for handjobs. China doesn't give a salty fuck about soft power, only economic power

>wouldn't have been created 2 decades later
Learn to read English Guillermo.

>Australia SHOULD be ok, we have a fairly good culture of egalitarianism, but we're also apathetic as fuck and might allow our government to rape us before we realise we're being boned.
Aren't you fucked for decades regarding internet?
New Zealand proves that you can have good internet and being far away is not an excuse.

>They provide FDI and then bankrupt the country and move in,
As they are trying to do with Canada and Australia, we need to cut ties with them.

Only way to do that is take traitorous businessmen out of the equation. Maybe that's a possibility in Canada/Aus but there's no way on god's green earth American politicians will stop sucking corpcock

Did you knew that Russia has elections?

No it doesn't. It puts up a show pretending to be elections.

Lack of a viable third party and the first-past-the-post system come to mind. You also have gerrymandering as a very common practice. There's probably more to say, but the point I am making is that the way your politics are construed disadvantages the majority of the population and makes it almost impossible to bring down any party with a sitting president.

Thats what he said

I'd bet their elections are fair. It's just that Putin is extremely popular.

But American elections are not centralized. The Federal government doesn't run the booths, but the local communities.

I would not be in favor of an end to term limits, but this wouldn't be the end of america. We didn't have term limits until the 60s or 70s i think.

who /moving/ here?

>I would not be in favor of an end to term limits, but this wouldn't be the end of america. We didn't have term limits until the 60s or 70s i think.
1947

Not the guy you're talking to but
>Lack of a viable third party
In most parliamentary democracies, third parties still act as spoilers in an undemocratic way. For example, most of them still have 2 large parties on the scale of 30/30 instead of 50/50. Those 30/30 parties need to collaborate and form coalitions with other parties AFTER the election occurs, which is a crapshoot from the perspective of a voter. Take a British election for example, the Conservatives didn't pull a majority, so they had to resort to an alliance with one or two other parties in order to pass legislation. They chose the DUP, which is a Northern Irish Christtard party. The average Tory voter did not vote for them, but now legislation is held hostage by the whims of some evangelist fuckos.

That's actually quite undemocratic for the voter, even if it looks democratic on the surface. And Britain is no exception here, as this sort of thing happens in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, etc. too

>the first-past-the-post system come to mind
Britain also has this, are they undemocratic? Disregarding what I just said about coalitions, of course.

>You also have gerrymandering as a very common practice.
You're right about this, it's minmaxing on an unaccountable upper level. An idealistic solution would be to have a neutral third party designating the zones, but due to its critical importance you can't just have one level of oversight. You'd need multiple rungs to ensure that our two behemoth parties don't play the game of regulatory capture. This would be one area that third/fourth/fifth/X parties would be better off, in the sense of trust-busting. Individually they don't have the institutional inertia to bribe officials, which reduces the amount of bribing hypothetically, which should reduce regulatory capture

I can't wait for America to be more like Mexico. It's gonna be great.

Not everyone who follows foreign politics comes to the conclusion that Sup Forums is the cradle of wisdom.

Democracy is no different from a dictatorship most of the rime.

In partliamentary systems, you still have wide coalitions that in essence work like a two party system.

The US has two parties that are composed of various caucuses. I do think coalitions are better than the caucuses thing that we have here, but I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that american politics are that black and whie.

>first past the post
This isn't exclusive to the US, or to presidentialism. It's more of an anglo thing actually.

>Gerrymandering
France also has a similar system, but it isn't as gerrymandered as the US.


Like I said, the US needs to update some of its institutions. The US constitution was one of the most progressive papers of the 18th century, but it's a little out of date.

Gerrymandering is already starting to be dealt with.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-orders-states-congressional-map-redrawn/story?id=52532391

Bipartisanship can be fixed by moving away from first past the post and into proportional voting. But I don't know how long that may take.

For now, caucuses within the parties will have to do.

>elections are fair
The most popular opposition candidate gets killed or arrested in almost every single election.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov

I don't see the west turning outright authoritarian, at worst they'll become oligarchical republics. What will happen is that liberalism will largely become a western meme. A multipolar world order means that the west will go full-on realpolitik to preserve what power it has left at the cost of their ideological legitimacy. Most of the world will start acting out their illiberal tendencies without the west to stop them, Taiwan will be annexed barring burger protection, and Japan/Korea will be at risk of reverting into authoritarianism as their precarious situation creates demand for heightened security.

So should I move to Europe, America or stay in Canada to weather the storm?

Unless Trump goes batshit and decides to annex Canada, I think staying in Canada would be the best option. Similar to the U.S, it's protected by two oceans and resource-rich, but your political situation is much more stable and functional than ours.

Any soft power that Australia or most other western countries can levy is overwhelmed by the sharp power which china can levy economically. The problem with the west's ability to oppose china ideologically is two-fold—china isn't an ideological state, and citizens in the west have become less ideologically enamoured with liberalism. Unlike the cold war, which pitted two universalist ideologies against each other, China is simply a plutocracy/aristocracy that merely adheres to political principles of power and stability. There is no propaganda about "making the world chinese" or spreading chinese values, they act only in a way to secure governmental and national power or in a way to enrich themselves and satisfy their notions of national prestige. This is something America has traditionally been very poor at handling as the American people find it repugnant to view world politics as a game of power and not of principle. Preemptive action in the interest of the balance of power is not something America can do without cloaking it in an ideological principle such as "making the world safe for democracy", which is difficult to justify against a state which is mostly minding its own business. It is also contradictory to the ideological tenets of liberal world order and would severely undermine the legitimacy of the US' benevolent hegemony/"rules based order". The second issue is that of a loss of ideological fire at home. The people of the west nowadays tend to care more about the economic status of their countries than some abstract notion of long term global power shifts or spreading the gospel of human rights. With a polity which cares more about the %GDP growth than the position of liberal values outside of their country, any explicit action against China is going to be difficult for a government to justify. As to whether liberal values will spread on their own? Unfortunately, i just don't they are as attractive to other people as we tend to think they are.

>Similar to the U.S, it's protected by two oceans and resource-rich,
Soon to be more rich due to global warming, but it doesn't have a military to defend itself against China. Even when we're looking at NATO, you have Europeans going full retard with PESCO. PESCO would absolutely be the worst thing for Canada because it means NATO effectively dissolves and leaves it out in the cold. The US can handle itself against China, but countries that can't or won't form military/economic blocs will be uniquely susceptible to its influence. Australia might be in the same boat too

IMO if Euros move forward with PESCO, its in the USA's best option to coordinate with Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK, and maybe even South America to form a new defensive alliance. Not toward the goodwill of Canada or anything, but rather acknowledging that having a Chinese outpost on our northern border would be like North/South Korea.

So uh, as an individual would I be better off in the states?

If you own land that has oil on it under the surface, or would thaw out leading to new trade routes, you should stay in Canada

independent.co.uk/environment/geopolitical-consequences-of-melting-arctic-ice-russia-canada-us-northern-sea-route-shipping-natural-a8229306.html

If PESCO replaces NATO and Canada doesn't find a solution (or cripples under Chinese pressure), I would move to the USA

The US economy is highly stratified now though, there's like no middle class jobs and the rest are going to die to automation. So if you move here you have 2 choices, work a shitty lower class service job (like teacher) or be highly skilled in engineering/programming/fields that resist automation. Basically all of these options are fucked, no mincing it

Haha thankfully I am an engineer so I have some options at least.

I was considering europe or the US, might try to get citizenship in one of them over the next few years just in case.

The problem is the combination of nonviable third parties and the first-past-the-post system makes it so that only the Democrats and Republicans are the only options. A voter caucus can, in a relatively short time, effectively hold a party hostage to their demands, despite not actually representing the entirety or even the majority of the base. And the base, while disagreeing with many of the party's current policies, will nevertheless maintain their support, either from a misguided sense of loyalty or due to an "anyone but the other party" mentality. Otherwise, they will abstain.

Sure, there's the possibility of undesirable coalitions, but third parties are on the whole better for a democracy. They encourage greater voter participation and can act as a check against a highly unpopular party dominating any particular branch of government. Just look at how much difference the mere existence of the NDP has made in our politics. It encouraged the introduction of universal healthcare and has generally been a moderating influence on the federal level.

Economic power can only go so far as an instrument of political influence. It also may sound cliché, but money can't buy everything. The fact is that American hegemony has largely existed because a sufficient number of people and influential countries have bought into its values, and in exchange receive favored positions within the global hierarchy.

Moreover, the fact is that China very much interested in spreading Chinese values, with "Confucian Institutes" and other state-sponsored cultural initiatives being a case in point.

>Boris Nemtsov
>popular
He was loser from Yeltsin team who was kicked out.
Navalny is better example and he's still alive though his brother is jailed and he himself has sentence and legally can't run for elections.

>despite not actually representing the entirety or even the majority of the base. And the base, while disagreeing with many of the party's current policies, will nevertheless maintain their support, either from a misguided sense of loyalty or due to an "anyone but the other party" mentality. Otherwise, they will abstain.

There is similar mechanic with coalitions in parliamentary systems, where smaller parties betray their constituents to make a coalition, and effectively becoming subservient to the bigger coalition members. This exactly happened in Germany.

Also, talking about "holding the party hostage." If a parliamentary system doesn't reach a coalition, they hold the entire country hostage. To the point where elections have to be re-done (something I find undemocratic), or someone has to bend over and take the fall so that the country can move on. Case in point, Germany.

A party in the US, works similarly to a parliamentary coalition in the sense, that some level of compromise has to happen. At the same time, a party isn't able to pass whatever the fuck they want, as they have to appease to numerous causes and moderates/extremists.

Caucuses, and the diversity of political leaning within parties, is what lead to Obamacare surviving the GOP dominated senate.
I find that a plus. I would rather have caucuses and political compromise, at least within the party, than having just straight up hard liners.

LIke I said before, I do consider multi-party system to be better. But I wouldn't call the US undemocratic or completely polarized. there is plenty of diversity within the parties.

I think it is important to consider why these people brought into the ideas of democracy and, to a lesser extent, liberalism. In my personal opinion, i think a lot of the reason is due to the prestige democracy and liberalism won from winning the second world war and the cold war. Especially after the cold war, there was a view that liberal capitalism and democratic governance were to only path to a wealthy and stable society—there was a great deal of prestige in these ideas. This prestige that liberal democracy won, however, was based not on an ideological in the intrinsic RIGHTNESS of liberal values, but rather on the USEFULNESS of liberal values. What China is doing is challenging that view, by showing that state capitalism and oligarchical governance are legitimate—and highly effective—methods to achieving wealth and security. China's success is adding prestige and legitimacy towards this form of government, which will sway those countries which merely valued the usefulness of liberalism as a means of economic success. If the US world order is rescinded, or no longer totally dominant, then the attractiveness of being higher in its hierarchy will be moot. Of states, i'd really only label pic related as ideologically committed to liberalism. All others follow it for it's prestige.

He's a balding senile old retard while Xi is the vanguard of the proletariat, that's why.

Communism will be victorious, join the revolution or die defending some Jewish landlords' ultramansion for minimum wage.

>or die defending some Jewish landlords' ultramansion for minimum wage.
As opposed to
>die defending some Chinese landlords' ultramansion for minimum wage.
?

>Communism will be victorious
user, communism in China is killed a very long time ago.

>read thread
>Aussies and Mexicans are the sensible ones
What a time we live in

It's a rather difficult issue, user, Pence being worse for Americans themselves would eventually affect us in the end. America doing bad is bad news for Mexico, and vice versa. Remember the 2008 and 1994 crises? So, you could say that without Trump we could get rid of the short term consequences, but the long term consequences with Pence would end up biting us in the arse. Then again, I really don't see how Pence could be worse, even if he would be more effective in passing laws. See the steel tariffs as an example of just how retarded Trump can be, and he has been making equally stupid decisions the entire past year.

ahahah seething

They have capitalism, yes (yet the government's influence on economy is still very strong). The things why I don't like China is that they block internets and no other media but Chinese official can be present there. Also they have some Stalin-like laws. So China still has a sort of communism.

Imagine this except you sit in an expensive office in the capital and unironically believe you're playing an important role in shaping the future; you are now imagining western media.

heh