Xi Jinping

[AcetheSuperVillain]

China's current President, Hu Jintao is in the process of stepping down. The man to probably replace him, Xi Jinping is currently on tour in the United States of America to give westerners a taste of the next generation of Chinese politics. So far, I actually like what I've heard of the guy.

You can read about Xi Jinping's style yourself hereor here, but here are the highlights:

- Known for his zero-tolerance of corruption.
- Studied Chemical Engineering at Tsinghua University
- "worked in the fields" as a youth and traveled to America to study "advanced hog-raising techniques" in 1985
- married to famous singer, Peng Liyuan
- Enjoys American WWII movies; especially likes that the good guys always win
- Described as a tough speaker with quotes like "Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us. First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?"
- Plans to promote stronger US-China ties, including backing the US on issues with Iran, the Koreas and counter-terrorism
- Strongly opposes independence movements in Tibet and Taiwan (and Xinjiang?) and has called on the US to recognize its sovereignty over these territories.

I know that many people will want to say that anything the PRC says or does is evil and they should all be bombed into Democracy, but I have to say that if Xin Jinping was running for office in this country, I'd vote for him over the domestic rotten scum career politicians who bicker like children and don't accomplish anything.

But what do you guys think of him? Does he seem alright? Will he move China in the right direction?

[Iron-Hampster]

At 43 minutes ago, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: China's current President, Hu Jintao is in the process of stepping down. The man to probably replace him, Xi Jinping is currently on tour in the United States of America to give westerners a taste of the next generation of Chinese politics. So far, I actually like what I've heard of the guy.

You can read about Xi Jinping's style yourself hereor here, but here are the highlights:

- Known for his zero-tolerance of corruption.

okay, that's good, but without free trials that could lead to a Stalin style "purge"

- Studied Chemical Engineering at Tsinghua University

yea a lot of Chinese politicians are Engineers, as opposed to the Lawyers we have here, it works out well for them it seems.

- married to famous singer, Peng Liyuan

cool

- Enjoys American WWII movies; especially likes that the good guys always win

lol

- Described as a tough speaker with quotes like "Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us. First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?"

well they do tend to be very selfish with their international economic practices that are costing people over seas jobs while gathering humanitarian aid from them when ever a disaster in their country happens that they are able to but just flat out unwilling to pay for themselves.

- Plans to promote stronger US-China ties, including backing the US on issues with Iran, the Koreas and counter-terrorism
- Strongly opposes independence movements in Tibet and Taiwan (and Xinjiang?) and has called on the US to recognize its sovereignty over these territories.

that makes him poisonous now. After making this mistake through out the last century so many times over and over again, should the Americans be backing yet ANOTHER brutal dictatorship for their short term best intrests?

I know that many people will want to say that anything the PRC says or does is evil and they should all be bombed into Democracy, but I have to say that if Xin Jinping was running for office in this country, I'd vote for him over the domestic rotten scum career politicians who bicker like children and don't accomplish anything.

without a constitution democracy is just mob rule, took the American founding fathers 6 years to set up the political system they have here. It won't last much longer without a tune up but you have to admit that it lasted a pretty long time in comparison to say, Egypt's short lived democracy.

But what do you guys think of him? Does he seem alright? Will he move China in the right direction?

I was really hoping he would be like Gorbachev, Naive enough to believe in both a communist government AND in giving people the ability to spread information under a transparent government with free speech and free press. He won't be the end of the world but he isn't going to be our unwitting saviour either.

[Iron-Hampster]

They work for less, they get the business, that's just how economics works. They don't have a special economic practice that's somehow evil or dishonest; all countries want jobs for their own people. The route that they're on is what they see as way to advance economically.

I think I might make a thread on this later because my idea on how free trade should be handled it quite a bit different from how were all doing it (We are also guilty of selfish immigration policies that cause brain drain in other countries.) but I'd rather not derail this one

[AcetheSuperVillain]

costing people over seas jobs while gathering humanitarian aid from them when ever a disaster in their country happens that they are able to but just flat out unwilling to pay for themselves.

So you're saying China's a bad place because they get humanitarian aid when there's a disaster? The United States got foreign aid after Hurricane Katrina and is in so much debt, they feared the country would collapse without legally raising the borrowing limit and continues to subsidize industries that hemorrhage money into hostile foreign countries and to company CEOs who are responsible for nearly bringing another Great Depression. Their fiscal policies may be selfish, but at least they aren't assinine.

I don't think China's going to continue being a "brutal dictatorship" for very long. They want to be seen as a world super power with the support of the world's top countries, and they know that throwing people into gulags will not get them there. Same applies to their one-state China policy and dealings with Tibet.

The West only sees China's crackdown on Tibet as pointless bullying, but China sees the movements for Tibetan independence as a serious threat to its national security. Tibet had been part of the Chinese Empire for centuries as an autonomous region, and still retains its autonomous status in the PRC. Many ethnic Tibetans reside in neighboring provinces like densely populated Sichuan, and an Independence movement could boil over into those regions as well. Furthermore, Tibet creates a natural barrier with China's most dangerous regional rival, India, with whom the PRC has several standing border disputes, a conventional arms race and a potential nuclear stand off. It would be like if Alaska or Scandinavia had sided with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

I don't want to say that the crackdowns against peaceful Tibetan protests are the right thing to have done, but I kind of understand the PRC's better-safe-than-sorry attitude to this situation. I'm not sure a revolutionary movement propagated by exiles in a hostile country would be dealt with any more peacefully in the USA or EU either.

[Ericho]

It's sad, because you would think that the person in charge of the most populant country on Earth would be more well known to people, but then again, I guess there have been way worse political things we have discussed. In fact, it's nice to talk about some political thing that's actually good. I have read a little bit about him and he seems pretty good. Granted, I don't know much about Chinese culture so maybe the Chinese have different ways of viewing a politician as good.

[Camarohusky]

Mr. Jingpen, put your artificially depressed money where your mouth is.

Then maybe the big boys will listen.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 1 hour ago, Ericho wrote:

maybe the Chinese have different ways of viewing a politician as good.

Well you can't really blame them. Bad politicians in western countries take your money and hand it to their rich buddies and/or crash the economy. Bad politicians in their country send innocent people to death by firing squad and then bill to their families to cover the cost of Ammunition.

[LordZeebmork]

One benefit of appointing people from STEM fields is that you can be sure they're at least somewhat intelligent; more so for this guy, since Tsinghua is apparently the best university in China. Ordinarily I'd disapprove of crushing independence movements, but the Dalai Lama is a huge wanker thoroughly immersed in the worst of Western philosophy, so I have to make an exception here.

Also lmao if you think China is a communist country in anything but name.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

Also lmao if you think China is a communist country in anything but name.

They're still a politically "Communist" country in that the "Communist" Party is the only political organization allowed and can control any mundane aspect of everyday life if they want to. The evil genius of it all is that they don't have to be communist all the time, but can swoop in and be communist when they really have to or want to.

[Bolo]

At 3 days ago, LordZeebmork wrote: One benefit of appointing people from STEM fields is that you can be sure they're at least somewhat intelligent

I'm not sure I totally agree with that premise. I've met a fair number of engineers and -ologists, and while they certainly have a great deal of academic knowledge, a fair number of them lack worldly knowledge, social knowledge, and a scope of the wider world because they're laser-focused on their particular field, and become kind of detached. This is not to cast any judgment on engineers or science people in general, and certainly not to make any assumptions about Xi Jinping; just to say that we cannot say that science or engineer types are no more or less intelligent than anyone else outside the realm of their respective field.

[Dabus]

At 5 days ago, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: But what do you guys think of him? Does he seem alright? Will he move China in the right direction?

I think he's an alright guy. What's your definition of right?

[Iron-Hampster]

There are only three kinds of dictators in this world:

The corrupt dictator (smart and evil)
The insane dictator (stupid and evil)
and the Naive dictator. (stupid and good)

Xi is not Naive, nor is he Insane, that leaves him with only one more Category. The reason for that is because Smart people who are good NEVER become dictators.

[IGotMilk]

Besides no Independence with Tibet, which I hope that it DOES become independent, I'd support him.

[Camarohusky]

At 1 day ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: The reason for that is because Smart people who are good NEVER become dictators.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

[IGotMilk]

At 1 day ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: There are only three kinds of dictators in this world:

The corrupt dictator (smart and evil)
The insane dictator (stupid and evil)
and the Naive dictator. (stupid and good)

Xi is not Naive, nor is he Insane, that leaves him with only one more Category. The reason for that is because Smart people who are good NEVER become dictators.

Not exactly, Dictatorship just means that one person has power in the government, now sure, most likely there will never be a Libertarian Dictator, but it's still very possible.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 17 hours ago, IGotMilk wrote:
Not exactly, Dictatorship just means that one person has power in the government, now sure, most likely there will never be a Libertarian Dictator, but it's still very possible.

there are the naive dictators for them to fall under, because if that given libertarian knew history, he would know that giving himself absolute power would mean having to give a successor absolute power. He/she would also know that having absolute power is a very popular thing for people to shoot for so that their chosen successor may not be very relevant when his/her death comes.

if Xi had the best long and short term interests of his people at heart, his goal would be to relinquish the government's absolute power, in which case his colleagues would never allow him to be put in charge.