United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

But your logic here is akin to that of those who call for support of "actually existing socialism" (read: China, Vietnam, North Korea, or even strangely (as the Soviet Union has been dead since 1992) Russia) because American imperialism is bad.

Technically, China doesn't use the "actually existing socialism" justification. They say they are in the process of building socialism, but China isn't a socialist country yet. Of course, all this is ideology. All that matters is whether they end up sharing power or centralizing it. If the US keeps up this behavior, China might end up doing more to share power despite their party discipline and genocide in the west. China does have popular advisory councils: https://roland-theodore-boer.net/wp-con ... e-2021.pdf

[Travis B.]

But your logic here is akin to that of those who call for support of "actually existing socialism" (read: China, Vietnam, North Korea, or even strangely (as the Soviet Union has been dead since 1992) Russia) because American imperialism is bad.

Technically, China doesn't use the "actually existing socialism" justification. They say they are in the process of building socialism, but China isn't a socialist country yet. Of course, all this is ideology. All that matters is whether they end up sharing power or centralizing it. If the US keeps up this behavior, China might end up doing more to share power despite their party discipline and genocide in the west. China does have popular advisory councils: https://roland-theodore-boer.net/wp-con ... e-2021.pdf

The key thing is that China would be an imperialist superpower if given the chance, has engaged in imperialism (just ask a Tibetan), and as you acknowledge has engaged in genocide or ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation in the very least (the distinction really is a matter of whether you consider it murderous enough or your particular opinion on the concept of cultural genocide). To think that China really is "better" than the United States is to deny this.

[rotting bones]

The key thing is that China would be an imperialist superpower if given the chance, has engaged in imperialism (just ask a Tibetan), and as you acknowledge has engaged in genocide or ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation in the very least (the distinction really is a matter of whether you consider it murderous enough or your particular opinion on the concept of cultural genocide). To think that China really is "better" than the United States is to deny this.

I didn't say China is good. I said the US, as a proudly fascist superpower, is currently worse.

[Travis B.]

The key thing is that China would be an imperialist superpower if given the chance, has engaged in imperialism (just ask a Tibetan), and as you acknowledge has engaged in genocide or ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation in the very least (the distinction really is a matter of whether you consider it murderous enough or your particular opinion on the concept of cultural genocide). To think that China really is "better" than the United States is to deny this.

I didn't say China is good. I said the US, as a proudly fascist superpower, is currently worse.

My point is that because the US is bad you choose to look to the other would-be superpower, which is only "better" because it does not have as much power to be bad at the very moment. There is other mainstream media that is not American or Chinese, and which is better than much of the American mainstream media, hence my example of the Grauniad.

[rotting bones]

The key thing is that China would be an imperialist superpower if given the chance, has engaged in imperialism (just ask a Tibetan), and as you acknowledge has engaged in genocide or ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation in the very least (the distinction really is a matter of whether you consider it murderous enough or your particular opinion on the concept of cultural genocide). To think that China really is "better" than the United States is to deny this.

I didn't say China is good. I said the US, as a proudly fascist superpower, is currently worse.

My point is that because the US is bad you choose to look to the other would-be superpower, which is only "better" because it does not have as much power to be bad at the very moment. There is other mainstream media that is not American or Chinese, and which is better than much of the American mainstream media, hence my example of the Grauniad.

China could do regime changes if it wanted. The Soviet Union did, and it was weaker than China is now. China chooses not to do them. Instead, it ends up supporting oppressive regimes. I don't like China's foreign policy, but compared to kidnapping sitting presidents?

[Travis B.]

I didn't say China is good. I said the US, as a proudly fascist superpower, is currently worse.

My point is that because the US is bad you choose to look to the other would-be superpower, which is only "better" because it does not have as much power to be bad at the very moment. There is other mainstream media that is not American or Chinese, and which is better than much of the American mainstream media, hence my example of the Grauniad.

China could do regime changes if it wanted. The Soviet Union did, and it was weaker than China is now. China chooses not to do them. Instead, it ends up supporting oppressive regimes. I don't like China's foreign policy, but compared to kidnapping sitting presidents?

Read what I just said. The issue here is you seem to see things as an either/or between either the US or China as what you choose to align yourself with, that because the US is awful the only other choice out there (e.g. as source of news media) must be China.

[zompist]

This is surely one of the sillier arguments. Has rb really converted to national determinism, such that Trump being bad means every single person and organization in the US is bad, and the equally fascist China is now God? I hope it's just his usual hyperbole.

Regularly reading non-US news is good, of course. I don't know what's wrong with Al Jazeera. Or Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil. Surely there's something acceptable in Bengali even.

Trump's actions are completely lawless and delusional, of course. It's also a mystery at this point how he plans to "run" the country. It looks like he bombed the country as a distraction in order to extract Maduro— as opposed to invading and occupying it, which would be necessary to "run" the country or steal its oil. Trump has an appetite for short bursts of dramatic activity, not anything that requires planning, commitment, and possible US deaths.

[rotting bones]

The US also supports genocide in Palestine. I do support the Guardian. I linked to it when reporting this news. The issue is that its writers are economically enmeshed with the fascist powers. I'm not sure they can always be objective.

I'm not saying I will always believe Chinese media. I will read US media too. I'm just saying US media is currently less reliable than Chinese media.

[Travis B.]

The US also supports genocide in Palestine. I do support the Guardian. I linked to it when reporting this news. The issue is that its writers are economically enmeshed with the fascist powers. I'm not sure they can always be objective.

So you're saying that because the Guardian has American advertisers you regard them as politically unreliable. Doesn't that count as an example of the national determinism zompist speaks of?

I'm not saying I will always believe Chinese media. I will read US media too. I'm just saying US media is currently less reliable than Chinese media.

Seriously, China is just as fascist as the US, and if you think the Chinese media is somehow more independent of the will of the CCP than American media is of the will of Trump, I have a bridge to sell you.

[rotting bones]

So you're saying that because the Guardian has American advertisers you regard them as politically unreliable. Doesn't that count as an example of the national determinism zompist speaks of?

I still like the Guardian, but their perspectives do often align with Western media. This is often because they get their stories from other Western outlets.

Seriously, China is just as fascist as the US, and if you think the Chinese media is somehow more independent of the will of the CCP than American media is of the will of Trump, I have a bridge to sell you.

I mentioned the major problems with China before you did. I don't know how to explain myself because you don't seem to understand relative reasoning at all. Let me try this: Before Western media began justifying kidnapping, I had 5% faith in Western media and 3% faith in Chinese media. I still have 3% faith in Chinese media, but 2% faith in Western media.

Chinese media has a lot of propaganda, but their propaganda is often easier to identify: The CCP and anti-American governments are always right 100% of the time!!! Whenever they mention the heroics of anti-American governments, they are clearly lying. It's a bad idea to believe anything they say on the subject.

[rotting bones]

I'm excited to see if the world's mainstream media can get me to have negative 100% faith in them: As soon as they say anything, I'll be perfectly convinced the exact opposite of everything they said is true.

[MacAnDàil]

No shit. Machado, winner of the Quisling Prize, would also be worse. She promised maximum exploitation of Venezuelan national resources by foreign corporations.

Trump has also claimed that this will happen under him. It's so much more blatant than Bush Jr.

China might actually be the least bad global power at this point.

But your logic here is akin to that of those who call for support of "actually existing socialism" (read: China, Vietnam, North Korea, or even strangely (as the Soviet Union has been dead since 1992) Russia) because American imperialism is bad.

Technically, China doesn't use the "actually existing socialism" justification. They say they are in the process of building socialism, but China isn't a socialist country yet. Of course, all this is ideology. All that matters is whether they end up sharing power or centralizing it. If the US keeps up this behavior, China might end up doing more to share power despite their party discipline and genocide in the west. China does have popular advisory councils: https://roland-theodore-boer.net/wp-con ... e-2021.pdf

How can a government that I admit is genocidal eb the least worst? Are you including Brazil, Germany, France, the UK and Japan?

I should note that for all the faults of the American mainstream media, Chinese media really is not an improvement.

I have seen NBC and CBS explicitly justifying this operation. If they are willing to support this, I'm not sure I trust their judgment on anything else.

Can you show where they justified this operation? I have visited the websites of both channels and not found any.

Even if it were true, it would not justify overgeneralising to 'Western media'.

I mentioned the major problems with China before you did. I don't know how to explain myself because you don't seem to understand relative reasoning at all. Let me try this: Before Western media began justifying kidnapping, I had 5% faith in Western media and 3% faith in Chinese media. I still have 3% faith in Chinese media, but 2% faith in Western media.

Chinese media has a lot of propaganda, but their propaganda is often easier to identify: The CCP and anti-American governments are always right 100% of the time!!! Whenever they mention the heroics of anti-American governments, they are clearly lying. It's a bad idea to believe anything they say on the subject.

[rotting bones]

How can a government that I admit is genocidal eb the least worst?

All major mainstream Western outlets have published opinions in favor of genocide in Palestine.

Are you including Brazil, Germany, France, the UK and Japan?

Even if they weren't all grappling with fascist movements (recently victorious in Japan), these countries aren't global powers. It's also debatable whether China qualifies. China was basically enmeshed in Western economic systems before Western fascists decided to turn it into an enemy in order to mobilize support.

Can you show where they justified this operation? I have visited the websites of both channels and not found any.

I'm talking about the expert opinions they broadcasted as it was happening. The highlights are probably recorded here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4e1ta0qHRs

Even if it were true, it would not justify overgeneralising to 'Western media'.

They all get their news from a few outlets like, IIRC, AP and Reuters. I get the impression these places are now afraid of Trump.

[zompist]

They all get their news from a few outlets like, IIRC, AP and Reuters. I get the impression these places are now afraid of Trump.

Do you understand what a news outlet is? Let's look at what Reuters (a British outlet) is saying right now.

While many Western allies oppose Maduro and say he stole Venezuela's 2024 election, Trump's boasts about controlling the nation and exploiting its oil revived painful memories of past US interventions in Latin America, Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Venezuela, arrest its president and temporarily run the country marks a striking departure for a politician who long criticized others for overreaching on foreign affairs and vowed to avoid foreign entanglements.

International law prohibits the use of force in international relations except for narrow exceptions such as authorization by the U.N. Security Council or in self-defense.
Drug trafficking and gang violence are considered criminal activity and do not rise to the accepted international standard of an armed conflict that would justify a military response, according to legal experts.
"A criminal indictment alone doesn't provide authority to use military force to depose a foreign government, and the administration will probably hang this also on a theory of self-defense," said Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University specializing in national security law.

These are all about as condemnatory as a news outlet can or should be.

A news outlet is not a propaganda outlet. If what you want is denunciation and outrage, you want an opinion site. And that's fine, but criticizing a news site for not being a propaganda site is misguided.

[zompist]

It could be interesting that Russia is condemning the attack. Completely hypocritical, of course, but I wonder if it might temporarily deflect Trump's admiration for his Russian mentor.

[rotting bones]

These are all about as condemnatory as a news outlet can or should be.

You don't think this language is extremely moderated compared to what they would have said if it had been anyone else? I don't even think the Maduro regime was good for Venezuela. I would have been satisfied with a bald statement of the facts: Orange Terrorist Bombs Venezuela, Kidnaps Leader; Vows Attacks Until Danegeld Paid

[rotting bones]

It could be interesting that Russia is condemning the attack. Completely hypocritical, of course, but I wonder if it might temporarily deflect Trump's admiration for his Russian mentor.

Didn't he already say Putin sounds crazy after he wasn't able to stop the war?

[zompist]

It could be interesting that Russia is condemning the attack. Completely hypocritical, of course, but I wonder if it might temporarily deflect Trump's admiration for his Russian mentor.

Didn't he already say Putin sounds crazy after he wasn't able to stop the war?

Trump was pushing Putin's capitulation plan just a few weeks ago. He occasionally pretends to be mad at Russia and then always backs down. See Phillipps O'Brien's reporting for the last year. Russia is about the only country that Trump unabashedly loves.

[zompist]

These are all about as condemnatory as a news outlet can or should be.

You don't think this language is extremely moderated compared to what they would have said if it had been anyone else? I don't even think the Maduro regime was good for Venezuela. I would have been satisfied with a bald statement of the facts: Orange Terrorist Bombs Venezuela, Kidnaps Leader; Vows Attacks Until Danegeld Paid

Here, I'll rewrite the Reuters article for you to meet your standards.

International law, which the terrorist Trump despises, prohibits the use of force in international relations, such as Trump just blatantly used, except for narrow exceptions such as authorization by the U.N. Security Council, which won't happen here, or in self-defense, which did not apply to this illegal, immoral, and unsocialist act.

Drug trafficking and gang violence are considered by despicable losers to be criminal activity and do not rise to the accepted international standard, such as it is, of an armed conflict that would justify a military response, according to biased legal experts attempting to justify the Trump administration's illegal use of force, which is bad.

"A criminal indictment alone doesn't provide authority to use military force to depose a foreign government, and the administration will probably hang this also on a theory of self-defense," said Matthew Waxman, a compromised law professor at the lackeys of imperialism Columbia University specializing in national security law, normally used to justify American state terror for terroristic ends by bad men. Trump is such a bad man.

People did write like this in the 1930s. A few people still do, but it's tiresome.

Just to be clear: journalism is not agitprop. There are absolutely news media which are biased or toadying; this generally makes them popular with their supporters, ridiculous and useless to anyone else. It's usually right-wingers who demand that "news" be like that; Fox News is the obvious result. There are places I go when I want some moral analysis with my news. I do not want news sources that are as biased left as Fox is biased right. I am not a child who needs morality splattered all over the page so I can't possibly miss it. I can supply that with, you know, my sense of morality.

[rotting bones]

People did write like this in the 1930s. A few people still do, but it's tiresome.

I didn't make any moral judgments. I just stuck to the facts and used the same standards newspapers apply to non-Trump actors. Trump is committing terror by taking a foreign country hostage and demanding Venezuela's resources as ransom. If anyone else did this, they would be called a terrorist in no uncertain terms. If any other country did this, it would be called a rogue state.

This is the same problem that the Western media has with Palestine. When Palestinians attack Israel, it's a terrorist attack. When Israel attacks Palestinians, missiles decide to take a stroll in the park one day, trip and fall over civilians. This opinion of mine is grounded in scholarship.

For contrast, if I had been trying to make fun of Trump, I would have said something like: Local Fruit Commits War Crimes, Cites Unpaid Tab