Miscellaneous News

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
Actually the good olde USA was not necessarily a democracy by pure definition until after 1965. Its founding father deliberately wrote the Constitution in a way that guarded against democracy (meaning majouritarianism here). It was an elitist republic where the elites enjoyed pluralistic democracy among themselves through delegated representatives, whilst guarding against an alleged “tyranny of majourity” demanding more racial, gender, wealth and class equality and equity. It has become much more “democratic” after 1965 with the passages of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Nonetheless, the continued existence and functioning of the electoral college, Senate filibustering, and other institutional roadblocks meant to preserve the power of the privileged minority against majouritarianism mean that the good olde USA is not necessarily a democracy but a constitutional republic.

Having said that, when folks talk (especially Chinese liberals) about democracy, they really need to distinguish between the concepts of “democracy”, “freedom” and “republic”. Democracy does not equate freedom, and the two terms are more often at odds against one another. Unfortunately, most Chinese liberals often have ill-informed wet dreams about democratisation without even able to distinguish the key difference between the three terms.
Chinese liberals don’t believe in democracy either. They believe in rule based order supremacy.
 

RoastGooseHKer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chinese liberals don’t believe in democracy either. They believe in rule based order supremacy.
Actually many of the 89 student and worker activists did believe in democracy, except most of them didn’t understand the difference between democracy, freedom, and republic. In fact Mao’s cultural revolution was a form of extreme majouritarianism, aka tyranny of the majourity (and thus, democracy in its pure form) when viewing from the liberal context. Back to 89, when the students organised themselves, their own student governments simply replicated the CPC’s own electoral system. The movement was doomed from the start because the students had lacked leadership skills, coordination, and experience in political negotiations. Then you got radicals (more like foreign agents) like Cai Ling paid by overseas forces who simply acted more like a disruptor (by radicalising the movement) than a facilitator.

However you right that Chinese urban neoliberals from the business and intellectual community post-89 are much more likely to believe in freedom (in order to preserve their privileges and continue to exploit overworked Chinese migrant workers) at the expense of democracy. In essence, these folks align much more closely with the U.S. GOP than either the CPC or western social democratic (white lefts).
 

RoastGooseHKer

Junior Member
Registered Member
how will the future us china relations be betyer if fellows on think tanks dedicated to that is like this?
Because the invention, imagination and/or existence of a powerful adversary who stands diametrically opposed to you ideologically, materially and geopolitically legitimises and sustains your own self-constructed unique imagined community and identity. Such adversary’s very existence and supposed threatening behaviour help consolidate who you say you are and why you are the best.
 

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Huh? Someone collected 50 bags of garbage from the edges of the private wedding. And sold all those bags for $1250 with a “restock” coming.
Also, how exactly do you prove that they are exclusively trash from the wedding? What’s there to prevent the seller from adulterating it with plain garbage?
 

GulfLander

Brigadier
Registered Member

Gwangju air base semiconductor hub plan risks new Korea-US friction​

The Korean government's plan to transform the Gwangju Military Air Base into a flagship semiconductor cluster for the country's southwestern region is expected to require close consultations with the United States, as the facility serves as a Korea-U.S. Air Force Collocated Operating Base (COB).

Though no U.S. Air Force operational units are permanently stationed at Gwangju during peacetime, as one of the five COBs in Korea, the base is designated as a location where U.S. air assets can rapidly deploy in the event of a contingency. Portions of the installation are understood to have been provided to the U.S. side under the Status of Forces Agreement, allowing American forces to use designated facilities during emergencies.
As a result, any relocation or change in operational status of the base would likely require bilateral consultations and the formal redesignation of the COB.
A Ministry of National Defense official said the government plans to work closely with the U.S. side to coordinate the timing of any changes.

"We will swiftly discuss measures to coordinate specific timelines so that the Gwangju Military Air Base site can be used in a timely manner," the official said.

The ministry also said it is reviewing various options to vacate the site as early as possible, without creating a gap in national security, while stressing that no specific relocation plan has yet been finalized.

The remarks suggest Seoul hopes to adjust the military functions at Gwangju quickly enough to allow early construction of the semiconductor cluster while preserving operational readiness.

Cheong Wa Dae also acknowledged the issue, saying that Seoul and Washington had already begun consultations over the plan.[...]
The Gwangju issue adds to a list of pending alliance matters between Seoul and Washington. The two sides have also been navigating a subtle but public disagreement over the timeline for the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON), with Korea targeting 2028 while Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of USFK, recently cited the first quarter of 2029 during a congressional hearing.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

A potato

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
An update on the whole Thai people blaming China.

Do we even know the full operations on how much China is involved?

Like this probably most likely a mine where China buys materials from yet somehow Beijing needs to take responsibility for something that it probably has no control over.

Any thai people can comment on this?
 

sabiothailand

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
An update on the whole Thai people blaming China.

Do we even know the full operations on how much China is involved?

Like this probably most likely a mine where China buys materials from yet somehow Beijing needs to take responsibility for something that it probably has no control over.

Any thai people can comment on this?
Really, as a Thai, I just stop giving a shit about MOST Thai people's opinion towards anything China except things like electric cars, because I'd assume that most of their opinions are just horseshit. Only some Thais that I know that actually approach these things in nuanced lense.

And I barely keep up on this mine thing as well, so there's that.
 
Top