Jump to content
Shoblongoo

The State of Global Politics Today

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DragonFlames said:

Is it a wonder people are so sick and tired of this crap they don't even go to vote anymore? Or that people doubt their every word and see only lies and deceit in each and every single one of them?
I'd say the answer is a big, fat no.

Speaking of, I think this is exactly the reason why people are radicalizing themselves these days: they feel abandoned by their government because they don't hold to a single promise they made and make politics that actively goes against the common folk. The way I see it, radical groups are always a direct result of a failed government/politics. Think Weimar Republic for a historic precedent to what's going on today.

a few years ago: ''Why don't young people participate in politics?''
*Youth participates because of Climate and internet politics*
''wait, no, not like that!''

At the same time, i don't think ''not voting'' is answer, you are throwing the one voice you have away with that. And while it may seem hopeless to change anything, it does actually effect stuff.

Example: Before EUP elections, while youth was protesting, politicians didn't really take notice of the protests much. However, after the Elections happened and CDU and SPD lost much more than expected, and Greens gained much more than expected, Climate politics became #1 topic in the society. And while the government is still stubborn, the pressure is much bigger now and next Federal election could lead to a policy change. In that case, the demonstrations and elections were able to change the focus and the most important political topics in society.

Now, of course Lobby money can stop/change the government behavior. And that's why a Lobby registery is needed imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

a few years ago: ''Why don't young people participate in politics?''
*Youth participates because of Climate and internet politics*
''wait, no, not like that!''

Exactly.

6 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

At the same time, i don't think ''not voting'' is answer, you are throwing the one voice you have away with that. And while it may seem hopeless to change anything, it does actually effect stuff.

Example: Before EUP elections, while youth was protesting, politicians didn't really take notice of the protests much. However, after the Elections happened and CDU and SPD lost much more than expected, and Greens gained much more than expected, Climate politics became #1 topic in the society. And while the government is still stubborn, the pressure is much bigger now and next Federal election could lead to a policy change. In that case, the demonstrations and elections were able to change the focus and the most important political topics in society.

Now, of course Lobby money can stop/change the government behavior. And that's why a Lobby registery is needed imo.

Sadly, the lobby is backed by our constitution with its right of petition paragraph.

Edited by DragonFlames
nvm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DragonFlames said:

 

Is it a wonder people are so sick and tired of this crap they don't even go to vote anymore? Or that people doubt their every word and see only lies and deceit in each and every single one of them?
I'd say the answer is a big, fat no.

Speaking of, I think this is exactly the reason why people are radicalizing themselves these days: they feel abandoned by their government because they don't hold to a single promise they made and make politics that actively goes against the common folk. The way I see it, radical groups are always a direct result of a failed government/politics. Think Weimar Republic for a historic precedent to what's going on today.

Yeah, pretty much. It's like they don't really give us a choice and then they're confused people are fed up with them. The sad result is the rise of the AfD ("Alternative for Germany" for you non-Germans), and it makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

''copyrightreform will not lead to upload filters'' another one to the list

If you caused this shit in the first place, you should atleast make it's a bit stable before leaving it a war infested hell zone.
 

Trump actively allowed the genocide to happen by taking US troops out. The one who allowed the genocide to happen in the first place is no better than the one who made it.

Execuse me, but:

1. i am not American

2. Context matters.

Maybe if America didn't distabilize the Area in the first place you wouldn't be getting shit for not deploying troops.

 

Also, from the point of view of a non-american, American policies pretty much go from extreme right (GOP) to centre-right (Dem). There's barely a left wing to speak off.

I don't think the western powers seriously want to stabelize the middle east.

Share this post


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

I don't think the western powers seriously want to stabelize the middle east.

Call me naive, but I don't think anyone wants to be further destabilized either. And, bringing stability is no small challenge. I'd like to imagine there are those out there who would want bring forth stability for peace, prosperity, and the sake of human lives, but the cost? Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh too great a burden to bear. But I could be absolutely foolishly wrong about the existence of any sincere and well-meaning politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Call me naive, but I don't think anyone wants to be further destabilized either. And, bringing stability is no small challenge. I'd like to imagine there are those out there who would want bring forth stability for peace, prosperity, and the sake of human lives, but the cost? Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh too great a burden to bear. But I could be absolutely foolishly wrong about the existence of any sincere and well-meaning politicians.

Yeah, we totally fucked up over there.

If we treated the Middle East with the same care and effort we did with Europe and Japan after WWII and during the Cold War, we would not have to deal with the shit that is going on today. The invasion of Iraq was pretty stupid, but we had every opportunity to fix that by pouring resources into the country and rebuilding them and we failed to do that. Iraq could have been like the next Europe or Japan, and they would be right on the doorstep of Iran. Iraq was a huge missed opportunity. If we are not going to pour money into them, we should at the very least continue occupying the country and help them keep their country safe until their security forces are up to par.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beneficiaries of the current conflict are the right populism parties (because another refugee wave is going to happen), Putin and someone, Trump might have thought think about, terror organisations aka IS.

The retreat was Trump's dumbest and most momentous decision. He might have fulfilled a part of the election promise by retreating soldiers, but he neglected the promise of eliminating the terrorism. It will have a boomerang effect on him. Even high Republicans were against the retreat, the first time ever they opposed a Trump decision for real.

 

About the current climate politics I have to say it is a pathetic display, if a Swedish girl had to make a sit-in in front of a government building to mobilize people to do something active against the climate problem. It has been a topic for decades. Instead of blocking the streets for the public transport which is actually a way to go in the future, these people shall do something useful like turning off electricity when not needed or using bike or feet for short distances. Yes, these protests are going on my nerves because it never has been a new topic. People brewed it just because of the latest policy (Trump and other right parties). It makes me sad that people did not experienced the problematic with their own eyes. And that people still neglect the climate change is simply because they have personal economical interests. economy =||= enviroment

Edited by Ingrid Brandl Galatea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2019 at 8:10 AM, DragonFlames said:

 

Is it a wonder people are so sick and tired of this crap they don't even go to vote anymore? Or that people doubt their every word and see only lies and deceit in each and every single one of them?
I'd say the answer is a big, fat no.

Speaking of, I think this is exactly the reason why people are radicalizing themselves these days: they feel abandoned by their government because they don't hold to a single promise they made and make politics that actively goes against the common folk. The way I see it, radical groups are always a direct result of a failed government/politics. Think Weimar Republic for a historic precedent to what's going on today.

Voting and politics make much larger of a difference at a local level, not at the federal level. Even state makes more of a difference, and at the local level you can very directly hold politicians' feet against the fire.

State elections are also not necessarily as polarized as federal elections, and you can find many examples of this throughout the country. For instance my home state is bluer than Azure Moon and we have a republican governor.

Federal politicians have way too many interests to answer to -- corporate/donor interests and their constituents both in delicate balance, because for instance most anti-Trump Republicans would vote to impeach if the vote were taken in private on the grounds that their constituents will primary them and vote them out.

So yeah, you should still always vote, you shouldn't look beyond the basic policies of federal politicians for now and the biggest difference always comes at the local / county / maybe even state levels of politics. That's where you can really grill people and start a new movement, if you really want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 12:10 AM, Jotari said:

Man, I kind of want to create a villain who speaks of significant world events and makes threats in such a childish, informal way of speaking

Duterte sorta checks all the boxes in that list you got, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Karimlan said:

Duterte sorta checks all the boxes in that list you got, man.

The president of the Phillipines? That's what Google gives me when searching the name.

Share this post


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

The president of the Phillipines? That's what Google gives me when searching the name.

Correct. Although I know little of his style, beyond being demagogic, far right-wing, shoot drug users on the spot(?), and uses social media to get his message across in ways that critics believe social media companies are being irresponsible in allowing.

 

 

So I saw today Netanyahu failed to form a coalition for a second time. Now the opposition led by Gantz gets a turn, and if they fail, its very possible Israel will have a third national election in one year. Dysfunctional politics in yet another country, something I when fully serious pity, but nonetheless can find a little levity in from afar.

Share this post


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

Correct. Although I know little of his style, beyond being demagogic, far right-wing, shoot drug users on the spot(?), and uses social media to get his message across in ways that critics believe social media companies are being irresponsible in allowing.

 

 

So I saw today Netanyahu failed to form a coalition for a second time. Now the opposition led by Gantz gets a turn, and if they fail, its very possible Israel will have a third national election in one year. Dysfunctional politics in yet another country, something I when fully serious pity, but nonetheless can find a little levity in from afar.

I have visited the Phillipines and the one taxi driver I spoke to said that he did a great job boosting the economy as mayor. My girlfriend is a Filipino, but she's lived in Japan for the past twenty years so she's probably not all that savvy of its current political climate. She has informed me that it's one of those countries were the military pulls a bloodless coup every now and then when they get tired of the current democratically elected leader. Thailand, where I live now, is the same. Technically I'm living in a military dictatorship. Everything's super normal though. The rules in developing countries can be very different to the places most of us are from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Correct. Although I know little of his style, beyond being demagogic, far right-wing, shoot drug users on the spot(?), and uses social media to get his message across in ways that critics believe social media companies are being irresponsible in allowing.

You've hit much of the high points, with the exception of his class, er, drug war. What he is, simply put, is a bonafide trapo (colloquial: traditional politician, also what we call "dirty rags," which is very much apt) who leveraged social media to buttress up his image and is able to fool convince people, time and again, that he serves the best interests of the commonfolk, when local events point to the premise completely backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 7:51 AM, Interdimensional Observer said:

So I saw today Netanyahu failed to form a coalition for a second time. Now the opposition led by Gantz gets a turn, and if they fail, its very possible Israel will have a third national election in one year. Dysfunctional politics in yet another country, something I when fully serious pity, but nonetheless can find a little levity in from afar.

We will be going back to elections again. That, I can promise.

I personally love it. The more times we have to go and vote, the less of a chance that Shas gets to enforce more religious laws on the rest of the country or The New Right (specifically Ayelet Shaked) can decide how next they want to break our already fragile system for opportunistic gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the american/european medias covering the South American situation? There are lots of terrible political crysis happening all over the continent, and an actual coup might be happening in Bolivia right now(after an alleged electoral fraud coming from the side suffering the coup).

I've never seem this continent being so unstable in my life, though besides the fascist in power and the deep political polarization there's no particular unrest (compared to the other south american countries) here in Brazil as of now.

Edited by Nobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nobody said:

How are the american/european medias covering the South American situation? There are lots of terrible political crysis happening all over the continent, and an actual coup might be happening in Bolivia right now(after an alleged electoral fraud coming from the side suffering the coup).

I've never seem this continent being so unstable in my life, though besides the fascist in power and the deep political polarization there's no particular unrest (compared to the other south american countries) here in Brazil as of now.

They are mostly not covering it. I didn't know what was happening until a buddy of mine in Chile was like, "Whelp, my city's on fire."

But yeah, it's rough. I honestly can't sort out what's going on, because there are so many conflicting narratives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nobody said:

How are the american/european medias covering the South American situation? There are lots of terrible political crysis happening all over the continent, and an actual coup might be happening in Bolivia right now(after an alleged electoral fraud coming from the side suffering the coup).

I've never seem this continent being so unstable in my life, though besides the fascist in power and the deep political polarization there's no particular unrest (compared to the other south american countries) here in Brazil as of now.

7 hours ago, dragonlordsd said:

They are mostly not covering it. I didn't know what was happening until a buddy of mine in Chile was like, "Whelp, my city's on fire."

But yeah, it's rough. I honestly can't sort out what's going on, because there are so many conflicting narratives.

I have not heard anything about it either, although I have not checked BBC in a while, but they are pretty good about covering global affairs on their website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 2:00 PM, eclipse said:

Yeah, I"ll let this one go.  It's definitely relevant!

Yo any possible way you can change the thread title to get rid of the ‘in 2019’ part, and just make this the general global politics thread? Do mods have the power to change thread titles? (requesting change of title as OP, if u can)

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took me a few tries refreshing the page and stopping page to see the full New York Times article about Pooh's lack of response right now outside of blaming foreign interference. I am copy-pasting the article into the spoilers in case you are not able to do the refresh-stop trick to go around the pay wall.

Spoiler

Beijing Was Confident Its Hong Kong Allies Would Win. After the Election, It Went Silent.

Since the big loss for the pro-Beijing camp, Chinese state media has resorted to a favorite tactic by blaming the United States, a nationalistic message that plays well to the masses at home.

 
 

Supporters of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement celebrating on the streets outside a polling station in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, early Monday.Supporters of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement celebrating on the streets outside a polling station in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, early Monday.Credit...Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

  • Nov. 26, 2019Updated 7:35 a.m. ET
    •  
    •  

BEIJING — The Chinese government seemed confident that its allies would prevail in the Hong Kong elections on Sunday.

For a week, commentators wrote brassy pieces saying the Hong Kong public would go to the polls to “end social chaos and violence,” a vote against what they saw as rogues and radicals. Editors at state-run news outlets prepared stories that predicted withering losses for the protest movement.

When it became clear early Monday that democracy advocates in the semiautonomous territory had won in a landslide, Beijing turned silent. The news media, for the most part, did not even report the election results. And Chinese officials directed their ire at a familiar foe: the United States.

The sudden pivot reflects the ruling Communist Party’s continuing struggle to understand one of its worst political crises in decades. At various moments in the monthslong protests in Hong Kong, Beijing has been caught off guard, forced to recalibrate its propaganda machine.

After the election loss, Chinese officials resorted to a favorite tactic by blaming the West, a nationalistic message that plays well to the masses at home. For months, officials have said the protests are the work of foreign “black hands” bent on fomenting an uprising in the former British colony.

“Beijing knows very well that they lost the game in the election,” said Willy Lam, a political analyst who teaches at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “Beijing had to blame somebody, so in this case it is blaming outside foreign forces, particularly in the United States, for interfering in the elections.”

 

Since the antigovernment protests erupted in June, Beijing has sought to portray the protesters in Hong Kong as violent thugs colluding with foreign forces to undermine the party. The government, under President Xi Jinping, has repeatedly denounced the protesters as a fringe group that does not enjoy broad public support.

In the days leading up to the election, state-run news outlets echoed that message. Xinhua, the state news agency, reported that most voters were opposed to violence and worried that the election would become a “stage for political performances.”

It didn’t matter that the elections on Sunday were for district councils, some of the least powerful positions in Hong Kong’s government. Like those in the pro-democracy camp, the Chinese media also appeared to position the vote as a referendum on the protests, albeit as a chance for the public to decry the violence and the pro-democracy movement.

But the vote on Sunday severely undercut the government’s narrative.

In a rebuke to Beijing, pro-democracy candidates captured 389 of 452 elected seats, far more than they had ever won. Beijing’s allies held just 58 seats, down from 300. It was a strong message from Hong Kong voters, with record turnout of 71 percent.

As the bruising loss for the pro-Beijing camp became clear, the Chinese news media didn’t cover it. A brief news article by Xinhua stated simply that ballots had been counted and blamed social unrest for “disrupting the electoral process.”

Xu Qinduo, a political commentator for China Radio International, a state-owned broadcaster, said the lack of coverage might be at least partly a face-saving measure. His outlet’s website posted the basic report by Xinhua.

“People see it as somehow a failure of the central government,” he said, referring to the victory for pro-democracy candidates. He said he disagreed with that perception.

Mr. Xu added that the silence from the news media suggested the government had not decided yet how to respond. “There’s probably a lack of conclusion, a lack of consensus even, over how to respond to the election and what kind of narrative we are going to have,” he said.

The failure of the political establishment in Beijing to predict the outcome also raised questions about the party’s grasp of the political forces in Hong Kong. There are grumblings that Mr. Xi’s government has misread the grievances of the protesters and underestimated the depth of the anger in Hong Kong.

Chinese state media has simultaneously argued that the frustrations have stemmed from economic issues like sky-high housing costs and depicted demonstrators as paid thugs. And those provocateurs, in Beijing’s view, didn’t have the broad support of the Hong Kong public.

“They believed in their own propaganda,” said Wu Qiang, a political analyst in Beijing who is critical of the government. “They thought the situation would pivot and the public would support them.”

Hong Kong’s leadership has sought to play down the elections results. On Tuesday, Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s embattled chief executive, disputed the idea that the losses for pro-Beijing candidates had broader implications. But she acknowledged that there appeared to be dissatisfaction with how the government handled the extradition bill that originally sparked the protests.

“There are people who want to express the view that they could no longer tolerate this chaotic situation,” Mrs. Lam said at a regular news briefing. “There are of course people who felt that our government has not handled competently the legislative exercise and its aftermath.”

Since the election, Chinese officials have renewed their attacks on the United States and criticized Congress for recently passing a bill to support the protesters, known as the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the American ambassador to Beijing, Terry Branstad, on Monday to complain about the bill.

Zheng Zeguang, a vice foreign minister, told Mr. Branstad that the United States should “stop interfering in China’s internal affairs,” according to the ministry.

 

“Any attempt to destabilize Hong Kong and undermine its stability and prosperity will never succeed,” Mr. Zheng said, according to the ministry.

The bill, which passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities, could impose sanctions on Chinese officials for cracking down on the protesters. The White House, which is engaged in delicate trade negotiations with China, has not said whether President Trump will sign it.

At their meeting on Monday, Mr. Branstad told Mr. Zheng that the United States was watching the situation in Hong Kong with “grave concern,” according to a spokesman for the American Embassy in Beijing. Mr. Branstad added that “the United States believes that societies are best served when diverse political views can be represented in genuinely free and fair elections,” according to the embassy.

The state-run news media has also sharpened its criticism of American politicians.

On Tuesday, People’s Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, published a scathing editorial accusing American officials of harboring “sinister intentions” and encouraging unrest in Hong Kong as a way of containing China’s rise.

CCTV, the state broadcaster, aired a segment on the evening news quoting American, Russian and Singaporean experts who argued that the United States was interfering in China’s affairs.

The tone in the state media is likely to grow more aggressive in the weeks ahead, analysts say, as Beijing tries to rein in a pro-democracy movement that feels vindicated by its electoral victories.

“The stage is set for more confrontation between the radical protesters in Hong Kong and a recalcitrant Beijing,” said Mr. Lam, the political analyst. “Beijing may end up squeezing Hong Kong further and further.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yo any possible way you can change the thread title to get rid of the ‘in 2019’ part, and just make this the general global politics thread? Do mods have the power to change thread titles? (requesting change of title as OP, if u can)

Sure. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, XRay said:

Took me a few tries refreshing the page and stopping page to see the full New York Times article about Pooh's lack of response right now outside of blaming foreign interference. I am copy-pasting the article into the spoilers in case you are not able to do the refresh-stop trick to go around the pay wall.

  Reveal hidden contents

Beijing Was Confident Its Hong Kong Allies Would Win. After the Election, It Went Silent.

Since the big loss for the pro-Beijing camp, Chinese state media has resorted to a favorite tactic by blaming the United States, a nationalistic message that plays well to the masses at home.

 
 

Supporters of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement celebrating on the streets outside a polling station in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, early Monday.Supporters of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement celebrating on the streets outside a polling station in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, early Monday.Credit...Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

  • Nov. 26, 2019Updated 7:35 a.m. ET
    •  
    •  

BEIJING — The Chinese government seemed confident that its allies would prevail in the Hong Kong elections on Sunday.

For a week, commentators wrote brassy pieces saying the Hong Kong public would go to the polls to “end social chaos and violence,” a vote against what they saw as rogues and radicals. Editors at state-run news outlets prepared stories that predicted withering losses for the protest movement.

When it became clear early Monday that democracy advocates in the semiautonomous territory had won in a landslide, Beijing turned silent. The news media, for the most part, did not even report the election results. And Chinese officials directed their ire at a familiar foe: the United States.

The sudden pivot reflects the ruling Communist Party’s continuing struggle to understand one of its worst political crises in decades. At various moments in the monthslong protests in Hong Kong, Beijing has been caught off guard, forced to recalibrate its propaganda machine.

After the election loss, Chinese officials resorted to a favorite tactic by blaming the West, a nationalistic message that plays well to the masses at home. For months, officials have said the protests are the work of foreign “black hands” bent on fomenting an uprising in the former British colony.

“Beijing knows very well that they lost the game in the election,” said Willy Lam, a political analyst who teaches at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “Beijing had to blame somebody, so in this case it is blaming outside foreign forces, particularly in the United States, for interfering in the elections.”

 

Since the antigovernment protests erupted in June, Beijing has sought to portray the protesters in Hong Kong as violent thugs colluding with foreign forces to undermine the party. The government, under President Xi Jinping, has repeatedly denounced the protesters as a fringe group that does not enjoy broad public support.

In the days leading up to the election, state-run news outlets echoed that message. Xinhua, the state news agency, reported that most voters were opposed to violence and worried that the election would become a “stage for political performances.”

It didn’t matter that the elections on Sunday were for district councils, some of the least powerful positions in Hong Kong’s government. Like those in the pro-democracy camp, the Chinese media also appeared to position the vote as a referendum on the protests, albeit as a chance for the public to decry the violence and the pro-democracy movement.

But the vote on Sunday severely undercut the government’s narrative.

In a rebuke to Beijing, pro-democracy candidates captured 389 of 452 elected seats, far more than they had ever won. Beijing’s allies held just 58 seats, down from 300. It was a strong message from Hong Kong voters, with record turnout of 71 percent.

As the bruising loss for the pro-Beijing camp became clear, the Chinese news media didn’t cover it. A brief news article by Xinhua stated simply that ballots had been counted and blamed social unrest for “disrupting the electoral process.”

Xu Qinduo, a political commentator for China Radio International, a state-owned broadcaster, said the lack of coverage might be at least partly a face-saving measure. His outlet’s website posted the basic report by Xinhua.

“People see it as somehow a failure of the central government,” he said, referring to the victory for pro-democracy candidates. He said he disagreed with that perception.

Mr. Xu added that the silence from the news media suggested the government had not decided yet how to respond. “There’s probably a lack of conclusion, a lack of consensus even, over how to respond to the election and what kind of narrative we are going to have,” he said.

The failure of the political establishment in Beijing to predict the outcome also raised questions about the party’s grasp of the political forces in Hong Kong. There are grumblings that Mr. Xi’s government has misread the grievances of the protesters and underestimated the depth of the anger in Hong Kong.

Chinese state media has simultaneously argued that the frustrations have stemmed from economic issues like sky-high housing costs and depicted demonstrators as paid thugs. And those provocateurs, in Beijing’s view, didn’t have the broad support of the Hong Kong public.

“They believed in their own propaganda,” said Wu Qiang, a political analyst in Beijing who is critical of the government. “They thought the situation would pivot and the public would support them.”

Hong Kong’s leadership has sought to play down the elections results. On Tuesday, Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s embattled chief executive, disputed the idea that the losses for pro-Beijing candidates had broader implications. But she acknowledged that there appeared to be dissatisfaction with how the government handled the extradition bill that originally sparked the protests.

“There are people who want to express the view that they could no longer tolerate this chaotic situation,” Mrs. Lam said at a regular news briefing. “There are of course people who felt that our government has not handled competently the legislative exercise and its aftermath.”

Since the election, Chinese officials have renewed their attacks on the United States and criticized Congress for recently passing a bill to support the protesters, known as the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the American ambassador to Beijing, Terry Branstad, on Monday to complain about the bill.

Zheng Zeguang, a vice foreign minister, told Mr. Branstad that the United States should “stop interfering in China’s internal affairs,” according to the ministry.

 

“Any attempt to destabilize Hong Kong and undermine its stability and prosperity will never succeed,” Mr. Zheng said, according to the ministry.

The bill, which passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities, could impose sanctions on Chinese officials for cracking down on the protesters. The White House, which is engaged in delicate trade negotiations with China, has not said whether President Trump will sign it.

At their meeting on Monday, Mr. Branstad told Mr. Zheng that the United States was watching the situation in Hong Kong with “grave concern,” according to a spokesman for the American Embassy in Beijing. Mr. Branstad added that “the United States believes that societies are best served when diverse political views can be represented in genuinely free and fair elections,” according to the embassy.

The state-run news media has also sharpened its criticism of American politicians.

On Tuesday, People’s Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, published a scathing editorial accusing American officials of harboring “sinister intentions” and encouraging unrest in Hong Kong as a way of containing China’s rise.

CCTV, the state broadcaster, aired a segment on the evening news quoting American, Russian and Singaporean experts who argued that the United States was interfering in China’s affairs.

The tone in the state media is likely to grow more aggressive in the weeks ahead, analysts say, as Beijing tries to rein in a pro-democracy movement that feels vindicated by its electoral victories.

“The stage is set for more confrontation between the radical protesters in Hong Kong and a recalcitrant Beijing,” said Mr. Lam, the political analyst. “Beijing may end up squeezing Hong Kong further and further.”

 

A major good for Hong Kong, but China using it to control their populace is sad. I really, sincerely hope somebody can de-frag the Chinese people in the very near future, because it's a danger to have such a large portion of the world's population so hypnotized by their country's propaganda. Seeing, reading about and hearing about how Chinese people dissociate from what's happening by just... pretending it isn't happening is very bad. It leads to shit like over a billion people being silently complicit in multiple genocides.

"Social Credit" did a fucking number on China. It's scary to think what would happen if other countries were to implement such an idea.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...