Cold War against China?

[AfonsoAlves]

That might well be true, but why then does the West support them? The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" at play in Syria again. The Turks arranged it with DC backing and obvious Israeli willingness, and then it just happened: that an ISIS/AQ sect ran the boards and were PR brushed by the Western media. To the triumphant "Assad, the tyrant, is gone" to the farcical "and we'll stay in Syria until the tyrants - ISIS/AQ - we just backed to oust him are also gone". This is a genuine sequence of historical events. It is not made up. Despite how mental it sounds.

It goes back a long way. You back these people constantly and then they bomb your nations and then we are at war with whomever again. USSR/Afghanistan (Mujaheddin, backed by the West) and then 9/11 from which the terrorists were trained in Afghanistan by precisely the same forces. Then the Arab Spring. Cells inculcated in the West, of these fighters, then sent abroad which came back and bombed the shit out of Europe.

Keep repeating the same old mistakes and expecting different outcomes. I would argue that this is a disease that needs to be defeated for the sake of everyone.

This is not what happened.

Which "cells" in the Arab Spring were Western funded and trained?

The Mujahideen and Al-Qaeda are broadly speaking not the same people. Bin Laden wasn't even a top leader in that org, he provided a lot of the money and got pan-arab volunteers to join.

 

[TwoSheds]

This is the exact hyper exaggeration that doesn't actually exist in day to day China though (for the vast majority). Most don't consider themselves communist never mind pretend and CCP membership is quite low.

As for the discussion on 'democracy' it's important to separate it out between local and state level. Obviously China at the state level is authorative but there's some democracy at local level. Given the state can control the scope and occurrence of those discussions can it truly be considered democratic? Yes and no.

It's funny but as someone who used to go to local labour (UK) party meetings there's a surprising similarity to China in the control from a central party function. It's ruled like an authorative party.

The question here shouldn't be democracy because really none of us have that to a significant extent. The question is just how authoritative the state is and China is leaps and bounds ahead even if the west is slowly creeping in the wrong direction.

Yeah you clearly don't know what Athenian democracy was. It was only citizens who got to vote, not the peasants. The citizens being equivalent to the CCP members. And you try saying something bad about Chairman Xi on WeChat and tell me it's exaggeration.

 

[neverdie]

This is not what happened.

Which "cells" in the Arab Spring were Western funded and trained?

The Mujahideen and Al-Qaeda are broadly speaking not the same people. Bin Laden wasn't even a top leader in that org, he provided a lot of the money and got pan-arab volunteers to join.

You and I do not agree. Your history, to me, is revisionist and largely a product of Nato influenced worldview. If I'm wrong,, my apologies.

But that the cells - 9/11 - came from the US support of that movement during the anti-Soviet war is somehow wrong is just revisionist. Present your alternative histories instead of just claiming "that's not right". It would be more conducive to something like a dialogue.

Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. Some groups of these veterans became significant players in later conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab Islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments. These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.

From the entry on what is the Mujhahideen.


If I'm not mistaken, I have seen evidence that the British trained/funded/operated people within the UK and shipped them to Libya. I'll have to fetch proof of that if I want it to move any further. Other than that, the foreign cells - groups, broadly - were absolutely funded by the West and to deny that is madness to me when it has been admitted by the West (proudly).

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

You and I do not agree. Your history, to me, is revisionist and largely a product of Nato influenced worldview. If I'm wrong,, my apologies.

But that the cells - 9/11 - came from the US support of that movement during the anti-Soviet war is somehow wrong is just revisionist. Present your alternative histories instead of just claiming "that's not right". It would be more conducive to something like a dialogue.



From the entry on what is the Mujhahideen.


If I'm not mistaken, I have seen evidence that the British trained/funded/operated people within the UK and shipped them to Libya. I'll have to fetch proof of that if I want it to move any further. Other than that, the foreign cells - groups, broadly - were absolutely funded by the West and to deny that is madness to me when it has been admitted by the West (proudly).

Wasn't it the Pakistani security services who decided which groups got military support in Afghanistan though? I thought that was the price of using Pakistan as a supply route.

 

[Shez]

Wasn't it the Pakistani security services who decided which groups got military support in Afghanistan though? I thought that was the price of using Pakistan as a supply route.

as if Pakistan had ever that much control

 

[VorZakone]

as if Pakistan had ever that much control

I was under the impression that Pakistan did play quite a significant role in aiding the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets.

Although Zia spoke in concert with U.S. objectives of supporting Afghan "self-determination" and opposing the Afghan "puppet" government, he and his military had their own agenda in Afghanistan. Zia chose to favor the more radically Islamic rebel groups who, in some cases, were no more popular or representative than the PDPA. He was able to divert a disproportionately large share of U.S.-supplied weapons to these groups, especially the most radical one, Hizb-i Islami (Hekmatyar). Later in the war, this would cause significant problems for the rebel movement.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/essay.html

 

[berbatrick]

Wasn't it the Pakistani security services who decided which groups got military support in Afghanistan though? I thought that was the price of using Pakistan as a supply route.

The first major action of the Mujahideen - before the Soviet invasion - was to kidnap and behead Afghan teachers because they were enrolling girl students. After the Soviet invasion, the CIA specifically provided training to them on how to blow up schools. And a lot of the supportive rhetoric - from the CIA and American politicians, not just the ISI - was explicitly religious.

It was a war of terrorism and religious tradition against mass murder and modernity. It's worth going back, in this age of the "liberal" west vs the "religious" ME, and look at the Cold War rhetoric where it was the "god-fearing" West vs the "godless" commies.

 

[2cents]

Wasn't it the Pakistani security services who decided which groups got military support in Afghanistan though? I thought that was the price of using Pakistan as a supply route.

I was under the impression that Pakistan did play quite a significant role in aiding the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets.

Here’s what two prominent experts on al-Qaeda have to say on the matter:

Spoiler: Peter Bergen

Spoiler: Thomas Hegghammer

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

It's a thread about the US and China, I'm speaking about the US and China. I'll continue to comment as I please. Have a nice day

And as has been pointed out and proven by your posts you don't actually know enough about either the US or China to contribute anything to this thread except extremely uninformed opinion which adds nothing and detracts from an intelligent discussion.

Sure, comment as ignorantly as you please but you really aren't doing yourself any favors here.

 

[VorZakone]

The nature of the modern battlefield and its myriad threats means that tank-on-tank warfare is not as probable nowadays as it once was, although Ukraine has shown the tank is not a dead concept by any means. But should it happen that the Republic of China Army has to face Chinese tanks in such a situation, the M1A2T Abrams at least offers a much higher level of capabilities than the tanks otherwise in Taiwanese service.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I have doubts about this.

As has shown time and time again, certain US weapons don't work nearly half as well without the behemoth of a NATO logistics line behind them.

 

[berbatrick]

Here’s what two prominent experts on al-Qaeda have to say on the matter:

Spoiler: Peter Bergen

Spoiler: Thomas Hegghammer

About bin Laden, from whatever I've heard, it seems likely that there was a faction within the CIA (not necessarily the whole agency) that had cultivated him and was protecting him in the 90s rather than 80s, right up to 9/11. There was a charity mosque/center which was funding al-Qaeda, based in Brooklyn, and known to the CIA. It mostly supported the Mujahideen in the 80s, with CIA/govt support, and switched to bin Laden later, and wasn't touched. The 1993 WTC attack was by someone who went through that center.

 

[VorZakone]

What China Got Right in Latin America

Since coming to power in 2013, the Chinese president has visited Latin America six different times across 11 countries. That’s more than the last three U.S. presidents combined made over the same period. Beyond the visits, though, China has brought real resources to address development opportunities that have long been lacking in the region—and that the United States has failed to recognize for decades.

The old Chinese expression about “getting richer by building roads” has driven its foreign development policy, too, with Beijing committed to and promoting the type of infrastructure investments that drove its own economic miracle for Latin America and the global south.

Similarly, poverty alleviation is one of the core policy priorities for Xi domestically, and Beijing has equally extended its focus on poverty alleviation in Latin American countries through efforts to reduce their infrastructural deficits.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/12/1...iplomacy-investment/?tpcc=recirc_latest062921

 

[2cents]

About bin Laden, from whatever I've heard, it seems likely that there was a faction within the CIA (not necessarily the whole agency) that had cultivated him and was protecting him in the 90s rather than 80s, right up to 9/11. There was a charity mosque/center which was funding al-Qaeda, based in Brooklyn, and known to the CIA. It mostly supported the Mujahideen in the 80s, with CIA/govt support, and switched to bin Laden later, and wasn't touched. The 1993 WTC attack was by someone who went through that center.

I believe you’re referring to the famous “blind sheikh” Umar ‘abd al Rahman. I’ve not come across such a claim as you cite before in anything I’ve read on the topic, but who knows what evidence will emerge in the coming years as archives open.

 

[berbatrick]

I believe you’re referring to the famous “blind sheikh” Umar ‘abd al Rahman. I’ve not come across such a claim as you cite before in anything I’ve read on the topic, but who knows what evidence will emerge in the coming years as archives open.

a bit of googling got me the name (which i had forgotten): al-kifah center. the nyt covered its link with the 93 wtc attack in 1998, and it was sanctioned by executive order in late september 2001.

 

[2cents]

a bit of googling got me the name (which i had forgotten): al-kifah center. the nyt covered its link with the 93 wtc attack in 1998, and it was sanctioned by executive order in late september 2001.

This is what Hegghammer writes about al-Kifah Center in the late 80s:

Spoiler: Hegghammer

Perhaps a mod could move this discussion to a more appropriate thread, as it has nothing to do with China.

 

[Raven]

And as has been pointed out and proven by your posts you don't actually know enough about either the US or China to contribute anything to this thread except extremely uninformed opinion which adds nothing and detracts from an intelligent discussion.

Sure, comment as ignorantly as you please but you really aren't doing yourself any favors here.

Someone made a false claim, I corrected it. I could correct it without knowing much more because it's common knowledge that China has at least some democracy.

To reiterate, the poster said China has NO democracy.

Now please do toddle on, I don't need cretinous comments like "stop derailing the thread" when I've only spoken about the topic at hand.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Someone made a false claim, I corrected it. I could correct it without knowing much more because it's common knowledge that China has at least some democracy.

To reiterate, the poster said China has NO democracy.

Now please do toddle on, I don't need cretinous comments like "stop derailing the thread" when I've only spoken about the topic at hand.

No, you were actually the one that was wrong. China does not have a democracy as multiple posters have pointed out before you admitted you don't actually know what you're talking about. You are, of course, free to continue posting your ignorant comments but then don't act surprised when others point out how you are wrong. To be frank, you are the only one in the last few pages posting "cretinous" comments.

 

[Sly]

No, you were actually the one that was wrong. China does not have a democracy as multiple posters have pointed out before you admitted you don't actually know what you're talking about. You are, of course, free to continue posting your ignorant comments but then don't act surprised when others point out how you are wrong. To be frank, you are the only one in the last few pages posting "cretinous" comments.

Don't waste your time. It's pointless.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Someone made a false claim, I corrected it. I could correct it without knowing much more because it's common knowledge that China has at least some democracy.

To reiterate, the poster said China has NO democracy.

Now please do toddle on, I don't need cretinous comments like "stop derailing the thread" when I've only spoken about the topic at hand.

Democracy is not defined by someone, somewhere, having the ability to vote for something.

Practically every dictatorship in history from Imperial Rome onwards was a "democracy" by your ridiculous definition. Yes, even Feudal Kingdoms had votes of some kind.

Obviously, Imperial Roman citizens being able to vote for the Tribune of the Plebs, or HRE electors being able to choose the Holy Roman Emperor, or Imperial China Eunuchs being able to vote on policy decisions does not make them democracies, or anywhere close to democracies.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

This is a classic example of having ignorant, pre-conditioned set of beliefs and then looking for anything to reinforce said beliefs - rather than actually trying to assess data in an unbiased fashion in order to formulate a belief.

 

[VorZakone]

How China could try to strangle Taiwan without firing a shot

Rather than an all-out invasion, it could attempt to capture the island without firing a single shot through “gray zone” tactics. Such tactics might combine maritime blockades and advanced cyberwarfare capable of cutting off Taiwan from the lines of seaborne trade and the digital access it needs to survive.

Liu, the director of the Taiwan Center for Security Studies, has conducted tabletop exercises modeling a variety of scenarios for a China-Taiwan conflict. He explained that the quarantine strategy would have a number of advantages. China could make the case that it’s legal: Beijing claims both Taiwan and the sea surrounding it as its own territory, so it could say it’s merely carrying out law enforcement operations in its own waters.

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/390895/china-taiwan-conflict

 

[nickm]

Yes. Someone literally did that further back in the thread. Talked about how western values are good and worth defending and how China doesn't give a shit about them.

Ultimately politics is about which values or ideologies prevail, however you want to define values, and conflict is a test of their robustness. A nation's interests aren't necessarily the same thing as its values, sometimes nations act according to their interests in ways that don't align with their values, sometimes out of choice, sometimes out of necessity. I would argue that China is a definite threat to western / US interests, which may or may not be a good thing depending on where you sit, it is certainly dangerous. And china doesn't give a shit about western values. On the whole, I think western values are worth defending even if western interests mean we don't always live up to them.

 

[Raven]

Democracy is not defined by someone, somewhere, having the ability to vote for something.

Practically every dictatorship in history from Imperial Rome onwards was a "democracy" by your ridiculous definition. Yes, even Feudal Kingdoms had votes of some kind.

Obviously, Imperial Roman citizens being able to vote for the Tribune of the Plebs, or HRE electors being able to choose the Holy Roman Emperor, or Imperial China Eunuchs being able to vote on policy decisions does not make them democracies, or anywhere close to democracies.

That wasn't the point you made. You said they had NO democracy (I'm not sure how many times I need to make this point), that is patently untrue. Even by western standards they do have elections at local level so whilst they may not be the most free, nor is Britain, for example, when you have people like Keir Starmer parachuting in genocidal ghouls like Luke Akehurst against the wishes of the local members.

After doing some more reading and watching around the subject this evening, it is not as I expected and is certainly less democratic (at least by my definition) than I had previously thought. It seems the Chinese take a totally different view of what democracy means, ensuring that people from all walks of life are involved in their many rungs of government and then allowing their work to speak for itself. It seems that it takes 3-4 decades of exemplary work to get into the highest offices, meaning they usually have highly competent people at the helm which would go some way to explaining how they have pulled so many of their citizens out of poverty and become one of the main global superpowers in such a short space of time (having 1.4 billion citizens obviously is a massive feature in this as well but that brings it's own problems).

I'm still not finished researching the topic but it's very complicated and far from what I expected. Just to restate what I said above, China is less democratic than I thought it was, at least by my definition of democracy and provided the information I found on it is accurate.

 

[Raven]

Ultimately politics is about which values or ideologies prevail, however you want to define values, and conflict is a test of their robustness. A nation's interests aren't necessarily the same thing as its values, sometimes nations act according to their interests in ways that don't align with their values, sometimes out of choice, sometimes out of necessity. I would argue that China is a definite threat to western / US interests, which may or may not be a good thing depending on where you sit, it is certainly dangerous. And china doesn't give a shit about western values. On the whole, I think western values are worth defending even if western interests mean we don't always live up to them.

I'm sick shit of being fecked by neoliberalism, which is the only value that actually matters, in this part of the world, as far as I can see.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

There are multiple sub parties within the CPC but they do all have to subscribe to communism. Just as anyone who wants power in the West must subscribe to neoliberalism, otherwise you get Corbyned.

So just for the record, this is also wrong. Dubya Bush was not a neo-liberal and his administration did not subscribe to neoliberalism and neither is Trump. So this statement is just factually not true. It's possible you just don't know what neo-liberalism actually means though which is why you are confused.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

That wasn't the point you made. You said they had NO democracy (I'm not sure how many times I need to make this point), that is patently untrue. Even by western standards they do have elections at local level so whilst they may not be the most free, nor is Britain, for example, when you have people like Keir Starmer parachuting in genocidal ghouls like Luke Akehurst against the wishes of the local members.

After doing some more reading and watching around the subject this evening, it is not as I expected and is certainly less democratic (at least by my definition) than I had previously thought. It seems the Chinese take a totally different view of what democracy means, ensuring that people from all walks of life are involved in their many rungs of government and then allowing their work to speak for itself. It seems that it takes 3-4 decades of exemplary work to get into the highest offices, meaning they usually have highly competent people at the helm which would go some way to explaining how they have pulled so many of their citizens out of poverty and become one of the main global superpowers in such a short space of time (having 1.4 billion citizens obviously is a massive feature in this as well but that brings it's own problems).

I'm still not finished researching the topic but it's very complicated and far from what I expected. Just to restate what I said above, China is less democratic than I thought it was, at least by my definition of democracy and provided the information I found on it is accurate.

Feck me sideways - what they have is not a democracy. Giving people facade of choice by having pre-vetted candidates all who do the exact same thing is a ridiculous assertion of local elections.

Electing what is essentially a complaints manager/liason manager (which in itself is a corrupt role) does not make a country a democracy.

What you're reading is the textbook CCP explanation of how their system works. It's propaganda, and your research is reading some fecking articles on google.

It's not a meritocracy. The current generation of CCP leadership are all corrupt children from the 40's and 50's and sons and scions of previous CCP bigwigs.

Xi Jing Ping is the son of Xi ZhongXun, Vice Chair of the Central Commitee.

Bo Xi Lai is the son of Bo Yibo, the former Vice Premier of the Politiburo.

Hu Jingtao is the last scion of the Ming Dynasty Elite and prior to the cultural revolution was one of the richest families in China.

All of these guys on the 15th to 19th Politiburo were the first batch of students at the 1977 re-opening of the Universities post cultural revolution. They were all buddies with each other, knew each other and basically rigged the system together.

Think Bullingdons, but at a much wider scale. All of them, bar Li Keqiang, can be traced back to the CCP 1977 Communist University Youth Commitees. It's no coincidence they all went into power together.

Li Keqiang is an exception - incredibly competent, not that corrupt (as far as Chinese politicians go) and ultimately took a very different route in comparison to his contemparies.

Stop reading bullshit online pro-China articles and actually read in depth analysis into the system:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chinas-Political-System-Sebastian-Heilmann/dp/1442277351

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/politics-in-china-9780190870713

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Party-One-Jinping-Chinas-Superpower-ebook/dp/B0BYN8NCKY


The last book is really good.

Start from here, some shitty "research" by googling is an insult.

 

[Raven]

Feck me sideways - what they have is not a democracy. Giving people facade of choice by having pre-vetted candidates all who do the exact same thing is a ridiculous assertion of local elections.

Electing what is essentially a complaints manager/liason manager (which in itself is a corrupt role) does not make a country a democracy.

What you're reading is the textbook CCP explanation of how their system works. It's propaganda, and your research is reading some fecking articles on google.

It's not a meritocracy. The current generation of CCP leadership are all corrupt children from the 40's and 50's and sons and scions of previous CCP bigwigs.

Xi Jing Ping is the son of Xi ZhongXun, Vice Chair of the Central Commitee.

Bo Xi Lai is the son of Bo Yibo, the former Vice Premier of the Politiburo.

Hu Jingtao is the last scion of the Ming Dynasty Elite and prior to the cultural revolution was one of the richest families in China.

All of these guys on the 15th to 19th Politiburo were the first batch of students at the 1977 re-opening of the Universities post cultural revolution. They were all buddies with each other, knew each other and basically rigged the system together.

Think Bullingdons, but at a much wider scale. All of them, bar Li Keqiang, can be traced back to the CCP 1977 Communist University Youth Commitees. It's no coincidence they all went into power together.

Li Keqiang is an exception - incredibly competent, not that corrupt (as far as Chinese politicians go) and ultimately took a very different route in comparison to his contemparies.

Stop reading bullshit online pro-China articles and actually read in depth analysis into the system:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chinas-Political-System-Sebastian-Heilmann/dp/1442277351

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/politics-in-china-9780190870713

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Party-One-Jinping-Chinas-Superpower-ebook/dp/B0BYN8NCKY


The last book is really good.

Start from here, some shitty "research" by googling is an insult.

I'll take a closer look at these later, thanks for the recommendations.

Edit: On the bold, that's exactly what happens in America

 

[VorZakone]

That wasn't the point you made. You said they had NO democracy (I'm not sure how many times I need to make this point), that is patently untrue. Even by western standards they do have elections at local level so whilst they may not be the most free, nor is Britain, for example, when you have people like Keir Starmer parachuting in genocidal ghouls like Luke Akehurst against the wishes of the local members.

After doing some more reading and watching around the subject this evening, it is not as I expected and is certainly less democratic (at least by my definition) than I had previously thought. It seems the Chinese take a totally different view of what democracy means, ensuring that people from all walks of life are involved in their many rungs of government and then allowing their work to speak for itself. It seems that it takes 3-4 decades of exemplary work to get into the highest offices, meaning they usually have highly competent people at the helm which would go some way to explaining how they have pulled so many of their citizens out of poverty and become one of the main global superpowers in such a short space of time (having 1.4 billion citizens obviously is a massive feature in this as well but that brings it's own problems).

I'm still not finished researching the topic but it's very complicated and far from what I expected. Just to restate what I said above, China is less democratic than I thought it was, at least by my definition of democracy and provided the information I found on it is accurate.

They were a shitshow during the Cultural Revolution though. But eventually they were wise enough to recognize they needed to reform.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I'll take a closer look at these later, thanks for the recommendations.

Edit: On the bold, that's exactly what happens in America

No, no it isn't.

Quite literally, Trump completely overturned the GOP establishment.

You're telling me that in 2016 and in 2020 the GOP machine wanted Trump? Every time the Dems put out a machine, establishment cog candidate they lose. Kamala, Hilary etc. You're telling me Obama was an establishment candidate?

Look at the Tea Party, the MAGA candidates. You're telling me the GOP machine backed these guys? I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember 2010 primaries, but a hell of a lot of GOP incumbents were primaried by Tea Party counterparts.

You have primaries for a reason, and one of the biggest criticisms for the DnC is that they refused to host a primary for Kamala.

Look at the history of the GOP since WWII - you have the staunch Raeganists, Neo-conservatives, then the tea-party socio-right fiscal hawks, then Maga. In the 1970's you had the Southern Strategy and the Nixon flip.

Look at the history of the DNC - Modern neoliberals, the Kennedy dominated era, the New Deal coalitions, the emptiness of the 80s, the social-progressives of the 70's which led to Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Bill Clinton era of when neoliberalism truly kicked off.

You're telling me all these guys are just "pre-vetted people put in front of you, who are all the same?"

You're telling me that AoC, Bernie Sanders are the same as Fetterman and Buttigieg?

Stop talking shit.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

They were a shitshow during the Cultural Revolution though. But eventually they were wise enough to recognize they needed to reform.

By wise, you really mean, "Mao Died and some of the madness in the CCP died alongside it."

 

[Raven]

No, no it isn't.

Quite literally, Trump completely overturned the GOP establishment.

You're telling me that in 2016 and in 2020 the GOP machine wanted Trump? Every time the Dems put out a machine, establishment cog candidate they lose. Kamala, Hilary etc. You're telling me Obama was an establishment candidate?

Look at the Tea Party, the MAGA candidates. You're telling me the GOP machine backed these guys? I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember 2010 primaries, but a hell of a lot of GOP incumbents were primaried by Tea Party counterparts.

You have primaries for a reason, and one of the biggest criticisms for the DnC is that they refused to host a primary for Kamala.

Look at the history of the GOP since WWII - you have the staunch Raeganists, Neo-conservatives, then the tea-party socio-right fiscal hawks, then Maga. In the 1970's you had the Southern Strategy and the Nixon flip.

Look at the history of the DNC - Modern neoliberals, the Kennedy dominated era, the New Deal coalitions, the emptiness of the 80s, the social-progressives of the 70's which led to Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Bill Clinton era of when neoliberalism truly kicked off.

You're telling me all these guys are just "pre-vetted people put in front of you, who are all the same?"

You're telling me that AoC, Bernie Sanders are the same as Fetterman and Buttigieg?

Stop talking shit.

I was referring to lobbyists. You need pre approval from various lobbies to get anywhere near the ticket.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I was referring to lobbyists. You need pre approval from various lobbies to get anywhere near the ticket.

I give up. A lot of the above were people with almost no lobby support and fought against the incumbent money machine at the time.

2016 Trump - which big influential lobbyists "pre-approved" Trump? His entire primary campaign was funded by himself - he had practically no lobby support.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I haven't kept up with the exact numbers as a lot of them aren't published or available on media, both western and chinese but:

A huge number of top Chinese commanders have been fired/jailed recently. Including head of their Missile forces, deputy of the Nuclear Weapons, the secretary of defense, two former def-secs, two naval commanders and an air force commander.

I don't have the exact details to corroborate this, but my feeling has been since the Ukraine War exposed a lot of internal Russian military corruption, China did an audit and found some pretty glaring things.

 

[VorZakone]

An American citizen has pleaded guilty to helping run what has been described as the first known secret police station in the US on behalf of the Chinese government.

 

[berbatrick]

massive W for china

 

[AfonsoAlves]

massive W for china

the translation for SB as idiot is hilarious

SB means “Sha Bi” directly translates to “retarded cnut” so seeing it posted as idiot is funny.

Also how did the guy get access in the first place? You need a Chinese mobile sim number to sign up and to sign up to a Chinese sim you need a national Id card number so unless the guy has mates in china letting them use theirs it’s pretty interesting

 

[VorZakone]

Seven Chinese nationals tried to illegally enter Guam as U.S. tested missile, authorities say

Seven Chinese citizens were arrested on charges of illegally entering Guam around the time the U.S. Missile Defense Agency conducted a key missile interception test using a new radar, the island's Customs and Quarantine Agency has said.
The agency said at least four of the people arrested on Dec. 10-11 were found "in the vicinity of a military installation". Guam has many such installations, including Andersen Air Force Base, where the Dec. 10 missile test was conducted.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...uam-us-tested-missile-authorities-2024-12-21/