Do Young Taiwanese want to Reunify With China?

[592257001]

and when they vote for the nationalists, the nationalists invite the US army in and then there's no "next election". no thanks, ask your grandparents what they thought of living under nationalist rule.

like no_name said, its much easier to just occupy taiwan and then give it hong kong style autonomy if they come peacefully, and make it like US occuped japan in 1945 if they don't.

i don't think you understand the principle of negotiation. why should anyone accept your conditions if there's no pressure? there should be an obvious choice between reward and punishment.

Once it's a democratic system, the nationalists will not be able to invite the US army in. First of all, it's not their interest to do so, because why would any one be stupid enough to ask another country to invade it self when it's already in power?Second of all, the nationalists are only seeking US for help because it have been isolated by the CPC, it needs a international body to protect itself; just like how PRC asks Soviet for help during the cold war (You are not seriously thinking that Chairman Mao will actually "Invite" Soviets to come to China, right?). Lastly, how CAN they invite the US to china when nobody in China will agree with their 卖国行为？
Plus, this is the only way that I can think of for the peaceful reunification of China. Any direct military assult would surely result in the loss of both PRC and ROC personal, not to mention their military strength and infrastructure loss. Nobody wants to see that happening.

 

[dingyibvs]

I am not saying there will be NO corruption at all in the states, since I am not a 美分党，but it is true that Canada, the US, and many european countries that have adopted the democratic system is much more open and transparent in terms of their budget spending, and ofcourse less corruption. China haved advanced very fast in the last 20 or so years in terms of economy. Her citizens are more than joyful at her pace at urban development, but the astonishing economic growth rate have also showed its side effects like unthinkable real estate price. I am sure you've experienced that too. The top leaders of CPC such as our beloved President Hu wants to decrease on the housing price for sure. However, there are more than a handful of corrupt CPC regional officials who doesn't want that to happen because their own interest will be destroyed. Only a democratic monitoring and regulating agency can control that.

Yes, I know the real estate prices are ridiculous in China, especially in the cities. However, how do you think a democratic monitoring and regulating agency can control that? Didn't the U.S. JUST suffer a gigantic bubble burst in their real estate sector? Laws were continuously modified those years until right before the bubble burst a person could take out a loan to purchase a $200k house without a job or any type of savings. Where were the monitoring and regulating agencies then? People were making money while blowing up the bubble, and politicians courted their votes by allowing them to keep doing so, even tho that anybody with long term vision could see that it could burst at any time.

Plus, there exists plenty of conflicts between the federal and state governments as well. The thing about corruption in America is that it is all done legally. You pass good policies for us, and we'll see to it that you're rewarded after you retire.

Going back to my first paragraph, one of the key disadvantages of democratic nations is a lack of long term vision. Their governments essentially live from election to election. If people aren't seeing results in 4 or 6 years, you're outta the office. So should a politician focus on strengthening the nation for the next 50 years or the next 5 years? Only the one who focuses on the next 5 will be elected/re-elected so the choice is obvious.

It's the same reason that India cannot settle the border dispute with China. China has settled its border disputes with its her neighbors except India and I think one other country(forgot which), and it did so through offering some concessions that surely would not fly in a democratic nation. However, the Chinese leaders can absorb the temporary negative opinions of the populace, because they realize that secure borders are key to long term peaceful development. China would probably take the existing LOC, basically giving India 70% and the more fertile portion of the disputed territory. However, giving any concessions to China is political suicide in India, so the dispute can't be settled on the Indian side.

Each political system has its pluses and minuses, and it's almost always more complicated than it seems.

 

[gambit]

I live in the U.S.,...

So do I.

..so I'll describe the American way of corruption.

And I will clarify. Always good to have an alternative viewpoint.

To win elections, you'll need to sway the general public;...

True.

...to sway the general public, you need control of the media; and to do so, you'll need money.

No one control 'the media' in the US, or in functional democracies for that matter. The phrasing 'the media' implies, not a formal organization, but an idea, like 'the military' that contain the services like 'the Army' or 'the Air Force'. Your argument is flawed in that if anyone can control 'the media', even at the local elections, then there is no need to have money in a campaign. The fact that increasing amount of money is needed is precisely because no one control 'the media'. We can have influential individuals at various levels inside 'the media' who willingly abandoned their journalistic principles, as Americans have amply seen with the latest Presidential election when WaPo reporter Eli Saslow described Obama with 'chiseled pectorals', and promote a particular candidate or viewpoint. But that does not constitute control. Increasingly high finance is coming a point of diminishing return as there are candidates who defeated incumbents who has a larger electoral 'war chest'.

 

[below_freezing]

Once it's a democratic system, the nationalists will not be able to invite the US army in. First of all, it's not their interest to do so, because why would any one be stupid enough to ask another country to invade it self when it's already in power?Second of all, the nationalists are only seeking US for help because it have been isolated by the CPC, it needs a international body to protect itself; just like how PRC asks Soviet for help during the cold war (You are not seriously thinking that Chairman Mao will actually "Invite" Soviets to come to China, right?). Lastly, how CAN they invite the US to china when nobody in China will agree with their 卖国行为？
Plus, this is the only way that I can think of for the peaceful reunification of China. Any direct military assult would surely result in the loss of both PRC and ROC personal, not to mention their military strength and infrastructure loss. Nobody wants to see that happening.

what are you talking about? once the government is elected and they are in power, you have zero, absolutely no say in what they do until the next election. try telling obama anything. at best he'll laugh you off at worst the CIA would invite you to afternoon coffee.

yeah, high real estate prices are in china. try buying a house in tokyo though? it happens with economic development. did you watch the interview with japanese students on what they thought of 《蜗居》？they said it was 无病呻吟, because very few japanese will own their own house until they're 40+. i don't have a house of my own, do i blame the government? it's like the dumbass burger muncher that called 911 for spilling hot cofee on herself.

i agree, yes, housing prices are high. the solution isn't to give an even tinier minority absolute power for 5 years.

corrupt officials are a big part of it. yes that is true. another part is overseas money from already escaped corrupt politicians and wall street.

 

[dingyibvs]

So do I.


And I will clarify. Always good to have an alternative viewpoint.


True.


No one control 'the media' in the US, or in functional democracies for that matter. The phrasing 'the media' implies, not a formal organization, but an idea, like 'the military' that contain the services like 'the Army' or 'the Air Force'. Your argument is flawed in that if anyone can control 'the media', even at the local elections, then there is no need to have money in a campaign. The fact that increasing amount of money is needed is precisely because no one control 'the media'. We can have influential individuals at various levels inside 'the media' who willingly abandoned their journalistic principles, as Americans have amply seen with the latest Presidential election when WaPo reporter Eli Saslow described Obama with 'chiseled pectorals', and promote a particular candidate or viewpoint. But that does not constitute control. Increasingly high finance is coming a point of diminishing return as there are candidates who defeated incumbents who has a larger electoral 'war chest'.

Whoa, total misunderstanding. I kinda thought that I should've clarified after I wrote it. I didn't mean to literally control the media, I meant simply to spam the airwaves with any number of true or untrue statements like "the healthcare bill introduces the death squads." Like it or not, it works. It's not the only thing that works, as you pointed out, but it is a GIGANTIC part, also as you pointed out. It works especially well for many local elections because most people don't know anything about most of the candidates they vote for. They either just pick the person from their party, or, as is the case with many of the all-important swing voters, they just pick the one they've heard more positive things or more likely less negative things about. I think we're in fairly good agreement on this point: money goes a long way in winning elections, and the big corporations are the biggest donors.

Just look at Obama. All the promises of reducing the power of the lobbyists, what's anything tangible that he's done so far? Nothing.

Your point about journalists abandoning their journalistic integrities is dead on too. I really get tired of listening to both CNN and Foxnews. I just can't believe how networks with such clear agendas can pass as news organizations. When a network is so consistently liberal or conservative as they are, it loses all credibility in reporting political matters in my mind. Unfortunately, a large portion of the U.S. media is like that. They back their side's candidates, even though they, as journalists, shouldn't have a side.

 

[below_freezing]

liberal and conservative is all fake, it's just for distracting the population from big issues with fake worthless problems that are not problems in 99% of the rest of the world. there is only 1 party in the US, wall street. this has been shown to be consistent through the past 100 years.

 

[ChinaChina]

i would nt worry abt all dis reunication if china economy can perform de way it has been for de last 10 years evry one want to be part of china i can assure u dat.
taiwan is part of china no doubt abt dat , now a day taiwanese really look up to china as a big brother and btw taiwan look at india at a poor backward country dat always poke her nose into others country business. infact taiwanese really hate india. really dun understand wht make india think taiwan is her ally...lol

 

[gambit]

liberal and conservative is all fake, it's just for distracting the population from big issues with fake worthless problems that are not problems in 99% of the rest of the world. there is only 1 party in the US, wall street. this has been shown to be consistent through the past 100 years.

The greatest political fraud to date to inflict upon the electorate of ANY country is the fraud that communists foisted upon the people about how 'democratic' they are.

 

[gambit]

Whoa, total misunderstanding. I kinda thought that I should've clarified after I wrote it. I didn't mean to literally control the media, I meant simply to spam the airwaves with any number of true or untrue statements like "the healthcare bill introduces the death squads."

Convenient and pretentious cynicism. Nothing more.

Like it or not, it works. It's not the only thing that works, as you pointed out, but it is a GIGANTIC part, also as you pointed out. It works especially well for many local elections because most people don't know anything about most of the candidates they vote for. They either just pick the person from their party, or, as is the case with many of the all-important swing voters, they just pick the one they've heard more positive things or more likely less negative things about. I think we're in fairly good agreement on this point: money goes a long way in winning elections, and the big corporations are the biggest donors.

Then why do candidates bother to campaign in the first place? The reality is that aside from the candidate's immediate social circle, no one really know anything about him. That is why we have the campaigning process where the candidates presents themselves to the public. Lies or truth is not the point at this time, which is that in order to be considered a party's candidate, the person must politically expose himself.

Just look at Obama. All the promises of reducing the power of the lobbyists, what's anything tangible that he's done so far? Nothing.

Yes...Obama is naive and incompetent. The American electorate is experiencing "buyer's remorse".

Your point about journalists abandoning their journalistic integrities is dead on too. I really get tired of listening to both CNN and Foxnews. I just can't believe how networks with such clear agendas can pass as news organizations. When a network is so consistently liberal or conservative as they are, it loses all credibility in reporting political matters in my mind. Unfortunately, a large portion of the U.S. media is like that. They back their side's candidates, even though they, as journalists, shouldn't have a side.

At least we have biases and counter-biases. Communists regimes do not allow any. The greatest blame rests on the electorate, not money. Large campaign contributions or biased media commentators are merely distractions from the truth: That in order to have a vibrant and argumentative democracy, it is the responsibility of the electorate to educate themselves.

 

[masterofsea]

Young Chinese in Taiwan are responsible for the smooth democratization of mainland China. Tanwan has experience in that process.

 

[dingyibvs]

Then why do candidates bother to campaign in the first place? The reality is that aside from the candidate's immediate social circle, no one really know anything about him. That is why we have the campaigning process where the candidates presents themselves to the public. Lies or truth is not the point at this time, which is that in order to be considered a party's candidate, the person must politically expose himself.


Yes...Obama is naive and incompetent. The American electorate is experiencing "buyer's remorse".


At least we have biases and counter-biases. Communists regimes do not allow any. The greatest blame rests on the electorate, not money. Large campaign contributions or biased media commentators are merely distractions from the truth: That in order to have a vibrant and argumentative democracy, it is the responsibility of the electorate to educate themselves.

Good question, why do they campaign at all? If the electorate is educated enough, they can simply make informed decisions based on each candidate's public records. But come on, let's face it, it ain't gonna happen. In reality, the lies and truths told during a campaign greatly affect the outcome of the election. After all, nobody would be spending millions on it if it didn't, right? And where do huge chunks of these millions come from? Why do they continuously pour such sums into electoral war chests? I'm pretty sure you know the answer by declaring Obama's naivety in promising to end lobbyist influences. Thus, the point stands, money from big corporations and by extension the big corporations themselves largely determine the political arena in the U.S.

Also, what exactly do biases and counter-biases do for you? Neither offers the truth, which is needed for the electorate to make decisions since you know as well as I do that nobody has the time to make detailed research on every candidate he/she votes for. As you mentioned, they simply offer distractions to the real issues at hand. Just as importantly, Americans and especially American youths simply don't care about politics. Even for those who do care, most care more about social security, medicare, and trivial civil issues like gay rights rather than foreign policy. If most Americans can't even find Afghanistan on a map, how can you expect them to have an informed opinion regarding the issues there, for example? They can't. They either have no opinion or have a distorted opinion that's based on one of the biased news networks.

 

[dingyibvs]

The greatest political fraud to date to inflict upon the electorate of ANY country is the fraud that communists foisted upon the people about how 'democratic' they are.

I don't think any sane citizen of "communist" regimes has any illusion about the extant of his/her country's democracy. The big thing is, does democracy actually work? Are the western countries stronger because of democracy, or does democracy seems good due to western countries' advanced technology? Humans have lived in autocratic societies for millenia, so perhaps the rise of democracy is simply an aberration caused by the most technologically advanced hemisphere adopting such a governing philosophy? Perhaps a new form of government is needed as politics has become so complicated that it is simply unrealistic to expect the general populace to make informed decisions.

 

[gambit]

Good question, why do they campaign at all? If the electorate is educated enough, they can simply make informed decisions based on each candidate's public records.

This is a red herring argument. One's education level is not the same thing as being knowledgeable about a particular subject or a person. A rocket scientist and a brain surgeon are educated people but both are as clueless about Obama as the plumber who worked for them.

In reality, the lies and truths told during a campaign greatly affect the outcome of the election.

Point being...??? Or is this statement just 'filler material'?

And where do huge chunks of these millions come from? Why do they continuously pour such sums into electoral war chests? I'm pretty sure you know the answer by declaring Obama's naivety in promising to end lobbyist influences. Thus, the point stands, money from big corporations and by extension the big corporations themselves largely determine the political arena in the U.S.

From the public, and that includes corporations. Or are you going to tell me that individuals do not contribute?

Also, what exactly do biases and counter-biases do for you? Neither offers the truth, which is needed for the electorate to make decisions since you know as well as I do that nobody has the time to make detailed research on every candidate he/she votes for.

Truth is not fact. What we call 'the truth' about anything comes from a collection of facts. Truths, or theories, explains facts and how individual facts relate to each other. Biases present the electorate with facts and their versions of 'the truth'. False 'truths' or incorrect theories are better than nothing at all, which is what you are trying to defend communism here, by pointing out the flaws of functional democracies.

As you mentioned, they simply offer distractions to the real issues at hand.

No...What I said is that criticisms about 'the media' are distractions to the fact that in a functional democracy, the burden of electing the best candidate to a particular office rests upon the electorate, not 'the media'. In a communist regime, there is no such thing as 'the electorate' because in order to have 'elections' there must be choices and we know that commies hate choices.

Just as importantly, Americans and especially American youths simply don't care about politics.

So why is this the fault of 'the media'?

Even for those who do care, most care more about social security, medicare, and trivial civil issues like gay rights rather than foreign policy.

The primary reason any US President or Representative or Senator is elected is about what can any do domestically, not for foreign affairs. In a communist regime, this is irrelevant because the opinion of the people is...errr...irrelevant.

 

[gambit]

I don't think any sane citizen of "communist" regimes has any illusion about the extant of his/her country's democracy.

Good...So now we have an admission that communism is an utter failure.

The big thing is, does democracy actually work?

Of course it does. The largest communist regime, the Soviet Union, collapsed. The second, China, got embarrassed and enacted reforms.

Are the western countries stronger because of democracy, or does democracy seems good due to western countries' advanced technology? Humans have lived in autocratic societies for millenia, so perhaps the rise of democracy is simply an aberration caused by the most technologically advanced hemisphere adopting such a governing philosophy? Perhaps a new form of government is needed as politics has become so complicated that it is simply unrealistic to expect the general populace to make informed decisions.

The technology argument is another red herring. Advances in technology is the result of a vibrant democracy. Not the other way around.

 

[ao333]

Gambit, you should troll Indians for a change. Your innate hate for the Chinese demonstrates that you have failed to become an American. An average north American either dismisses Russia, China and India completely, or trolls all 3 with distain. If you really have been naturalized, and not just some gook with a Vietnamese inferiority complex, you should troll all 3, as white America is superior in nearly everyway.

In fact, I troll Indians even harsher, as they're just inferior to the Chinese and Russians. I get angry when the Chinese don't know their place and piss on Japanese' heads and the Indians piss on the Chinese'.

I just don't see how you aren't a South Vietnamese.