Live data from Hacker News

How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

washingtonpost.com

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because we (global powers) are more civilized these days. In this modern era it's harder (not impossible) to go to war when there isn't an egregious threat/harm present. The populous now needs to feel it's justified.

Civilized? Us? You must have America confused with some other global superpower, like, say, ancient Rome. We've been pursuing one or more wars more or less continuously since WW2. They don't feel like wars to us, because our economic heft is such that fighting a war on foreign soil is pocket change. We just don't call them wars until later, when the historians can finally control the narrative.

This is worded like propaganda. War and conflicts between countries have been on the decline for decades, and conflicts between major world powers have gone down to nearly nothing[1].

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty fucked up, http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/28/...

Politifacts is funded by the guys who fund hillary :/

If you can't disprove the claim, slander the source.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#103
post #42
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/28/...

Key sentence: "The problem with all of this isn’t the donation, or questions about a quid pro quo with Algeria. It’s the fact that Algeria wasn’t ever on the terror list. "

lol I was almost 100% sure this wasn't true. Thanks for confirming.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#104

Old news: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-scandal... . Also Russia, Ukraine, Saudi. Our current POTUS seems will not be influenced by China.

Probably because Russia outbid them.

That is probably why we stopped fracking when Trump was elected. To help the Russians.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was a way to get a single subscription for access to every article linked from HN (whether it be from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, or whatever) I might pay for that. I don't think most people read a newspaper front to back anymore.

“I want to buy some Lucky Charms but I only want to pay for the marshmallows because I don’t eat the other bits.” “I want to rent this apartment but I don’t use the oven so I dont want to pay for that portion.” “I want a whopper from BK on a bun from Mickey D’s, And I only want to pay for one burger with that combination.” “I want iOS on my new Galaxy.” I’m sorry for mocking you but I find your stipulation for paying…

I didn't request anything. I merely stated some conditions under which I would feel inclined to pay for journalistic content. Nowhere did I say that anyone is obliged to create such conditions for me.

Just like I don't buy lucky charms because I don't like all the things in there. That doesn't mean I think they're depriving me of something to which I'm entitled. It just means they're not getting my money.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#106
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why are we permitting lobbyists to usurp this role? Why do we allow lobbying to exist at all? Because politicians make the laws, and lobbyists enrich them. If someone said "hey, would you like to have other people give you free gifts every day, or would you like to make that illegal?" - what is your response going to be? Lobbying will literally be the downfall of our democracy. Here's hoping other countries learn fr…

If you ever call you congress critter, that is considered lobbying, no? "Spamming" and abuse of all kinds are the price paid for a free society.

No, it actually isn't. To actually lobby Congress on behalf of a company you need to register as a lobbyist. Very, VERY different than a constituent calling their representative.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#107
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to the Citizen's United decision that Chinese transnational corporation has the same free speech rights to contribute to a political than an individual US citizen has. While a foreign country can't directly give money to a politician its trivial for them to use a cutout corporation to pass money and influence. And since we recognize corporations as people the US subsidiary of the Chinese cutout has full free s…

I long for the days when you had to bring bags of cash to bribe a congressperson. CU made it simple and hard to trace and even harder to prove.

I thought all you had to do now was pay them for a "speech" and you could give them as much cash as you wanted to.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#108
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key sentence: "The problem with all of this isn’t the donation, or questions about a quid pro quo with Algeria. It’s the fact that Algeria wasn’t ever on the terror list. "

lol I was almost 100% sure this wasn't true. Thanks for confirming.

Read the whole thing.

The Politifact article states that it's false that Algeria was removed from the "terror watch list". That's not what the grandparent poster actually claimed - the GP is talking about human rights violations.

It IS true (the same politifact article even mentions this) that Algeria paid $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and immediately got a lot more state department access to lobby on their human rights record.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#109

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

The us is such a decentralized power that business interests influence policy. China is a business interest. On the political level China seems to be a rival, however the true nature of our relationship is equivalent to that of business partners.

Political leaders will talk shit about china while more powerful big businesses are essentially reliant on trade with china. There is nothing to keep in check because nobody wants to keep china in check.

Another thing is you seem to imply that they need to be kept in check. Centralized powers are better at keeping themselves in check then a decentralized power. No other powerful country in the world right now can even attempt to implement population control the way China did it. If the US becomes an environmental apocalypse in the future its because they couldn't take drastic measures the same way China did with their one child policy. I am aware that there were unintended consequences of the one child policy but i am referring to the underlying motives and capability of carrying out such policies, something that is impossible for the US to do. If anything the US is the runaway power that needs to be kept in check.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#110

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

The us is such a decentralized power that business interests influence policy. China is a business interest. On the political level China seems to be a rival, however the true nature of our relationship is equivalent to that of business partners. Political leaders will talk shit about china while more powerful big businesses are essentially reliant on trade with china. There is nothing to keep in check because nobody…

Sorry to pierce your holy pope box, but this stuff is really, really, really old. It's way bigger than peoples' economic interest. This deals with forces that people are willing to die for. Think about that for a minute. What causes people to sign up for war? 9 times out of 10, it's for "the good of the country."

How do you define the good of the country? Only against the interests of other countries. What's in the best interests of the US is against the interests of China. That's what this stuff means. And it's a strong enough model to have prevailed for over a thousand years. Foreign policy experts are all over themselves right now wondering what the hell is going on and nobody really has a good answer.

The United States has historically been the global hegemony that dictates how much other nations can get away with. That's something that usually sinks into the minds of the entire population and infuses them with the willingness and desire to fight, not just to safeguard that status, but also to punish insults to that status, even if they're just perceived.

The EU is not an insult to American status. Neither is Russia, Africa, or South America. China is. They're creating global status for themselves that the US has historically held to be within it's purview. It's creating alternatives for countless small nations other than acceding to American dominance.

American politicians are more than capable of setting the economic agenda. They've done this in the past. Why are they not doing this now, in response to geopolitical imperative that's held for every single other nation in the same position has for as long as we can study dominant nations for? China should have expected the American inquisition. The inquisition never came. So they get bolder and bolder. This is far beyond business. This is pride.

America got to rise because the powers in Europe were too busy infighting to recognize the growing nation. Once the world wars concluded, they got their act together and are acting as a bloc to balance the US. The world learned to not ignore rising powers just because they're thousands of miles away.

Look, the US is willing to check North Korea, which serves no real threat to anything but perceived American interests. Yet we're willing to make national news every little thing Kim Jong-Un does, and seriously rattle our sabers against him. Why is North Korea on our radar, but not China?

It's got nothing to do with business. This is pure politics. The only entity capable of drumming up the resources to check China is us, and we're not doing it. By all analyses that have served us well for a thousand years, we're not doing it. Are we just waking up, just now getting ready to perceive the threat? Or is there something else going on? Does America just not care about the position in the world that previous generations spent their entire lives building?

Post reply on HN