Biden labels China's Xi Jinping a dictator
www.politico.com
He was discussing the winter spy balloon incident.
    • AlgeriaWorblebot@beehaw.org
      5·
      2 years ago

      I understand it to be geopolitically significant. Biden, head of state for a big country. Xi, head of state for another big country. China’s made it known they don’t want Xi called a dictator. Biden’s done it anyway.

      It’s the scale of the thing that matters here. It’s a political statement of gravity. He’s calling any bluff they’ve got going, and demonstrating that the USA doesn’t respect China enough to use their preferred nomenclature. It’s a calculated insult and a challenge.

      • orbit@beehaw.org
        01·
        2 years ago

        A challenge yes, but hard to see as an insult by the audience as while the term isn’t flattering in a modern context it’s closer to how Xi has aligned himself.

      • cyd@vlemmy.net
        13·
        2 years ago

        It’s a calculated insult and a challenge.

        Occam’s Razor says that Biden, a famously gaffe-prone politician, simply made a gaffe.

        • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
          51·
          2 years ago

          This is just a replay of the “Oh He’s Just An Innocent Idiot” nonsense that was so popular around George Bush. People would say he’s an idiot and that he didn’t realize what he was doing, and that got him off the hook for the absolute atrocities he committed against not only the people of several countries around the world but also against the people of his own country. Don’t give Biden the same treatment; don’t let him off easy.

          If it was a mistake, it’s not a minor one; major “mistakes” like this warrant corrections after the fact, either from Biden directly or from White House communications. Since he hasn’t corrected it, it’s safe to assume it was intended.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          32·
          2 years ago

          This statement was made at a private fund raising event, but the white house intentionally chose to publish it. This isn’t a gaffle.

    • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
      34·
      2 years ago

      I mean, yeah, the US is a fascist regime which literally inspired Nazi Germany, the only difference is that Germany fell and the US remained to stay alive.

      • Valmond@lemmy.ml
        41·
        2 years ago

        Nazi Germany was inspired by a lot of things, but absolutely the most came from Faschism, invented by Italian leader Benito Mussolini.

        The USA couldn’t have been fachist at that time even if they wanted to.

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
          03·
          2 years ago

          Nazi Germany literally just copied from the book what Usonians did to aborigenes, which if you don’t know was a whole ethnic state thing, that without taking into account the treatment jews had in the US and black people. Mussolini didn’t invent fascism, that was a thing that built over the years while he certainly gave it more form.

          Here you have a video that goes mroe in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1gcipAvplY

              • Valmond@lemmy.ml
                0·
                2 years ago

                Mussolini established the first fascist regime.

                You start to talk about ethnic cleansing, like that hasn’t been done well before nazism or fascism were invented, as horrible as it is what even is your point?

                The you bail out with saying watch this YouTube…

                You come around as a troll, an astroturfer or someone very new to fascism and ww2 history.

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        42·
        2 years ago

        Hey! I just started to notice your messages around, with comments very critical of the USA with no argumentation whatsoever, that makes you my very first Lemmy troll, congrats :)

        • Valmond@lemmy.ml
          21·
          2 years ago

          Same here. So ; argue, downvote, report or “don’t feed the troll”?

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
          14·
          2 years ago

          I guess you don’t read, because when people engage in discussion I respond with facts. Generally it ends with people like you insulting me, with some racist/classist argument which ends up being banned, or with people not responding or responding fallacies. I could write a wiki about being critical of the US. I am an Argentinian so I know from first hand what it feels to have a fascists installed by the US, and to have a history of debt trap enslavement at the hands of the very same people.

      • naneek@kbin.social
        21·
        2 years ago

        90% of your comments and posts are pro-CCP and anti-US. Do you get paid to do this? Or are you that brainwashed?

        • monobot@lemmy.ml
          11·
          2 years ago

          I think that is not nice way to communicate with people.

          They have their opinion and they shared it, it is not rare to be person in current era angry at US and The Global West.

          For some people being pro-China or pro-Russia actually means being against US or against NATO, which can be understandable for some parts of the world that were under attack from them in last few decades.

          Ask them what happened to them and why they think like they do, maybe we can learn something new.

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        21·
        2 years ago

        And why is THAT news?

        Like are you people just learning this?

        China is a dictatorship. USA is a corrupt pseudofascist empire. Russia is a criminal gang masquerading as a country.

        And you’re all…surprised? By this info?

      • orbit@beehaw.org
        11·
        2 years ago

        So Xi didn’t make himself leader for life? And he doesn’t exert significant control over China’s government?

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
          13·
          2 years ago

          No… Xi was a member of the CPC in his village since young, elections are taken place at different levels, from towns to municipalities and so on, until you get to the National People’s Congress where there members elect a president.

          For the first level, the NPC elects the head of State and the heads of the judicial organs, i.e., the President of the State, the President of the Supreme People’s Court, the Procurator-General of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Director of the National Supervisory Commission, and, upon nomination by the President, decide on the leaders of the central administrative organs, namely, the Premier of the State Council. (Article 62 of the Constitution)

          For the second level, the people’s congresses of provinces shall elect the heads of the administrative and judicial organs at the provincial level, namely, the governors of the provinces or municipalities directly under the Central Government, presidents of high people’s courts, chief procurators of the procuratorates at the provincial level and directors of the supervision committees at the same level. (Articles 8 and 44 of Local Organization Law)

          For the third level, the municipal people’s congress shall elect the leaders of the municipal organs, institutions, and judicial organs, namely the mayor, presidents of intermediate people’s courts, chief procurators of the municipal procuratorate, and directors of the supervisory committee at the same level.

          For the fourth level, the people’s congresses of districts and counties shall elect the responsible persons of administrative organs and judicial organs at the district/county level, namely, the heads of the district/county, presidents of primary people’s courts, chief procurators of procuratorates at the district/county level, and directors of supervisory committees at the same level.

          For the fifth level, the people’s congress of townships and towns shall elect the heads of the administrative organs and institution at the same levels, namely, the heads of townships/towns. There are no judicial organs in towns and townships, only agencies dispatched by judicial organs at the district/county level.

          Source.

          He exerts as much power as any other president, or less, he can’t do whatever he wants, there are democratic processes involved to take decisions…

          • Valmond@lemmy.ml
            2·
            2 years ago

            Democracy isn’t just elections. The URSS had elections and they were not democratic.

            • orbit@beehaw.org
              1·
              2 years ago

              This was not a point on the mechanism of Democracy but rather Xi’s removal of the term limit he worked within. As it stands, the people of China have no systemic method to remove him should they overwhelmingly disagree with his policies and unless he steps down he’s in charge for life.

            • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
              13·
              2 years ago

              They weren’t a liberal democracy, which is different, they very much were a socialist democracy.

              • Valmond@lemmy.ml
                2·
                2 years ago

                Okay so you really are a troll then lol.

                A socialist democracy, what’s next, a dictator-democracy?

                Wait, that’s your definition of China!

                Looooool

                • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                  12·
                  2 years ago

                  Just because you don’t know what terms mean doesn’t mean the person you’re interacting with is a troll. Socialist, especially in this context, has a lot more to do with the economic order. That’s why socialist democracy is not an oxymoron, nor is capitalist-autocracy for example. Dictator-democracy is not even similar, because you’re abutting two governmental structure systems, not one governmental structure system with one economic system. Dictator-democracy and Capitalist-Communism both don’t make sense as terms. Socialist democracy absolutely does.

                  If you want to argue the veracity of the claim that they were a socialist democracy or not, go for it. But as it is, you are the one trolling here, either purposefully or just inadvertently due to not understanding what you’re responding to and thus assuming the person you’re responding to is speaking nonsense.

                • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
                  03·
                  2 years ago

                  It’s definitely better than what you have in the US, which whatever it is, it’s not a democracy.

          • orbit@beehaw.org
            21·
            2 years ago

            I appreciate the source and will read it further. That being said, you didn’t address the somewhat recent removal of the 1990s second term limit rule. Without a limit the communist party will be unable to elect another leader to that office until Xi steps down or dies. As most see it, this would make him more in line with a dictator than an elected leader.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276

              • orbit@beehaw.org
                1·
                2 years ago

                Democracy is broadly rule by the people. A leader for life without a mechanism for removal is one of many signs of a government that is not ruled by the people systemically. A benevolent dictator may rule in-line with the majority but should they not, the people have no ability to address it and make change at that level.

                Further, no one has addressed the initial points made. Xi removed the ability for the people he rules over to hold him accountable. This is one of many indicators of an autocrat or one who is moving toward being an autocrat in full.

    • ramenbellicEnglish
      13·
      2 years ago

      Despite the fact that China is one of the world’s most effective democracies – this label from Biden is bad for international relations and peace. The Cold War is in full effect, and it heating up to armed conflict is seeming more likely over the next decade.

  • Rogue_General@lemmy.world
    22·
    2 years ago

    Yep, a dictator in all but name. Glad Biden called it out… quite a contrast to the sucking up the previous president was infamous for.