All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[PwrdOn]

Who have they enslaved? Also, ya know, genocide

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chi...EaAn6IEALw_wcB

Their imperialism

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...w-imperialists

And while China doesn't bomb much,m they sure are itching for some military confrontation. Just ask Taiwan.

The US is far from sinless, without a doubt. But what are bugs in our system, many we've still not corrected, are features in China's, because at the end of the day, they're a dictatorship looking to expand their power.

The US is literally a product of imperialism, it would not exist in any form without it, but sure China building ports and railroads in Africa makes them the real imperialists.

[Mister Mets]

The bottom line, a VP candidate should 'Do no Harm' to the ticket. Even if it's not their fault, or if it is.

I hope Biden follows this and choses someone who is at least as teflon as he is.

There is an interesting wrinkle in the arguments about who Biden should choose. Bass has suggested that she would not be interested in running for President later, which would allow a Biden presidency to be transitional, paving the way for a new generation, allowing primary voters to choose who the next candidate is, without setting a Vice President as a clear favorite.

Some supporters of Harris see this as sexist, a view of ambition as a negative in women in a way that doesn't apply to men.

Josh Barro sees the ambition criticism as nonsense.

This is such a nonsense take. Suppose Biden picks Susan Rice. And then people say “You passed over Kamala for being ‘too ambitious’!” Is the implication that Susan Rice is not ambitious? Whoever gets put on the ticket will be an ambitious woman.

Nobody will remember this controversy in a month.

It’s a lot easier for Harris’ camp to take umbrage at Kamala Harris being passed over for Woman To Be Named Later than to explain why the specific woman named as the VP candidate is a worse exemplar of women’s empowerment (and very likely first woman president) than Harris is.

and that’s why nobody will remember the controversy in a month — either Harris will be on the ticket, or another woman liked by Democrats will be, and the focus will be on who is the candidate, not who isn’t the candidate.

Jonathan Chait notes that the scientology flap reveals a downside to picking politicians who aren't all that ambitious.

One reason you want an ambitious VP is that they’ll organize their career to avoid things like this that would look bad on the national stage

ie Harris has been looking to move up all along, and has avoided these land mines. Bass hasn’t.

Jamelle Bouie thinks ambitious people will govern better.

i continue to think this is total beltway politics brain, divorced completely from the question of governing. whoever biden chooses should a) be prepared to be president and b) should want to be president

reversing the ship of state after trump will be an all hands task and the vice president should be chosen with that in mind, especially since the choice will have almost no weight on voting in november.

if biden wins and keels over a month later the vice president should not only be able to quickly take over the job but should have a vision of what she wants to do with the office.

[Gray Lensman]

The US is literally a product of imperialism, it would not exist in any form without it, but sure China building ports and railroads in Africa makes them the real imperialists.

"China only wants peace!"

A piece of India, a piece of the Phillipines, a piece of Vietnam, a piece...well, ALL of Tibet. But I'm sure you'll excuse all that and more with another bout of whataboutism. You could have your own Fox show.

[Robotman]

There is an interesting wrinkle in the arguments about who Biden should choose. Bass has suggested that she would not be interested in running for President later, which would allow a Biden presidency to be transitional, paving the way for a new generation, allowing primary voters to choose who the next candidate is, without setting a Vice President as a clear favorite.

Some supporters of Harris see this as sexist, a view of ambition as a negative in women in a way that doesn't apply to men.

Josh Barro sees the ambition criticism as nonsense.


Jonathan Chait notes that the scientology flap reveals a downside to picking politicians who aren't all that ambitious.



Jamelle Bouie thinks ambitious people will govern better.

Those are good points. It may not be wise to choose a VP who hasn’t been vetted on a national level.

It is odd that Harris is being knocked for being too ambitious to lead. Biden is 77. There should be someone not only capable but very willing to take over in case his health declines or some other unfortunate event occurs.

Trump is doing terribly right now. Biden really has to make sure his pick doesn’t give Trump any much needed ammunition. The Benghazi thing is ridiculous but you just know the Trump campaign and Fox News will talk about it nonstop if Rice is chosen as Biden’s VP.

[Gray Lensman]

Those are good points. It may not be wise to choose a VP who hasn’t been vetted on a national level.

It is odd that Harris is being knocked for being too ambitious to lead. Biden is 77. There should be someone not only capable but very willing to take over in case his health declines or some other unfortunate event occurs.

Trump is doing terribly right now. Biden really has to make sure his pick doesn’t give Trump any much needed ammunition. The Benghazi thing is ridiculous but you just know the Trump campaign and Fox News will talk about it nonstop if Rice is chosen as Biden’s VP.

Rice also has really only been in appointed office. If there is anyone Faux news can turn into a Hilary 2.0 it's her. Just because it isn't fair doesn't make it not a strong possibility. If she is chosen I hope I get to eat crow over saying that though.

[PwrdOn]

"China only wants peace!"

A piece of India, a piece of the Phillipines, a piece of Vietnam, a piece...well, ALL of Tibet. But I'm sure you'll excuse all that and more with another bout of whataboutism. You could have your own Fox show.

China does only want peace, not because of any inherent peace-loving nature, but because its military sucks and the leaders have no illusions about its strength. Even an invasion of a much smaller and poorer country risks getting dragged into a costly and embarrassing quagmire. After all, if China was really this power-hungry expansionist power, why have they waited 70+ years without invading Taiwan?

[Gray Lensman]

China does only want peace, not because of any inherent peace-loving nature, but because its military sucks and the leaders have no illusions about its strength. Even an invasion of a much smaller and poorer country risks getting dragged into a costly and embarrassing quagmire. After all, if China was really this power-hungry expansionist power, why have they waited 70+ years without invading Taiwan?

Before Trump that would have meant war with the U.S.

Now, who knows? China has been getting more aggressive lately, driven at least in part by their growing military strength and Trump's attempts to destroy any alliances the U.S. is in.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The US is literally a product of imperialism, it would not exist in any form without it, but sure China building ports and railroads in Africa makes them the real imperialists.

So if the US has to carry its original history for the rest of time, why doesn't China? Tibet, Great Leap Forward?

And you seem to overlook that China is building ports and roads in Africa, for China, owned by China.

[The Cool Thatguy]

China does only want peace, not because of any inherent peace-loving nature, but because its military sucks and the leaders have no illusions about its strength. Even an invasion of a much smaller and poorer country risks getting dragged into a costly and embarrassing quagmire. After all, if China was really this power-hungry expansionist power, why have they waited 70+ years without invading Taiwan?

Because, as I understand it, they have no good tactical options and knew that the United States would back Taiwan

[Mister Mets]

The US is literally a product of imperialism, it would not exist in any form without it, but sure China building ports and railroads in Africa makes them the real imperialists.

Is the argument that because the United States did stuff in the past, China should be allowed to do it now?

[PwrdOn]

Before Trump that would have meant war with the U.S.

Now, who knows? China has been getting more aggressive lately, driven at least in part by their growing military strength and Trump's attempts to destroy any alliances the U.S. is in.

It's not Trump's influence that breaking up our alliances, it's the fact that all of America's allies, particularly in Asia, are in reality client states with little in the way of foreign policy autonomy, who all resent to some degree how unequal these partnerships are and that they are repeatedly forced to subordinate their own geopolitical interests to America's. The Obama era policy of building this unified front to encircle and pressure China failed because countries like Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. have just as many disagreements with each other as they did with China, and Americans don't really understand those dynamics well enough to play peacemaker, and so we could do nothing aside from telling these countries to shut up and get with the program. Though I'm sure everything will magically be better once Biden gets elected so he can go around telling his funny racist anecdotes and forgetting what country he's in.

[Jack Dracula]

Tibet. (10 char)

And why Tibet? It's water. The Himalayan snows provide a large portion of the water used for agriculture in Bhutan, Nepal, Northern India and Bangladesh. They don't need to expend resources to conquer and enslave anyone if they have control of that critical resource.

[PwrdOn]

So if the US has to carry its original history for the rest of time, why doesn't China? Tibet, Great Leap Forward?

And you seem to overlook that China is building ports and roads in Africa, for China, owned by China.

You're projecting a bit here, whitewashing history isn't really a thing in China and if anything, writers tend to over-emphasize the negative parts. The official propaganda is largely seen as amateurish and cringeworthy, and there isn't anywhere near the same kind of flag-waving chuddery you'd find here.

[Kusanagi]

You're projecting a bit here, whitewashing history isn't really a thing in China and if anything, writers tend to over-emphasize the negative parts. The official propaganda is largely seen as amateurish and cringeworthy, and there isn't anywhere near the same kind of flag-waving chuddery you'd find here.

While they don't whitewash it, they are certainly happy to censor it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/asia/...ntl/index.html

[PwrdOn]

While they don't whitewash it, they are certainly happy to censor it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/asia/...ntl/index.html

Do you really think that censorship has made people completely unaware of an event that happened only 30 years ago? If people want to remember an event, they will find a way regardless of what the government wants. If they want to forget, then no amount of media coverage can make them remember.