6 ms·

A hard line stance on China’s human rights abuses, currency and trade manipulation, and intellectual property theft will be a top requirement for my support of

by jtdev 7y ago

A hard line stance on China’s human rights abuses, currency and trade manipulation, and intellectual property theft will be a top requirement for my support of 2020 US presidential candidates.

xenocyon 7y ago
It's weird to speak of literal organ harvesting and the legal fiction (admittedly, an arguably useful fiction) of intellectual "property" in the same sentence. One of these things is not like the other.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
AsyncAwait 7y ago
While I'd imagine you'd ignore U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?), I imagine? Is China worse than Saudi Arabia for example? Because I can't imagine U.S. speaking strongly against KSA, can you? The U.S. doesn't really care about human rights, or its own abuse of them, (was any top official prosecuted for Iraq?), so you'd be voting for posturing.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  See, this is pretty typical of how the Chinese are told about their own government’s abuses in schools and media: “but what about the other guy?!”. It’s just not a valid argument. It serves only to change the topic and justify nationalism.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    I just want OP to be aware that if he wants to vote for somebody like Trump for i.e. his 'stance' on China, it's worth noting that the U.S. doesn't really care, it's just posturing, this is not to say I like what China does here, if they're indeed doing it. It's possible to hold both of these positions i.e. being against the Iraq war and not believing that the U.S. really believes in the propaganda they're putting out on it does not mean you had to like Saddam.
    - ilikehurdles 7y ago
      The minority of voters voted for Trump. Statistically you’re even less likely today to find his supporters. I’m more than happy to criticize my own country, its actions, its leaders, and the people that enable them. In case you haven’t noticed a lot of Americans don’t hold their government in high regard. Feel free to keep shining the light on those abuses, we need to remember them and learn from them. Now, what about China?
      - jtdev 7y ago
        The thing that most commenters here in tacit support of China fail to take into account is that China and the US are global superpowers (unlike the litany of baddies that have been mentioned here)... The US taking a hard line on China can have a cascading affect. The US can’t boil the ocean in regard to fixing all of the worlds ills, and we’re by no means perfect. China is simply the best hill to stand our ground on at the moment.
        luckylion 7y ago
        > The US can’t boil the ocean in regard to fixing all of the worlds ills, and we’re by no means perfect. China is simply the best hill to stand our ground on at the moment. That sounds suspiciously like "changing myself is hard, so I'll try to force my neighbor to change instead". China would certainly be a high-impact change on the global human rights situation (so would the US be), but on the other hand the probability of change seems somewhat low (especially because you are right: they are close enough to the US in strength that they can't be bullied around that easily). Moonshots are nice and certainly valid as side bets, but not as the primary strategy. Let's work on Turkey and the Saudis, they are "allies", somewhat dependent on Western support (Saudis) and money (Turkey) and nudging them into the right direction can make a huge difference. Reward them generously if they do, and you may see it spread. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It would have the nice side-effect that we'd clean up our back yard a bit, too. Credibility does matter on these things where people will question your motives.
  - ghostDancer 7y ago
    I'm not from the USA, so I can't vote, but IMHO if the candidate truly cares about human rights will condemn equally and publicly the crimes in China, Saudi Arabia or any other country , if it only talks about the Chinese or Iranian one, just when there's a big manipulation campaign against those countries I know that candidate is a liar and is scamming the voters who fall for it. Also it's the same card some US people play when they are told about the abuses of their government/businesses, hey look at Iran , look at China, ...
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      Many of us want candidates to go after Saudi Arabia, but what does that have to do with China?
      - ghostDancer 7y ago
        Candidates only talking about one means that they don't mind about human rights, that they are only doing these for , economical reasons, someone wants to wage a economical war with China that will cost USA lots of money, but some companies will get huge amounts of money and power, so first you declare them the evilest country in the world and then continue. They did it with Afghanistan , later with Iraq. OTOH the are silent about other places like SA or many other dictatorships in the world. Hypocrisy and blatant lies about human rights. And yes, the Chinese government is really fucked up. No one can deny that.
        barryparr 7y ago
        KSA is a US ally, so our military aid makes us complicit in crimes against humanity. We don’t have a Similar level of engagement or leverage with the PRC.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    The US has a strong trade and military relationship with KSA, despite their utterly appalling human rights record. It's entirely legitimate to say "If this is really about human rights, why are you selling hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to an authoritarian regime?". That isn't whataboutism, it's a fundamental critique of the motivations of foreign policy decisions. Analogy: Joe and Paul are gangsters with a nasty reputation. Paul is in hiding because the police department have declared him public enemy number 1, while Joe was a guest of honor at the last police benevolent society dinner. Are you not at least the tiniest bit skeptical about whether the police chief is really trying to fight crime? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_St...
    - randomGen99 7y ago
      To your analogy, yes, police is fighting crime because getting Paul in jail would reduce rate by 50%. And after that, they can focus on Joe. It’s not nothing or everything (false dilemma/perfect solution fallacy).
      - AsyncAwait 7y ago
        Except, they're not only not going after Joe, they're actively hosting him. That's a crucial difference.
    - lixtra 7y ago
      As the saying goes, punish one educate hundreds. You can Paul first and then go after Joe later if he does not improve. This is not fair, but politics is not primarily about fairness. It’s about reaching you goals (here: establish human rights world wide).
    - kyboren 7y ago
      It is possible for a person to believe that both Joe and Paul, broadly speaking, do nasty things. On one hand, they have dealt with Joe for a long time and, while the relationship is far from perfect, they and Joe have a sort of understanding and Joe takes their opinions into account, in part with all the opinions of other stakeholders, when they're very insistent about it. On the other hand, Paul in recent memory has committed truly unspeakable atrocities against masses of even his nominal stakeholders--and this hypothetical person may not even have the 'favor' of being one. Paul is obviously much more hostile to his stakeholders (Great Leap Forward, June 4/Tiananmen, Xinjiang concentration camps, Falun Gong genocide, ubiquitous hyper surveillance, etc. etc.). Paul has recently become much more rich and powerful, and has started asserting that power in ways that would totally violate the understanding between our person and Joe. At the same time, Paul has been asserting his power in other person-gangster relationships, dictating terms and helping those gangsters better oppress their own stakeholders. Are you even the tiniest bit skeptical about whether our person's interests best lie in a maximally adversarial relationship with Paul vs. with Joe? Our person may very much want a better relationship with Joe. If they see Paul as a bigger threat, though, then it makes perfect sense to focus on confronting Paul.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > It’s just not a valid argument. It's not a valid argument for the Chinese to justify their practices, you are right in that. It is a valid argument for critics that are (collectively) guilty of similar abuses, however. In this case: why make China's abuses the issue of your vote instead of your government's abuses? The US government has limited power over the Chinese (and so your vote has even less), but it has full power over itself. Pledging your vote to somebody that will not create new wars sounds more reasonable to me than pledging your vote to someone that promises to be "tough on China". The horrors in Libya that the Obama administration is responsible for are arguably worse than China's human rights abuses in their Gulag system. First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye and all that.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      We can't go too far with this logic, though. Nobody's perfect yet I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone reflects on themselves, finds out they aren't perfect themselves, and just passively watches human rights abuses. It is absolutely vital that we do improve what we can and start with ourselves but we should not get carried away with that idea to a ridiculous degree. Someone who has committed crimes can and should still speak out if someone is committing something absolutely abhorrent in plain view instead of remaining silent.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        Certainly, that is a theoretical possibility. Note that I'm not suggesting ignorance and passivity. I prefer this route: 1) get your house in order before you try to fix the world 2) start with small, achievable improvements 3) be just in your judgement. > Someone who has committed crimes can and should still speak out if someone is committing something absolutely abhorrent in plain view instead of remaining silent. Absolutely. Yet he may have to answer why his own abhorrent acts should be ignored, especially when they aren't from the distant past and he hasn't shown to be a changed man. The lion telling the tiger he should go vegetarian for moral reasons ...
        7y ago
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?)," - this is a two sided coin.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > this is a two sided coin Tangibly, sure, but not really. Iran followed the nuclear agreement, the U.S. violated it and has been openly escalating ever since. This does not mean Iran is an angel, but it does mean the U.S. is the aggressor here.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Iran’s support of terrorism throughout the Middle East makes your comment - “does not mean Iran is an angel” - a major understatement.
      - AsyncAwait 7y ago
        Except that "Iran’s support of terrorism throughout the Middle East" is a pretty vague statement that does nothing to answer the question of the U.S. not upholding its side of a deal Iran was following as certified by international bodies multiple times, it does nothing to answer for U.S. support for regimes that support terrorists, itself shipping weapons to extremists, it does not justify needless provocation and escalation towards war, nor sanctions that kill ordinary Iranians, prevent medical supplies from entering the country etc., (which is also the impact on Venezuela for example, not just Iran). As an European, China, Iran etc. do not hold the moral high ground in world affairs in my opinion, but that's kind of expected, few think they do. What seems to be the case is that somehow the U.S. thinks it still holds that ground, where I find it not to be true not only internationally, but increasingly domestically too. And because U.S. citizens have the most power over their own government, I think holding it to account should be of the highest priority when voting.
- scarmig 7y ago
  Yes, China is worse. It harvests tens of thousands of organs from political prisoners. It holds hundreds of thousands of minorities in concentration camps in Xinjiang. And that barely scratches the surface. The KSA needs to face severe repercussions too, but repression, censorship, and extralegal assassinations are all in a day's work for the PRC.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > It harvests tens of thousands of organs from political prisoners. Is this actually proven? > It holds hundreds of thousands of minorities in concentration camps in Xinjiang. KSA outright levels cities with minorities in them, so am not sure how they're better. > repression, censorship, and extralegal assassinations are all in a day's work for the PRC As far as I know, China does not repress women anywhere near the level that KSA does, nor does it require 'guardians', nor does it perform public beheading, prosecute people for 'witchcraft etc. so while am not claiming China is great, I am fairly certain it's less repressive than the KSA overall.
    - randomGen99 7y ago
      > > It holds hundreds of thousands of minorities in concentration camps in Xinjiang. > KSA outright levels cities with minorities in them, so am not sure how they're better. China holds one million Uighurs[1]. Meanwhile, in KSA, prison population (not only minorities) is about 61k[2]. The scale is just not comparable. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-it-has-credible-reports-that-china-holds-million-uighurs-in-secret-camps-idUSKBN1KV1SU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-... [2] http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/saudi-arabia http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/saudi-arabia
    - scarmig 7y ago
      This very article is about the organ harvesting. What it amounts to is that it's impossible for China's number of listed donors to have supplied all the organs necessary for the recorded number of transplants, by a substantial amount. The PRC could easily dismiss this by providing transparency into its organ donor procurement system, but it takes a hard line on limiting all information about it. Numerous eyewitness accounts also testify to the forced organ donation, though I find first person accounts less compelling than actual statistics and observing how the government actually behaves. Cite on the KSA leveling cities? Or is this just a weird way to reference the (terrible) war in Yemen?
- lostmymind66 7y ago
  "U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?)" I don't consider getting our drone bombed out of the sky and backing down from a missile strike a 'provocation'. It's much better than our previous administration's idea, which is to give them money to go away and hope they don't use it on nuclear weapons against us. "The U.S. doesn't really care about human rights, or its own abuse of them" Sure it does. There are stories every month about people in our military getting prosecuted for abuses. I don't think I've heard one story about this happening in China or Saudi Arabia. "so you'd be voting for posturing" It's not all or nothing. Nothing the US is doing even compares to the horrors of China. It's good to have a candidate against this. I seriously doubt this will ever happen. Trump is the only president that would even broach the idea of punishing China. If a Democrat gets into office in 2020, it will be business as usual and the problems will be kicked down the road, like they have been with Iran.
- syntaxing 7y ago
  Whataboutism is called a fallacy for a reason...Suggesting a wrong isn't wrong because of others actions of wrong is middle school age moral logic at best. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    In the context of someone stating their presidential preference I don't think this logic applies. It's legitimate to ask why someone would make this particular topic their single issue. There are many potential human rights issues, abroad and at home at stake, so the question why the topic of China takes priority is a valid one.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > suggesting a wrong isn't wrong because of others actions of wrong Except I didn't claim that anywhere. All I claim is that any U.S. stance such as the OP would like to see is likely not principled, so actually voting on this issue is not a good idea, in my opinion anyway.
- illumin8 7y ago
  This is a textbook case of whataboutism. The US is not perfect, but let's not get distracted when the topic at hand is the forced harvesting of organs and genocide of religious and ethnic minorities.
latchkey 7y ago
What was your requirements for the last few elections?
_lessthan0 7y ago
what about a hard line stance on Saudi (on Yemen) and Israel (on Palestine), China is obviously doing horrible acts but countries that US are supporting are doing equally horrible actions.

by jtdev 7y ago

A hard line stance on China’s human rights abuses, currency and trade manipulation, and intellectual property theft will be a top requirement for my support of 2020 US presidential candidates.

xenocyon 7y ago

It's weird to speak of literal organ harvesting and the legal fiction (admittedly, an arguably useful fiction) of intellectual "property" in the same sentence. One of these things is not like the other.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

AsyncAwait 7y ago

While I'd imagine you'd ignore U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?), I imagine? Is China worse than Saudi Arabia for example? Because I can't imagine U.S. speaking strongly against KSA, can you? The U.S. doesn't really care about human rights, or its own abuse of them, (was any top official prosecuted for Iraq?), so you'd be voting for posturing.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
See, this is pretty typical of how the Chinese are told about their own government’s abuses in schools and media: “but what about the other guy?!”. It’s just not a valid argument. It serves only to change the topic and justify nationalism.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  I just want OP to be aware that if he wants to vote for somebody like Trump for i.e. his 'stance' on China, it's worth noting that the U.S. doesn't really care, it's just posturing, this is not to say I like what China does here, if they're indeed doing it. It's possible to hold both of these positions i.e. being against the Iraq war and not believing that the U.S. really believes in the propaganda they're putting out on it does not mean you had to like Saddam.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    The minority of voters voted for Trump. Statistically you’re even less likely today to find his supporters. I’m more than happy to criticize my own country, its actions, its leaders, and the people that enable them. In case you haven’t noticed a lot of Americans don’t hold their government in high regard. Feel free to keep shining the light on those abuses, we need to remember them and learn from them. Now, what about China?
    - jtdev 7y ago
      The thing that most commenters here in tacit support of China fail to take into account is that China and the US are global superpowers (unlike the litany of baddies that have been mentioned here)... The US taking a hard line on China can have a cascading affect. The US can’t boil the ocean in regard to fixing all of the worlds ills, and we’re by no means perfect. China is simply the best hill to stand our ground on at the moment.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > The US can’t boil the ocean in regard to fixing all of the worlds ills, and we’re by no means perfect. China is simply the best hill to stand our ground on at the moment. That sounds suspiciously like "changing myself is hard, so I'll try to force my neighbor to change instead". China would certainly be a high-impact change on the global human rights situation (so would the US be), but on the other hand the probability of change seems somewhat low (especially because you are right: they are close enough to the US in strength that they can't be bullied around that easily). Moonshots are nice and certainly valid as side bets, but not as the primary strategy. Let's work on Turkey and the Saudis, they are "allies", somewhat dependent on Western support (Saudis) and money (Turkey) and nudging them into the right direction can make a huge difference. Reward them generously if they do, and you may see it spread. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It would have the nice side-effect that we'd clean up our back yard a bit, too. Credibility does matter on these things where people will question your motives.
- ghostDancer 7y ago
  I'm not from the USA, so I can't vote, but IMHO if the candidate truly cares about human rights will condemn equally and publicly the crimes in China, Saudi Arabia or any other country , if it only talks about the Chinese or Iranian one, just when there's a big manipulation campaign against those countries I know that candidate is a liar and is scamming the voters who fall for it. Also it's the same card some US people play when they are told about the abuses of their government/businesses, hey look at Iran , look at China, ...
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Many of us want candidates to go after Saudi Arabia, but what does that have to do with China?
    - ghostDancer 7y ago
      Candidates only talking about one means that they don't mind about human rights, that they are only doing these for , economical reasons, someone wants to wage a economical war with China that will cost USA lots of money, but some companies will get huge amounts of money and power, so first you declare them the evilest country in the world and then continue. They did it with Afghanistan , later with Iraq. OTOH the are silent about other places like SA or many other dictatorships in the world. Hypocrisy and blatant lies about human rights. And yes, the Chinese government is really fucked up. No one can deny that.
      - barryparr 7y ago
        KSA is a US ally, so our military aid makes us complicit in crimes against humanity. We don’t have a Similar level of engagement or leverage with the PRC.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  The US has a strong trade and military relationship with KSA, despite their utterly appalling human rights record. It's entirely legitimate to say "If this is really about human rights, why are you selling hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to an authoritarian regime?". That isn't whataboutism, it's a fundamental critique of the motivations of foreign policy decisions. Analogy: Joe and Paul are gangsters with a nasty reputation. Paul is in hiding because the police department have declared him public enemy number 1, while Joe was a guest of honor at the last police benevolent society dinner. Are you not at least the tiniest bit skeptical about whether the police chief is really trying to fight crime? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_St...
  - randomGen99 7y ago
    To your analogy, yes, police is fighting crime because getting Paul in jail would reduce rate by 50%. And after that, they can focus on Joe. It’s not nothing or everything (false dilemma/perfect solution fallacy).
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      Except, they're not only not going after Joe, they're actively hosting him. That's a crucial difference.
  - lixtra 7y ago
    As the saying goes, punish one educate hundreds. You can Paul first and then go after Joe later if he does not improve. This is not fair, but politics is not primarily about fairness. It’s about reaching you goals (here: establish human rights world wide).
  - kyboren 7y ago
    It is possible for a person to believe that both Joe and Paul, broadly speaking, do nasty things. On one hand, they have dealt with Joe for a long time and, while the relationship is far from perfect, they and Joe have a sort of understanding and Joe takes their opinions into account, in part with all the opinions of other stakeholders, when they're very insistent about it. On the other hand, Paul in recent memory has committed truly unspeakable atrocities against masses of even his nominal stakeholders--and this hypothetical person may not even have the 'favor' of being one. Paul is obviously much more hostile to his stakeholders (Great Leap Forward, June 4/Tiananmen, Xinjiang concentration camps, Falun Gong genocide, ubiquitous hyper surveillance, etc. etc.). Paul has recently become much more rich and powerful, and has started asserting that power in ways that would totally violate the understanding between our person and Joe. At the same time, Paul has been asserting his power in other person-gangster relationships, dictating terms and helping those gangsters better oppress their own stakeholders. Are you even the tiniest bit skeptical about whether our person's interests best lie in a maximally adversarial relationship with Paul vs. with Joe? Our person may very much want a better relationship with Joe. If they see Paul as a bigger threat, though, then it makes perfect sense to focus on confronting Paul.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > It’s just not a valid argument. It's not a valid argument for the Chinese to justify their practices, you are right in that. It is a valid argument for critics that are (collectively) guilty of similar abuses, however. In this case: why make China's abuses the issue of your vote instead of your government's abuses? The US government has limited power over the Chinese (and so your vote has even less), but it has full power over itself. Pledging your vote to somebody that will not create new wars sounds more reasonable to me than pledging your vote to someone that promises to be "tough on China". The horrors in Libya that the Obama administration is responsible for are arguably worse than China's human rights abuses in their Gulag system. First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye and all that.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    We can't go too far with this logic, though. Nobody's perfect yet I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone reflects on themselves, finds out they aren't perfect themselves, and just passively watches human rights abuses. It is absolutely vital that we do improve what we can and start with ourselves but we should not get carried away with that idea to a ridiculous degree. Someone who has committed crimes can and should still speak out if someone is committing something absolutely abhorrent in plain view instead of remaining silent.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Certainly, that is a theoretical possibility. Note that I'm not suggesting ignorance and passivity. I prefer this route: 1) get your house in order before you try to fix the world 2) start with small, achievable improvements 3) be just in your judgement. > Someone who has committed crimes can and should still speak out if someone is committing something absolutely abhorrent in plain view instead of remaining silent. Absolutely. Yet he may have to answer why his own abhorrent acts should be ignored, especially when they aren't from the distant past and he hasn't shown to be a changed man. The lion telling the tiger he should go vegetarian for moral reasons ...
      - 7y ago
sonnyblarney 7y ago
"U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?)," - this is a two sided coin.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > this is a two sided coin Tangibly, sure, but not really. Iran followed the nuclear agreement, the U.S. violated it and has been openly escalating ever since. This does not mean Iran is an angel, but it does mean the U.S. is the aggressor here.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Iran’s support of terrorism throughout the Middle East makes your comment - “does not mean Iran is an angel” - a major understatement.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      Except that "Iran’s support of terrorism throughout the Middle East" is a pretty vague statement that does nothing to answer the question of the U.S. not upholding its side of a deal Iran was following as certified by international bodies multiple times, it does nothing to answer for U.S. support for regimes that support terrorists, itself shipping weapons to extremists, it does not justify needless provocation and escalation towards war, nor sanctions that kill ordinary Iranians, prevent medical supplies from entering the country etc., (which is also the impact on Venezuela for example, not just Iran). As an European, China, Iran etc. do not hold the moral high ground in world affairs in my opinion, but that's kind of expected, few think they do. What seems to be the case is that somehow the U.S. thinks it still holds that ground, where I find it not to be true not only internationally, but increasingly domestically too. And because U.S. citizens have the most power over their own government, I think holding it to account should be of the highest priority when voting.
scarmig 7y ago
Yes, China is worse. It harvests tens of thousands of organs from political prisoners. It holds hundreds of thousands of minorities in concentration camps in Xinjiang. And that barely scratches the surface. The KSA needs to face severe repercussions too, but repression, censorship, and extralegal assassinations are all in a day's work for the PRC.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > It harvests tens of thousands of organs from political prisoners. Is this actually proven? > It holds hundreds of thousands of minorities in concentration camps in Xinjiang. KSA outright levels cities with minorities in them, so am not sure how they're better. > repression, censorship, and extralegal assassinations are all in a day's work for the PRC As far as I know, China does not repress women anywhere near the level that KSA does, nor does it require 'guardians', nor does it perform public beheading, prosecute people for 'witchcraft etc. so while am not claiming China is great, I am fairly certain it's less repressive than the KSA overall.
  - randomGen99 7y ago
    > > It holds hundreds of thousands of minorities in concentration camps in Xinjiang. > KSA outright levels cities with minorities in them, so am not sure how they're better. China holds one million Uighurs[1]. Meanwhile, in KSA, prison population (not only minorities) is about 61k[2]. The scale is just not comparable. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-it-has-credible-reports-that-china-holds-million-uighurs-in-secret-camps-idUSKBN1KV1SU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-... [2] http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/saudi-arabia http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/saudi-arabia
  - scarmig 7y ago
    This very article is about the organ harvesting. What it amounts to is that it's impossible for China's number of listed donors to have supplied all the organs necessary for the recorded number of transplants, by a substantial amount. The PRC could easily dismiss this by providing transparency into its organ donor procurement system, but it takes a hard line on limiting all information about it. Numerous eyewitness accounts also testify to the forced organ donation, though I find first person accounts less compelling than actual statistics and observing how the government actually behaves. Cite on the KSA leveling cities? Or is this just a weird way to reference the (terrible) war in Yemen?
lostmymind66 7y ago
"U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?)" I don't consider getting our drone bombed out of the sky and backing down from a missile strike a 'provocation'. It's much better than our previous administration's idea, which is to give them money to go away and hope they don't use it on nuclear weapons against us. "The U.S. doesn't really care about human rights, or its own abuse of them" Sure it does. There are stories every month about people in our military getting prosecuted for abuses. I don't think I've heard one story about this happening in China or Saudi Arabia. "so you'd be voting for posturing" It's not all or nothing. Nothing the US is doing even compares to the horrors of China. It's good to have a candidate against this. I seriously doubt this will ever happen. Trump is the only president that would even broach the idea of punishing China. If a Democrat gets into office in 2020, it will be business as usual and the problems will be kicked down the road, like they have been with Iran.
syntaxing 7y ago
Whataboutism is called a fallacy for a reason...Suggesting a wrong isn't wrong because of others actions of wrong is middle school age moral logic at best. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- Barrin92 7y ago
  In the context of someone stating their presidential preference I don't think this logic applies. It's legitimate to ask why someone would make this particular topic their single issue. There are many potential human rights issues, abroad and at home at stake, so the question why the topic of China takes priority is a valid one.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > suggesting a wrong isn't wrong because of others actions of wrong Except I didn't claim that anywhere. All I claim is that any U.S. stance such as the OP would like to see is likely not principled, so actually voting on this issue is not a good idea, in my opinion anyway.
illumin8 7y ago
This is a textbook case of whataboutism. The US is not perfect, but let's not get distracted when the topic at hand is the forced harvesting of organs and genocide of religious and ethnic minorities.

latchkey 7y ago

What was your requirements for the last few elections?

_lessthan0 7y ago

what about a hard line stance on Saudi (on Yemen) and Israel (on Palestine), China is obviously doing horrible acts but countries that US are supporting are doing equally horrible actions.