- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
He meets the criteria to run for office, so he's running for office. Democrats don't need to like him for him to run as one. The real question will be his success in the polls. Trying to write off a group as hypocrites because a single individual self-identifies with that group is illogical, for it places an impossible burden of agency on an issue over which they have no agency.
Put another way, if a Republican were to Tweet, "The Holohoax never happened!1! #TRUMP2020", would that tweet immediately turn all Republicans into Holocaust deniers? No, because individuals have agency over their own actions, not over the actions of others.
My point exactly.
America lost in Vietnam. America half-lost in Korea. America is losing in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
America has a pretty shitty track record for war.
And yet it seems that nobody is giving a second thought to the consequences of the campaign of demonization against China.
If you do not know of China's expansionism then you must have been living on the moon, or maybe even Pluto for the past 30 years or more.
China's alleged expansionism involves asserting its power over lands and waters it traditionally claimed but which it lost during the period of Colonialist vandalism referred to by the Chinese as the Century of Humiliation following the Chinese loss in the Opium War. But I wouldn't call that expansionism, which implies a movement beyond oneself rather than a reclaiming of oneself.
You'd be better off citing One Belt, One Road. But still that would be a very uncharitable interpretation, precisely what one would be expected not to be able to see beyond following a lifetime of vicious propaganda. I say phooey:
America and Europe have spent centuries exploiting the developing world, holding them down and interfering in their internal affairs whenever they feel like it. China comes by and offers them the resources to build themselves up, to follow China's example, quite frankly, and hopefully rise out of the poverty which is a consequence of the centuries of neglect and resultant lack of infrastructure.
It is a congenital characteristic of the human psyche' to be free to follow their heart and pursue their dreams.
It was this free spirit that spawned the pioneers and entrepreneurs that made America the greatest nation on earth.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
People the world over will always strive for freedom of political and religion expression and it is wholly wrong of you to expect people to lie down and roll over so their masters can stamp their Jack-Boot on their throats.
At no point did I expect that. Are you daft? My argument is not that Hong Kong should surrender, I've made absolutely no comment whatsoever on the legitimacy of the protests. What I have argued is that the MSM is far too harsh on China, seemingly working to effectively, if not by intent, turn the American populace in favor of going onto the path of war with China. Is there a person on CD who thinks war with China would not mean the end of the human race?
The Hong Kong Issue
Why does every attempt at a discussion about the MSM anti-China propaganda machine turn into a discussion about the merits of Hong Kong? They've been in the streets for months and China has still not "cracked down", despite claims of a crack down for months in the media. It's still going on, growing more and more violent by the protesters, while the police keep firing tear gas and ink and a grand total of 11 bullets (as of Oct 31, see here.) This contrasts quite significantly with the many deaths reported in other protests currently active (see this report from Washington Post). And even though the one death immediately attributable to anybody was a "murder" (as the Chinese reportedly identified it) committed by protesters, they are still shown in the most sympathetic of lights.
I'm glad somebody is able to see that there's a difference between defending a country's human rights abuses and saying that our extreme hostility towards that country should be tempered by considerations of the planet-destroying consequences of that hostility getting out of hand.
Says who? American media?
China is one of the safest countries in the world, with a homicide rate of 0.62 per 100,000 people according to the UN numbers for 2016. America's rate was 5.35.
China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty in the last few years and plans on eliminating extreme poverty entirely by the early 2020s.
America has as many surveillance cameras as China, despite having a billion fewer people. This to preempt accusations that they're a surveillance state (which they probably are, but it should be seen in a comparative perspective lest we judge more harshly than is warranted).
The Western world is content with their fantasies that China is nothing but a hellish totalitarian dystopia. But is it true? We only hear the bad stories. When every single action is viewed through a lens of bigotry, fear, and with an expectation of utter inhumanity, then we are prone to taking moderately negative or even neutral developments as the pinnacle of evil.