American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

The "Uyghur genocide" is a US government narrative - it's quite easy to follow the money with the various NGOs that peddle it.
Abu Ghraib demonstrates that the US is not concerned with the human rights of Islamists. Gaza demonstrates that the US also doesn't mind collective punishment of civilian populations that produce Islamists.
So why does the US claim to take an interest in China's security policies in Xinjiang?

Anyone, those few who are obliged to subscribe to the US narrative , aside from the US and its closest fuckboys, have only labeled it as alleged. Also worth noting: the claim regarding Xinjiang isn't on mass killings, but rather on alleged systemic suppression - Such as BLM.

I know, labeling BLM as genocide is outrageous, and that’s exactly my point.

Also note that there was no official U.S. government determination of genocide regarding China’s treatment of Uyghurs prior to Mike Pompeo’s declaration on January 19, 2021. And we all know how trustworthy he is.

---

---

[BING_XI_LAO]

Random bit of research I did while arguing with an anti-Chinese friend just now. Figured I could post it here since Hong Kong came up recently.

A decade ago, Chinese in the UK were a very high-quality group.

However, after the CIA-backed antifa riots in Hong Kong in 2019, the UK implemented a special "BNO visa" to hoover up all the anti-CCP retards in the city.

The result: Chinese are no longer looking so hot in the UK's economic stats...

As of 2025, the only ethnic group with a worse unemployment rate than the Chinese, are the Pakistanis. If you haven't visited the UK, for context, it's necessary to point out that British Pakistanis are extremely inbred (literally subhuman, you can see that their eyes aren't properly spaced etc). Apparently we sourced mainly the most backward tards in all Pakistan, the Mirpuris IIRC. To come even a distant second against such strong competition, to be the second most retarded group in the UK, was tough, but Hong Kong antifa managed it.

One possible explanation for this is that the people who hated the CCP's Security Law in Hong Kong are mentally ill gutter trash. In fact, the BNO-ers are only about 25% of the UK's Chinese population, so their ability to impact the overall statistic so negatively is impressive. They may even be worse than our wonderful Pakistanis (some 75% of which are inbreds). Maybe the pro-American antifa terrorists are just getting their feet under them and will get jobs over the next year or two, but for now the question remains open: are people who think China is a worse place to live than the UK, because of muh freedumbz and muh demooocracy, mentally inferior to the visibly deformed products of the UK's 1st-cousin-marriage paki breeding project?

[Boro]

Bing how do you take an otherwise interesting data point, ignore all context, and then deliberately forgo basic human decency?

First is the Hong Kong maidan attempt. As in there were far right ukrainians imported to the side of the rioters, which is a somewhat forgotten note, especially within the western info bubble (doesn't fit the narrative). This was not an isolated incident, but part of the trade war going since 2018, and more broadly the containment of a China that was returning to the global stage, having in part broken out of the middle income trap of being the "world's factory".

In this context, negative portrayal to various degrees (including some extremes in this very thread from back then) of the chinese is inevitable and necessary, after all a cold war is a cold war, enemy is enemy.

Also in this context, the much greater negative portrayal / conspiracy theories about 5g make sense, as Huawei was and is leading equipment manufacture, prompting the US to take protectionist measures in a field that was for a long time western-led.

These two (portrayal as servile/totalitarian, and as a security/spying risk) contributed to lumping the "good chinese" (the collaborators and pro-westerners) along with the rest, and didn't help employment.

Add to that as a footnote to the global rivalry the narratives around Covid-19 (China virus, bats) that fueled anti-chinese sentiment, regardless of the immigrants being "the good ones".

Additionally, OTHER migration increased to the UK, competing for jobs.

So I'd not jump to conclusions so easily, and without context, and I'd rather maintain a degree of decency.

As for the rest, no, I'm not lurking. But there are dull days at work with nothing to really hold my attention. Otherwise I'm plugging along with my icebolt sorceress, full cleared hell Act 1, and up to (and including) Halls of the Dead in act 2.

[Charr Babies]

As for the rest, no, I'm not lurking. But there are dull days at work with nothing to really hold my attention. Otherwise I'm plugging along with my icebolt sorceress, full cleared hell Act 1, and up to (and including) Halls of the Dead in act 2.

No excuses needed. I would not have made anything of it if you actually have something to say - like now. Post away.



:cough: :cough: unlike someone who post-count shamed me  :cough: :cough:

...Before it was at least once a week. Now its been blessedly quite for a long time...

That’s a curious thing to announce from the bottom of the forum, where only the truly devoted dare scroll. 

---

[Charr Babies]

Now that the dust has settled… and we dived in the rabbit hole...

With all that’s already been written in response to the simplistic "How is Hong Kong?" (funny how that question says more about the asker than the place), plus what I’m posting now, it’s easy to see why I wasn’t about to go off on a tangent, especially given the hundreds of thousands of words already exchanged. 

People outside Hong Kong love to act like they get it. They read a few headlines, watch a clip, maybe skim a think piece - and suddenly they’re experts. They turn Hong Kong into a symbol, a political pawn, and a soundbite such as -

How is Hong Kong?

That’s a pretty simplistic and broad question, it depends on what you actually know and what you really want to know.

Just fine, thank you for asking! Things are on the up and up ?

Let’s start with the simplest (but often misleading) comparison most people tend to use.
Germany: Europe's Industrial Powerhouse (we won’t cherry pick a weak German state)
US: The largest GDP (we won’t cherry pick a weak US state)
Hong Kong: Ranked 5th in China - 3rd in the world as the largest financial hub


Note: Chancellor Merz recently stated that Germany’s current welfare state “can no longer be financed with its economy

Now that the Greater Bay Area Initiative is up and running, it positions Hong Kong to evolve from a standalone financial hub into a key connector for global capital, innovation, and talent within a deeply integrated regional economy. The future is bright!


Dual Forces at Play: Strain and Synergy
Another very significant factor. Hong Kong’s recovery isn’t just about global headwinds, it’s about where the money is going. As residents flock to mainland cities for shopping, healthcare, and even vacations, local businesses are left behind. Capital is following suit, with investors increasingly favoring mainland markets. The irony? Roles have reversed, again. Once wary of mainland influence, many Hongkongers now rely on it for affordability and opportunity.

At the same time, because of the Hong Kong riots, it has also lost a significant revenue stream from mainland tourists.

The silver lining - China and Hong Kong are becoming more economically and socially integrated than ever before. Cross-border infrastructure is improving, digital payment systems are interoperable, and cultural exchange is deepening. The ties are growing stronger.

---

But Hong Kong isn’t a metaphor. It’s a living, breathing place with contradictions, tensions, and a history that refuses to fit neatly into anyone’s agenda. If you’re going to judge it, do the work. Headlines aren’t enough. Soundbites won’t cut it. And if you’re not from there, maybe start by listening.

Economic Boom, Cultural Friction
Around 2010 in the years leading up to 2019, Hong Kong experienced a surge in visitors from mainland China, driven by rapid economic growth and rising personal wealth. Many mainlanders traveled to the city to shop for luxury goods, attracted by its reputation for authenticity, tax-free pricing, and access to international brands. This influx of shoppers significantly boosted Hong Kong’s retail sector, especially in high-end commerce.

Previously, Hong Kong had taken full advantage of China’s abundance of resources and cheap labor, using its strategic position to act as a gateway between East and West. Manufacturing and trade links with the mainland helped fuel Hong Kong’s rise as a global financial hub, and the city grew wealthy by leveraging China’s economic engine while maintaining its own distinct legal and political systems.

However, when the table turned and with the growing presence of mainland tourists, it sparked tension. Locals voiced concerns about overcrowding, shortages of everyday goods, and cultural clashes stemming from differences in language and behavior. These frustrations fed into broader anxieties about Hong Kong’s autonomy and identity. There were many incidents where mainland Chinese were attacked by locals, reflecting how economic friction had already begun to manifest in social conflict. Some of that hostility may have stemmed from a quiet inferiority complex - resentment toward the rising wealth and influence of mainland visitors that Hongkongers once looked down on.

Hongkongers Turned on Their Own
I was deeply ashamed of how some Hongkongers behaved when the balance of power even slightly shifted - a vocal segment turned prejudiced against their own, mainland Chinese who share the same blood, language, and history. It wasn’t all Hongkongers, but many of the same people who would later flood the streets in 2019, demanding freedom, were already showing contempt for those closest to them. When the tide turned, they didn’t stand tall, they lashed out. Solidarity was replaced by elitism. Empathy gave way to hostility. It was hypocrisy in its rawest form: demanding dignity while denying it to others.

In contrast - It was a proud moment! The 2014 Umbrella Movement was a peaceful pro-democracy protest that lasted 79 days, marked by disciplined civil disobedience, creative forms of resistance, and notable restraint from both protesters and police.

It’s ironic that Hongkongers fought for democracy, when they never had it under British rule. Back then, governors were handpicked by London, and top officials weren’t elected by the people.

Democracy thrives on dissent, debate, and the protection of opposing views. Killing an elderly man with bricks or setting people on fire for disagreeing is not democracy

Democracy thrives on dissent, debate, and the protection of opposing views - not on force or foreign intervention. So when protesters in 2019 began appealing to foreign powers - calling for nuclear strikes on China, that crossed a line. Inviting foreign aggression against your own country is not democracy. It’s treason.

BING_XI_LAO:
One possible explanation for this is that the people who hated the CCP's Security Law in Hong Kong are mentally ill gutter trash.

From Day One, Hong Kong was tasked with drafting its own national security law. Article 23 of the Basic Law - written into the city’s mini-constitution in 1997 - clearly stated that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own” to prohibit treason, secession, subversion, and foreign interference. But for 27 years, that responsibility was delayed, resisted, and politically toxic. It wasn’t until the 2019 riots shook the city that Beijing finally pushed for its completion. The result: the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, enacted in 2024.

And let’s be honest, most Western nations already have far tougher national security laws. The US and UK criminalize espionage, foreign collusion, and threats to sovereignty with sweeping powers and long sentences. Hong Kong’s Article 23 simply brings it in line with what many countries consider standard practice.

Hong Kong has long been known as a hotbed of espionage, earning informal reputations like the “capital of spies”
No wonder the collective West shit their pants over the Security Law 

So when Jimmy Lai appeals to foreign powers, suggesting nuclear intervention - it’s not just controversial; it’s incendiary. If Americans wouldn’t tolerate that kind of rhetoric from one of their own, why should China? This isn’t about silencing dissent; it’s about drawing a clear boundary between protest and treason. There should be no tolerance for such traitorous acts, regardless of the values the individual claims to defend."

Values don’t excuse betrayal, and freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences when national security is at stake. When activists cross the line from dissent into collusion with foreign powers, they aren’t just expressing opinions, they’re engaging in traitorous behavior that no nation can afford to ignore.

---

Jimmy Lai,
the Hong Kong media tycoon and founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, played a significant role in supporting the 2019 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, both ideologically and financially.

He colluded with foreign forces and was directly involved in organizing and financing the RIOTS - including our figureheads, Joshua Wong and Ted Hui

---

[Mjmd]

I'm almost positive that is the best written post you've done here. Couple of slight deviations, but I appreciate the insight. Also, I think last time you told us back ground on yourself you lived in Kentucky or Kansas. Maybe it was Mississippi? It definitely wasn't Hong Kong.

I can't speak to the cultural part of this, but I doubt all the protesters were calling for nuclear strikes or all hong kongers were doing violence to mainlanders. This happens in America as well. Someone on the far left or right will say something stupid / do something bad and then we have to listen to people conflating with EVERYONE even vaguely on that political spectrum and saying they believe the same thing or do the same thing. I've talked about this here before with Greenline quite a bit and how its good to avoid this kind of thinking. I'm not saying it doesn't happen and the frequency can't be worrying, but taking the part as the whole should be done carefully especially when it comes to populations. It also is the case it is easy to take a piece of a conversation out of context (or misquote, although this case I believe to be just taking out of context). In this case, Lai appears to have been talking about moral authority and how China had no weapons to fight with, but the US had a nuke. Listen to the video you posted. I've posted below relevant piece from the video.

Quote:

If we think that we’re starting a cold war with China today, a cold war that’s a war of competing values, and we’re on your side sacrificing our life, our freedom, everything we have, fighting this war in the frontier for you, should you support us? This is something that America has to know, not only supporting us, but use your moral authority in this cold war to win this war in the beginning because they have nothing. It’s like they are going to the battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in a minute.

But I think the bolded part literally before he mentioned nukes shows he wasn't talking literally. Everyone knows China has actual nukes as well as a large military force, so to say they have nothing literally in the same sentence as referencing moral authority is pretty clearly referencing the moral authority part (disregarding if you believe that part or not, he pretty clearly did). Now if you slow mode the nuclear part, replay a couple of times, alter the voice on some of those replays, and you are already predisposition to the the way of thinking of the people posting it, then yes I can see how you would come to that conclusion. I'm sure there were spliced videos and misleading articles afterwards that also omitted any mention of reference to moral authority that you may have seen first.

Again, not an expert, but wasn't the make up and how candidates were chosen for the government also a big part? China getting an auto majority I thought was part of it as well.

[Charr Babies]

I’ve never disclosed where I live or where I’ve lived - not that it matters, unless you’re planning to send me a fruit basket for enduring this conversation.

I’ve got the original hour-long FDD video. Not a clip. Not a remix. The full thing. I selected this clip because repetition seems to be the only antidote to willful ignorance. You may be clinging to hope like it’s a souvenir from a lost argument, but the video’s authenticity isn’t up for debate. Lai is being prosecuted for that... and a buffet of other charges that would make a crime syndicate blush.

As for your opinion, it has the same impact on the case as whispering into a typhoon. I didn’t post that message to engage with someone who talks about Hong Kong with the confidence of a TED Talk and the knowledge base of a fortune cookie. I made the above post as a courtesy, a little intellectual snack, for people on this forum who speak with such confidence and convictions on something they know nothing about.

When someone says “How is Hong Kong?” or “Look what happened in Hong Kong” like it’s some kind of intellectual mic drop, I can’t help but admire the simplicity. It’s almost poetic how loudly some people can miss the point.

---

[Mjmd]

You have before, but I can't remember what state exactly. It does matter as you wrote that like you were in Hong Kong. Not that it makes it a solid argument; appeal to authority is a logical fallacy for a reason. Anyways just an inconsistency I thought I would point out for reader context.

I mean if you repeat the part without context..... Did you read / listen to the part IMMEDIATELY before it? Not that one man should be held up for common thought of everyone who sided with his overall goals anyways as I stated. Even if for some odd reason you think he meant it literally despite the direct part before it, it doesn't mean that was a common opinion.

[Charr Babies]

What’s amazing about you? You can argue about things you know nothing about, yet keep crawling forward like a one-legged soldier in a minefield - stubborn, half-broken, and somehow still swinging. Honestly, it’s either heroic or completely unhinged. Maybe both.

I have posted full length videos before and you always claim you have no time to watch hour long vids. Now I condensed one for your busy schedule, you accuse me of quoting without context with all caps "IMMEDIATELY" Which part did you not get that the authenticity of the video is unquestionable,

Even if for some odd reason you think he meant it literally

.... and Lai is being tried in Hong Kong’s High Court, specifically under designated National Security Law judges. This is the highest level of trial court - not just my opinion.

it doesn't mean that was a common opinion

What do you want, a Gallup poll? 

No, I have never said where I live, but I guess you would know better.
Maybe I am in close contact with Hong Kong, maybe I travel back and forth, maybe I was living there at the time…

Suddenly, sharing my own experience (rather than parroting hearsay or Western propaganda like you do), and offering personal insight is dismissed as an “appeal to authority” fallacy.

You know, if you could stop swinging “logical fallacy this, logical fallacy that” like a madman with nun chucks, you might actually develop the capacity for some logical thinking yourself.

Shouting “logical fallacy” every time you’re cornered doesn’t make your argument smarter - it just makes your panic louder.

So Jimmy Lai, who received foreign funding, and then went on to fund, organize, and publicly drive the Hong Kong riots, is suddenly just a guy with “goals,” and the rioters are innocent because they merely agreed with him? That’s convenient. On January 6, five people died. No one said, “They just shared Trump’s goals.” Over 1,300 were prosecuted, and Trump, indicted for inciting it, not only walks free, but now sits in the Oval Office committing genocide. And when Saddam ruled Iraq, the US flattened a sovereign nation to bring one man to justice - no moral separation there.

---

---

[Mjmd]

Oh I don't doubt the authenticity of the video or even the clip you played of it. I merely think only looking at one part of the sentence and ignoring the other part of the sentence in the video you posted / the sentence before is yes taking it out of context. That isn't an hour long video to watch, its literally seconds. Go watch again. Type it out and realize there is a part of the sentence before that and shockingly there might be a sentence before that that gives context. Other than dismissing me, can you explain why you think what I bolded WASN'T in relation to the part you quoted? Of course you can't. When people talk they often do try to string thoughts together shockingly. Are there more quotes of him saying this? There is a lot of instant outrage culture online. Even assuming things weren't taken out of context, one of the things you can do is go "has this or something similar occurred before".

Ah yes a political trial in an autocracy. We have plenty of flaws in our trials don't get me wrong, but you think a political dissident in China got a trial where everything was on the up and up? I mean maybe. Its possible he is even guilty. I don't really care. I more wanted to point the flaw in how you looked at the quote and then on top of that suddenly made out like it was a common viewpoint. I honestly thought about just letting it go un commented on (as I often do to let these end), but it was too obvious.

Equating people marching for democracy with people trying to overturn an election is not something that seems equivocal to me, but there is another flaw. I think its safe to assume most people on Jan 6th believed Trump either won the election or didn't care that he lost and both groups wanted him back in power. I think its a vast stretch to assume even a majority of hong kong protesters wanted the US to nuke China even assuming you aren't taking a quote out of context. That wasn't the goal they shared with Lai. Polls aren't perfect even in places where people don't feel threatened to answer honestly, but I mean some back up for such an outrageous claim would be nice.

You did say where you lived somewhere in the months leading up to the last election. But yes all those things are possible. I'm a father of 3, would my opinions and interactions with other parents mean I have an understanding consensus of the opinions of all of my school district (or even one of the schools) parents. No, of course not. It might be valuable insight as I indicated yours might be, but it could also be wrong or not be the whole picture. Extend that to a very large city instead of a medium sized school district and you can see the problem. Again, there is a reason its a logical fallacy.

I mean I would prefer there weren't logical fallacies for me to point out. It would make this harder. If you can work on that next time you post it would be nice.