Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The "lazy poor" meme has always been window dressing. I have a relative who worked for the government all his life and thinks that everyone who wants to be well-off should just get a government job. Never mind that this is nuts; it reflects the mentality.
This is the land of opportunity. If you don't have access to it, you have not put in the effort to better yourself. If you fall on the lower end of the scale due to circumstance or ill luck, it's not our job to prop you up. The economy is a sorting hat that elevates the worthy and leaves the unworthy behind. If you are unwilling or unable to take advantage of it, you don't deserve anyone's help.
This is something that people genuinely believe.
I think it has a lot to do with the Protestant mentality of many people in the U.S. and some Anglo-Saxon countries, where too much emphasis is placed on work, even when a person is poor for reasons beyond his own control.
I think the question is implicitly whether you believe the government has a duty to provide a minimum of decent living and prosperity for its people. Some people, implicitly or otherwise, don't want the government to give money to people they consider undeserving even if they themselves would benefit or not really be adversely effected by it.
So how do people think Bidens gonna treat china, russia and Best Korea, respectively
A lot of people in my circle are talking about how biden's going to be super soft on China because of his son's business connections but then again Trump also went on and on about how jinnie The pooh was a good friend of his and his denunciations of China were basically all bark and no bite so I don't think Biden is going to be any different on that front if he is going to be soft on them but he's definitely going to be harder on North Korea and russia compared to Trump
Taichibana-san are you really a traitor?From my understanding, Biden will pretty much be forced to continue the trade war with China. He will likely be a lot tougher on Russia.
I don't know about Best Korea, but I expect a business as usual strategy on North Korea.
Actually, North Korea is one of the very few areas where Biden could benefit from following Trump's example in being more open to negotiations with Kim Jong Un. The "ignore until they stop being evil" strategy is obviously not working, and treating them as illegitimate seems foolhardy at this point in time. The US needs to acknowledge that North Korea is a considerable local power with nuclear capabilities, and work from there.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI think it has a lot to do with the Protestant mentality of many people in the U.S. and some Anglo-Saxon countries, where too much emphasis is placed on work, even when a person is poor for reasons beyond his own control.
You also have the American Dream (as previously mentioned), a focus on laissez-faire capitalism, and my own personal Berserk Button, "The Prosperity gospel
", which holds that if you're actually in God's good graces, you'll be rewarded materially, but if you're poor, then obviously God hates you and wants you to suffer - despite Christ himself teaching the exact fucking opposite!
The "soft on China" thing is just more right-wing conspiracy amplification, but designed to play on left-wing fears as well. I can bet you every bar of gold in Fort Knox that no Republican cares about human rights abuses or about the independence of Taiwan. They might care about the rights of Christians because of course they do, but that's as far as it goes.
No, Republican fear-mongering has to do with the boogeyman of the trade deficit: China is supposedly stealing our money and (depending on whom you ask) our intellectual property, putting red-blooded American businesses at a disadvantage. The IP thing aside (that happens to be Accidentally Accurate on their part), basic trade theory shows that deficits are reflected back with cheaper goods and international investment, making a zero-sum game. They aren't actually harmful. Further, U.S. businesses are only too happy to export jobs so they can take advantage of cheap international labor, yet you don't hear Republicans talking about that. Oh, and the Chinese are all Dirty Communists, so we must oppose them ideologically.
Democrats, on the other hand, make much of human rights abuses, which is a much better argument and is rooted in actual reality, but the mistake that the left makes is in believing that we can or should do something about it, at least directly. China is a sovereign nation, but more importantly it's a huge economic and political powerhouse. What are we going to do, invade? Stop trading?
No, the only way to get political and social freedom is from within, and the best way to encourage that is to broaden economic intercourse so that people are exposed to fresh ideas. China's restrictions on internal speech are by far the largest problem here, but when businesses see a billion-consumer marketplace, the dollar signs in their eyes override their concerns about morality. I honestly don't know how to address that. We give businesses shit for "not standing up to China", but what fucking option do they have?
Back to the topic at hand, Biden is not "soft on China" by restoring trade relationships. He's pragmatic. Being friendly with the second most populous nation on earth with the fastest growing major economy is a big deal. If we decide to fight them, who's to say that our ideology would win? There is no natural march of history towards progress.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 28th 2020 at 4:37:52 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The US does not have much capacity to force China to respect human rights. Human rights abuses that the US is directly funding, such as those committed by Saudi Arabia and Israel, seem like something the the US is much more culpable in and much more capable of doing something about.
That said, if we can find some reasonable way to put pressure on China to stop their abuses of the Uighers, we should do so.
![]()
If I could wish for rainbows and kittens, I'd do that, but what is your suggestion as an alternative?
We also like to talk about foreign human rights abuses because it takes the conversation away from domestic human rights abuses - something that countries like Russia and China have eagerly called us out on.
There is an argument to be made that before the U.S. can even be remotely equipped to defend human rights on a global stage, we must first start defending human rights right here in the U.S. It is hard to criticize China and be taken seriously when we're putting Mexican children in concentration camps, shooting black people, suppressing women, and stripping rights from the LGBT community. Not to mention Native fucking Americans!
When it comes to human rights, the United States doesn't have a leg to stand on. And everyone else knows it. We need to clean house before we can even try to be considered a moral authority.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Dec 28th 2020 at 1:59:18 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I think with China it's likely that we will see a change of tactics as opposed to a change in policy. As with nearly all international policy there are strong limits to what you can do if the government you are dealing with is implacable and impossible to replace. Russia won't change whilst Putin is in charge. Likewise Xi represents a brand of Chinese nationalism / exceptionalism that isn't going to pursue democratic reform. All you can do is contain the effects whilst trying to cultivate the promise of a better relationship if their successors try and extend the hand.
Trump went all in on the idea of a bilateral trade war between the US and China. This is opposed to the idea of unifying all other competitors into a coalition so as to out muscle China. So whilst the trade war aspect might cool off (and this may be interpreted as being soft on China) you'd expect a Biden administration to work much closer with Japan, South Korea, Australia (who are currently being bullied by China as China refuses to buy Australian coal for political reasons) and the EU.
That's all for trade policy however. It will be interesting to see if Biden's administration also pushes back in other areas. Trump's America First agenda simply opened the door for China to invest in other countries. Will we see a more active pushback against the Belt and Road initiative for example? Other issues include the Uighurs and Hong Kong: however China sees both issues as an "internal" matter so are not going to respond to external threats unless the rest of the world follows through.
![]()
I'm all for calling out US human rights abuses, but putting them on the same level as the ones of Russia and especially China is a blatant false equivalency.
Things that don't happen in the US.
- Putting millions of Muslims in concentration camps
- Harvesting organs from prisoners
- Making anti-government groups "dissappear"
- Imprisoning people for Winnie The Pooh memes
- Banning people from criticizing the government.
And MUCH more.
Edited by Forenperser on Dec 28th 2020 at 11:11:07 AM
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianLet us not get into an atrocity dick waving contest. It is unquestionable that the U.S. engages in human rights abuses, but that doesn't absolve China, any more than vice versa, and China has objectively done worse.
It is correct to say that dealing with this will require international cooperation, and thus Biden's most crucial goal in foreign policy will be to restore and normalize America's relationships and reputation.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So the House voted on the $2,000 payment for Americans
, coming in at 275-134. Two Democrats voted against it, with 44 Republicans voting in favor, so it'll be very interesting to see how the Senate deals with it - though I wouldn't put it past Mitch the Glitch to live up to his name and simply refuse to bring it to the floor for a vote.
To my knowledge, this is a standalone bill with just the $2,000 for everybody in it - which is why I theorize that Mitch will simply refuse to let it to the floor for a vote.
Edited by ironballs16 on Dec 28th 2020 at 6:46:45 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Unfortunately, I think the very reason why Biden needs to take a tough stance on China prevents any possibility that he can meaningfully affect their human rights abuses. I've said a couple of times in the Military thread that any outright conflict between the US and China would be unimaginably and uncontrollably devastating, which means maintaining some strong deterrence (esp. in regard to Taiwan). But I think you'd need outright conflict - if not military, than at least economic pressure at a much higher level than we're currently seeing - to actually coerce China on its "internal issues." With that not an option, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done.
Breaking: the House overrid Trump's veto of the 2020 NDAA. Still needs to go to the Senate.
Edited by tclittle on Dec 28th 2020 at 6:02:48 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

So they spent the most of any senate race ever each, and they're running low on funding? What? How do you run out in this time period?