Jump to content
Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I guess I'm not really sure what a "massive Western backlash" would mean.  I think that even in the event of a serious military crackdown involving hundreds killed and wounded that the West would just tut-tut and make some symbolic, but toothless, economic punishments. 

Yeah, and on top of that, they have to consider what doing nothing in Hong Kong would portend for any future civil discontent in other parts of China.  Xi is going to be running the show for a long time and he's going to want to set some kind of precedent here.  

The west is dependent on China too.  This shit is going to end in more violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump immigration official offers rewrite for Statue of Liberty poem

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/statue-of-liberty-poem-immigration-ken-cuccinelli-1459824

Quote

 

President Donald Trump's top immigration official on Tuesday offered a revised version of the poem long displayed inside the Statue of Liberty's pedestal that aligns more closely with the administration's latest rule aimed at curbing the number of people who enter the United States legally.

Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, was asked by NPR whether the words of Emma Lazarus' “The New Colossus,” inscribed on a bronze tablet exhibited in the museum at the statue's base, remain "part of the American ethos."


"They certainly are," Cuccinelli said. "Give me your tired and your poor — who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge."

Cuccinelli's comments come after the administration announced Monday a "public charge" regulation allowing federal officials to deny green cards to legal immigrants who have received certain public benefits or who are deemed likely to do so in the future.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I guess I'm not really sure what a "massive Western backlash" would mean.  I think that even in the event of a serious military crackdown involving hundreds killed and wounded that the West would just tut-tut and make some symbolic, but toothless, economic punishments. 

 

39 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The west is dependent on China too.  This shit is going to end in more violence.

Pretty much agree with Ty here.  Is the west dependent on China?  Of course, but the end of that sentence is China is dependent on the west.  That's the entire concept of globalization and "free" trade - to discourage escalated conflict and encourage maintenance of the status quo.  Beijing is not going to risk that by engaging in provocative enough violence to compel a strong reaction from the west - although don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be continued violent tactics employed to put down the protest.  Particularly, they do not want to risk straining relations with Europe just as they're doing their own version of Nixon's triangulation and exacerbation of the Sino-Soviet split by inflaming tensions between Europe and the US.  They're not going to risk that by killing hundreds of protesters - and the implication Beijing would not be worried about the west's response to such belligerence is simply silly, the CCP is clearly an exceedingly rational actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

Pretty much agree with Ty here.  Is the west dependent on China?  Of course, but the end of that sentence is China is dependent on the west.  That's the entire concept of globalization and "free" trade - to discourage escalated conflict and encourage maintenance of the status quo.  Beijing is not going to risk that by engaging in provocative enough violence to compel a strong reaction from the west - although don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be continued violent tactics employed to put down the protest.  Particularly, they do not want to risk straining relations with Europe just as they're doing their own version of Nixon's triangulation and exacerbation of the Sino-Soviet split by inflaming tensions between Europe and the US.  They're not going to risk that by killing hundreds of protesters - and the implication Beijing would not be worried about the west's response to such belligerence is simply silly, the CCP is clearly an exceedingly rational actor.

Sure but what's the threshold for that?  I could see just straight up murdering say 100 protestors not generating more than a slap on the wrist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, larrytheimp said:

Sure but what's the threshold for that?  I could see just straight up murdering say 100 protestors not generating more than a slap on the wrist

I don't know the exact threshold, but I would say that yes, murdering 100 protesters would definitely cross it.  The outrage that would generate across the world?  Yeah, there'd be more than a slap on the wrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Sure but what's the threshold for that?  I could see just straight up murdering say 100 protestors not generating more than a slap on the wrist

 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know the exact threshold, but I would say that yes, murdering 100 protesters would definitely cross it.  The outrage that would generate across the world?  Yeah, there'd be more than a slap on the wrist.

I still can't see the US and EU really pushing back on a Chinese crackdown in their own territory.  China forcibly shipped a million Uyghurs into re-education camps, and the West didn't blink an eye.  Obviously Hong Kong is more visible, but I'm extremely skeptical that a crackdown is going to force an aggressive response from the West.  

And hopefully we don't have to find out which of us is right in the next couple of weeks/months :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Obviously Hong Kong is more visible, but I'm extremely skeptical that a crackdown is going to force an aggressive response from the West.  

And hopefully we don't have to find out which of us is right in the next couple of weeks/months :(

Well that's kind of my point - how much coverage has the Uyghurs example gotten?  Massacring hundreds of protesters in Hong Kong is going to generate much more international outrage, it may suck but that's the reality and I don't think that's really debatable.  Such an action would have the immediate effect of uniting Europe and Japan with the US just as Beijing is succeeding in driving a wedge there.  It would galvanize efforts towards united and serious sanctions - which yes, China fears - and is simply a stupid and irrational response to a protest they can and all likelihood will quell without the need for such a body count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I guess I'm not really sure what a "massive Western backlash" would mean.  I think that even in the event of a serious military crackdown involving hundreds killed and wounded that the West would just tut-tut and make some symbolic, but toothless, economic punishments. 

 

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know the exact threshold, but I would say that yes, murdering 100 protesters would definitely cross it.  The outrage that would generate across the world?  Yeah, there'd be more than a slap on the wrist.

It seems like you two represent opposite ends of the spectrum, and I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I don’t think 100 dead would do it, but hundreds of dead, especially if it’s caught on film, absolutely would trigger a major response. Ultimately I think DMC is right though. China is a rational political realists, so therefore they’ll most likely seek the route that does them the least damage. I’d expect mass arrests before they just start slaughtering Hong Kongers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well that's kind of my point - how much coverage has the Uyghurs example gotten? 

How is the fact that the Uyghyrs got virtually no attention make your point that a crackdown on Hong Kong would get significant pushback from the West?  To me it seems like the exact opposite, nobody in the West is willing to take a stand on how China treats its own citizens. 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It seems like you two represent opposite ends of the spectrum, and I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I don’t think 100 dead would do it, but hundreds of dead, especially if it’s caught on film, absolutely would trigger a major response. Ultimately I think DMC is right though. China is a rational political realists, so therefore they’ll most likely seek the route that does them the least damage. I’d expect mass arrests before they just start slaughtering Hong Kongers.

I'm not arguing that China is irrational.  I'm saying that they are likely to calculate that any pushback from the West on a crackdown will be minor, and easily handled.  Their primary concern in the Hong Kong situation is how their actions will be viewed domestically, and how they can foster the long term integration and assimilation of Hong Kong into China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Such an action would have the immediate effect of uniting Europe and Japan with the US just as Beijing is succeeding in driving a wedge there.  It would galvanize efforts towards united and serious sanctions - which yes, China fears - and is simply a stupid and irrational response to a protest they can and all likelihood will quell without the need for such a body count.

That sword cuts both ways. Thing is, China is economically so intertwined with these players that serious sanctions to make a moral stand would hurt those players quite drastically. Xi knows that. He knows that he has a lot of moral wriggle room and that any push-back will be half-assed at best. The only difference to the Tiananmen protests is that China is in no rush to quell it. There is no cascading fall of communist regimes threatening to sweep across countries. Xi can afford to play nice for as long as it is politically feasible. Even this show of force at the border is more or less a last warning towards the Hong Kong regional government to get its shit together and end the protests on their own, without having to signal that they need the military to keep their own citizens in line. In that case, the Hong Kong government's heads would roll just the same as those of the protestors.

The last actor here however is the protestors themselves. They know that this is their last chance to call for fair elections. If they stop now, their cause is doomed and they will likely see themselves in prison for the rest of their lives. So they have no choice but to continue to play chicken with the regional government hoping that they might blink and allow elections as a way of appeasement. I would be absolutely happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see that happening. Every way I look, I can only see this ending with an intervention by China to end this deadlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

How is the fact that the Uyghyrs got virtually no attention make your point that a crackdown on Hong Kong would get significant pushback from the West?

Because there is a huge distinction between killing hundreds of protesters and the Xinjiang concentration camps.  The latter have existed since 2014, it is the status quo (albeit I suppose the news women there are being sterilized is new).  Again, it sucks, but the realpolitik of this is killing hundreds in a city that basically the entire developed world has a financial interest in is going to provoke an extremely more serious response from the west than the internment and abuse of Muslim ethnic minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't know the exact threshold, but I would say that yes, murdering 100 protesters would definitely cross it.  The outrage that would generate across the world?  Yeah, there'd be more than a slap on the wrist.

They have millions of people in reeducation camps. The only reason the west cares about Hong Kong repression is that its costing money. If the military rolls in under the pretense of dealing with terrorists (which is what they're doing now) and kills a bunch of people the US won't give a shit.

Jamal khashoggi was murdered and we have tape of it. What did the US do about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

The only reason the west cares about Hong Kong repression is that its costing money.

I just said that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

I just said that!

Sure. But repression of the people there and restoring order will get money back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion has officially completed its circle.  

Anyway, since I was just discussing the National Popular Vote yesterday, potentially discouraging news on that front:  

Quote

In March, the state of Colorado handed a historic win to opponents of the Electoral College by becoming the first purple state to sign on to the National Popular Vote interstate compact. Next November, however, it could make history yet again by becoming the first state to renege on the agreement. [...]

opponents in Colorado were upset enough about its passage that they are now actively trying to repeal the law. Earlier this month, the organization Coloradans Vote said it submitted more than 227,198 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state in an effort to subject the law to voter referendum in the 2020 election. With that number of signatures, chances are very good it will make the ballot, making it the first time voters in any state will vote directly on the National Popular Vote compact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Portnoy, the owner of that shitfest Barstool sports, was threatening to fire anyone that tried to unioznize today over twitter. Portnoy is also known as Tom Brady’s jockstrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

They have millions of people in reeducation camps. The only reason the west cares about Hong Kong repression is that its costing money. If the military rolls in under the pretense of dealing with terrorists (which is what they're doing now) and kills a bunch of people the US won't give a shit.

Jamal khashoggi was murdered and we have tape of it. What did the US do about that?

True, but the Saudis are Trump's buddies, whereas he is in the midst of a trade war with China right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×