3 ms·
Xi would "win" "elections" this year, this would be a simple confirmation of his desire and not a problem for him. After that he will rule permanently, because
by Yizahi 4y ago
Xi would "win" "elections" this year, this would be a simple confirmation of his desire and not a problem for him. After that he will rule permanently, because no dictator can rescind power without facing a reaction from the successor. Taiwan occupation can happen at any time in the future, so elections, real or staged, won't interfere with it.
Yes, invasion would cause recession, but it won't be framed like that in the media. The recession (maybe) would start before the invasion, then invasion will happen to cover it up and blame outside force (USA of course) for the economic hardships, and this actually works every time.
And of course occupation would be peaceful. At least for the first 5 minutes. It would be a totally peaceful blockade on sea and air with a totally reasonable and peaceful demand to surrender all control of the island, disarm army and so on. And when treacherous evil Taiwanese will dare to treacherously attack the blockade forces, then China will be forced to a totally justified self defense. Just like ruzzia today is "defending" from imaginary Nato. They really believe that btw. You underestimate ability of authoritarian state to twist words and invent doublespeak.
- trasz 4y agoThat’s a nice description of your prejudices, but you failed to show any facts that would support it. For starters - why do you assume the elections, which essentially work the same way as presidential elections in US, would be staged? Again, China is not Russia. Mentality-wise, USA is closer to Russia than China is.
- Yizahi 4y agoThey may be not "staged" but pointless instead. I once real some long text about their high party politics, and the gist of it was that previously they had a tradition that every decade or so current chairman selects his successor. And that successor brings up his own team, mostly renewing high government posts. It seems that Xi is breaking that tradition and decided to continue ruling forever. Thus he will freeze any political successions in the country. And to do that he would be forced to tighten regulation and control over everything, which will mean even more emphasis on the loyal subordinates and so vicious autocratic circle will continue. Also USA presidential elections are joke, and definitely not a good benchmark to look at. Whole world somehow understands that simple vote by every single citizen is the best way to elect a leader, if you prefer democratic process in general. Also USA is definitely not even close to the ruzzia. I wouldn't evaluate China here, but ruzzia and USA are pretty much on the opposite spectrum in mentality, until Orange-man at least.
- trasz 4y agoCan we agree that both China and US are… somewhat flawed democracies then? The thing about chairman choosing their successor has been provably false a couple of times (search for Gang of Four), at the same time it was provably true a couple of times in US too. As for Russian and American mentality - there many similarities, from glorifying their army, to feeling that they have god-given right to invade anyone, shielding war criminals, being skewed towards religious fundamentalism, to assuming there’s nothing good coming from the government… to a surprisingly short history of their country.
- foverzar 4y agoMaaaan, I just love reading what people think of my country on western-centric states. All those vague and generalist statement, it just really shows the level of insight and competence of foreign cultures. Always talking points and slogans, like people can't even tell the difference between nuanced and complex reality and a simplistic cartoonish impression of it. Comical.
- HyperSane 4y agoWhat is the nuance for this? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62744522 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62744522 China may have committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - UN
- trasz 4y agoThe nuance is that US is worse in that regard, yet you’re shilling for it.
- HyperSane 4y ago
- foverzar 4y agoThat you have linked a propaganda state media, instead of an actual UN report :D Srsly though, you clearly aren't dumber than an average journalist, so why not cut the middleman and read UN reports by yourself? You'd be surprised how stuff gets rephrased to have completely different interpretation. Or, even better, gets omitted. E.g you won't see BBC reporting on UN report A/HRC/24/52/Add.1, much less under the headline "Britain may have committed crimes against humanity towards POC - UN"
- HyperSane 4y agoDo you have a point?
- 4y ago