Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

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

#71

Post by conistonwater »

learc83 wrote: post #54
propman wrote: post #8

Foreign influence in congress may not be the biggest threat to Democracy, but it is one of my biggest pet peeves. A country has vastly greater resources that any other individual, business or entitity. A foreign country's intentions are also potentially far more nefarious than a company lobbying to make more profit in a capatilistic system or an individual wanting government policies to be shaped more according to hi…

>This kind of reminds me how in one of the Wikileak emails, Clinton removed a country from a list of human rights violators for a mere donation. This is just flat out wrong. There was a rumor going around that a donation got Algeria taken off of a list of state sponsors of terror. The problem is that it was never on that list in the first place.

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

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

#72

Post by vinceguidry »

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 the nation's rivals to provide an adequate check. Those checks go all the way to declaration of war if it becomes necessary.

We're seeing that with China, and no one is quite sure why. Russia is falling in line with Chinese interests, the US is just keeping mum, in the same way Europe kept mum for decades while the US rose in prominence.

My theory has to do with nuclear weapons making the 'buck-stops-here' solution politically infeasible. Nuclear weapons didn't meaningfully change conventional warfare, but it threw a monkey wrench into international diplomacy, creating a situation in which China can push relentlessly hard to rise without a corresponding check.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

skj wrote: post #36
propman wrote: post #8

Foreign influence in congress may not be the biggest threat to Democracy, but it is one of my biggest pet peeves. A country has vastly greater resources that any other individual, business or entitity. A foreign country's intentions are also potentially far more nefarious than a company lobbying to make more profit in a capatilistic system or an individual wanting government policies to be shaped more according to hi…

FYI: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/28/... Unless you meant something else, just more garbage.

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by 1_2__4 »

candiodari wrote: post #58

What I thought was really funny was how the Clinton foundation lost pretty much all it's foreign funding in a matter of weeks after Hillary lost the election. Who knew that even Australia, both the premier privately AND the government bribed the US president ? I wonder what they pay for ... http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/au... Ukranian billionaires: (who, by the way definitely did not earn…

NY Post, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, and a blog written by someone whose bio starts out "An internationally renowned expert in the field of health and nutrition...".

Perhaps you have sources that aren't part of an insane right-wing echo chamber? Oh wait, no, of course you don't, or you would have posted them. Must be some of that Deep State infecting the MSM (am I doing this "right")?

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

#75

Post by cbzbc »

tome wrote: post #70
cbzbc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, though this dates back to a time when not joining the NPT was seen as controversial (there was a diplomatic fuss at the time, and a lower level fuss some decades later when India started developing weapons while remaining out of the NPT). At the time the US insisted on carrying out inspections of the Negev facility to ensure that weapons were not being developed. In the event they eventually stopped as they fel…

> this dates back to a time when not joining the NPT was seen as controversial I hope it's seen as no less controversial today!

It should be, however the events surrounding Israel, India and Pakistan successively going nuclear-armed has weakened the force of the rhetoric somewhat.

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

#76

Post by oculusthrift »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #29
sien wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article bangs on about how China got a single US congressman. Israel has enormous influence over the whole of congress. http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2017/07/17/aipac-sti... Mearsheimer and Walt is still the big book on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Fore... The US give Israel billions of dollars in foreign aid every year. Allows them to disgregard UN resolutions an…

Reminds me of how the NRA is supported by a small but active part of the population that votes. Jews may be small in number but I would bet dollars to Latka’s that they vote. If Tech issues brought people out to vote like guns or Israel I bet we would have more engineers in Congress.

i don’t think it’s about the number of voters...

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

#77

Post by MrZongle2 »

jessaustin wrote: post #62
candiodari wrote: post #58

What I thought was really funny was how the Clinton foundation lost pretty much all it's foreign funding in a matter of weeks after Hillary lost the election. Who knew that even Australia, both the premier privately AND the government bribed the US president ? I wonder what they pay for ... http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/au... Ukranian billionaires: (who, by the way definitely did not earn…

I'm actually a little worried for the Clintons. Some of those donors might be unaccustomed to having promises broken. Some of those might be unpracticed at forgiveness...

The Clintons seem to excel at taking care of the Clintons. I think they'll be just fine.

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

#78

Post by oculusthrift »

verylongaccount wrote: post #57
Feniks wrote: post #32

The US has decided that its politicians are for auction. I don't see why its a problem if the bidding is from China instead of Comcast? Besides foreign governments have been lobbying in Washington for decades. There is a whole industry about it.

What particularly strikes me about this story is the highly selective concern. What about all the lobbying done by Israel and Saudi Arabia?

shhh... that’s antisemetic and islamophobic

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

#79

Post by novaleaf »

vinceguidry wrote: post #72

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…

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.

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

#80

Post by glenstein »

RepressedEmu wrote: post #55
glenstein wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it only looks dirt cheap if you're looking exclusively at campaign contributions. But the real influence of lobbying comes from managing entire networks of influence surrounding a person. A politician will suddenly know people who can help them manage their money, set their best friend up with investors so they can start their new business, help get their kid into the best school, help them find a lucrative c…

I guess thats like the difference between money and power. Money can make things happen but true power is about getting things that can't be bought.

While that's all true, I'm still specifically thinking of cases where money is being utilized to purchase beneficial arrangements. It's just that a lot of those dollars are being spent on things not found in retail stores, to acquire influence in ways beyond campaign contributions. So only looking at campaign contributions vastly underestimates the "price" of a politician.
Post reply on HN