364
Trump says the U.S. would accept 600,000 Chinese students, sparking uproar among some conservatives (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 11 months ago* by to c/news@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Donald Trump’s latest comments about allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese international students into the United States have drawn criticism from some of the most outspoken members of the Republican Party.

Ahead of his meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae-myung at the White House on Monday, Trump told reporters that he plans to allow 600,000 Chinese students into the country — a figure more than double the number in the United States now.

It’s a sharp departure from an announcement Secretary of State Marco Rubio made in May, when he promised the United States would “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students and add more scrutiny to all future visa applications from China.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

It’s bleak, man. Real “you’re a Russian landing your first job in 1989 Moscow” bleak.

In 1989 there was literally US food aid being unloaded in Moscow, so it was already bad and the future wasn't so bleak, many people were hopeful. I was born in 1996, so can't speak for the 90s, but it appears it wasn't such a bad time in the sense that people became free to talk and dream and be honest to each other. It was something dark, but pure. It was a bad time for people who were hungry. Unfortunately, while the majority was trying to somehow survive and exploring that newly gained ability to look at the world in its true colors, the minority was preparing what there is now.

But ok, I got your meaning.

The purpose of the bubble, I think (for those who are intentionally helping it), is an intentional drying of the environment for that re-industrialization they want, which requires a change in labor market. It wouldn't be a bad idea if it worked, but that is also true for Russia's shock therapy in the 90s, which didn't.

(BTW, the difference of both Yeltsin's and Putin's regimes from most of the "anti-western" world is that they were not really that, they just weren't accepted, which made them look for alternatives ; perhaps both make it seem like personal ego of the leader, but honestly what USA did in Yeltsin's time was indeed adversarial - basically they used Yeltsin's willingness to make all the leaps of faith to become a NATO member or at least an ally to snatch what's possible and humiliate Russia as possible, and then took a "we didn't sign anything" pose.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    it appears it wasn’t such a bad time in the sense that people became free to talk and dream and be honest to each other.

    That's some grade A propaganda. The mid-90s Russia was a brutal Mafia state that preluded a number of ugly conflicts, most notably in Chechnya.

    The only thing resembling "freedom" to talk was the rash of ethno-nationalism and reactionary social conservatism which would become the hallmarks of United Russia.

    honestly what USA did in Yeltsin’s time was indeed adversarial - basically they used Yeltsin’s willingness to make all the leaps of faith to become a NATO member or at least an ally to snatch what’s possible and humiliate Russia as possible

    Russia was being converted into a Western client state, on par with Mexico or Indonesia. Yeltsin opened the doors to a US based looting of the former USSR. Putin came into power on a wave of nationalist sentiment that closed the door and internalized the wealth of Russia again (to Putin's cartel of guys).

    The idea that this was some kind of liberalization of Russian politics requires you to ignore everything but the superficial token liberalist parties that never had a popular base of support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    That’s some grade A propaganda. The mid-90s Russia was a brutal Mafia state that preluded a number of ugly conflicts, most notably in Chechnya.

    How is that propaganda and why are you answering it with things orthogonal to what I said? You have a disability, perhaps, making you incapable of understanding texts taken in full?

    The only thing resembling “freedom” to talk was the rash of ethno-nationalism and reactionary social conservatism which would become the hallmarks of United Russia.

    Those were present in the public perception, thus those were present in politics. No, ER is not partial to any specific ideology. They are the ruling party and do whatever they want. That's their only ideology.

    Russia was being converted into a Western client state, on par with Mexico or Indonesia. Yeltsin opened the doors to a US based looting of the former USSR.

    Yeltsin thought differently. When he realized that, he also realized he has no plan. Thus the weird moves after 1996 and ultimately passing power to Putin.

    Putin came into power on a wave of nationalist sentiment that closed the door and internalized the wealth of Russia again (to Putin’s cartel of guys).

    He didn't close any doors. Just slowly accumulated power, as a side effect pressing out other interests.

    The idea that this was some kind of liberalization of Russian politics requires you to ignore everything but the superficial token liberalist parties that never had a popular base of support.

    What you wrote doesn't have any connection to what I wrote.

    But since that's wrong as well - no, roughly in 1989-1993 Russian politics existed for real. And in 1993-1999 there was growing understanding that things went the wrong way in 1993. And the 1996 election was competitive among the populace, even if CPRF the party clearly intended to lose politically.

    In any case what I wrote was about the society and culture, not about politics, you just can't perceive anything outside of your partisan bullshit, can you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    How is that propaganda

    Because it's factually untrue and largely a product of American criticism of Societ Era politics.

    You have a disability, perhaps, making you incapable of understanding texts taken in full?

    Western propaganda in a nutshell. You're so invested in your hatred of a foreign country that you attribute any rebuttal to mental illness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Because it’s factually untrue and largely a product of American criticism of Societ Era politics.

    I must have imagined everything I know of the 90s in Russia, including all read, heard and seen.

    Western propaganda in a nutshell. You’re so invested in your hatred of a foreign country that you attribute any rebuttal to mental illness.

    There was no rebuttal, I live in Russia and you are arguing like a typical American. You don't know how hard it was to keep a more specific description in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I must have imagined everything I know of the 90s in Russia

    You definitely got fed a load. Boris Yeltsin had to shell Parliament into submission to prevent himself from being removed. A year later, Russians were in Chechnya doing what Americans would repeat in Iraq ten years later.

    Like, what on earth do you think Interior Ministry Order 870 was in response to? Were all those civil protests and demonstrations of the 90s getting a twenty one gun salute?

    I live in Russia

    Then you should fucking know better

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    You definitely got fed a load.

    You didn't yet specify where.

    Boris Yeltsin had to shell Parliament into submission to prevent himself from being removed.

    Correct, that happened in year 1993, which is the reason for me having it as a separation point.

    A year later, Russians were in Chechnya doing what Americans would repeat in Iraq ten years later.

    No. First Chechen war was a failure with many human losses, newspapers and TV (including state channels) and associations of soldiers' mothers and such were howling both at the operation itself and at the losses, and it ended with Khasavyurt accord signed by general Lebed on Russia's behalf (he was quite popular, BTW, and held pacifist enough views, being himself a participant of the war in Afghanistan ; later became a politician and died in a helicopter crash).

    If anything, First Chechen war showed that Russian society does still have some spine.

    And the Second Chechen war happened after a few people (one can say politicians) visible since late 80s were killed, and power balance changed.

    That doesn't change the fact that censorship existed in the USSR, freedom of movement inside the country was limited, and political parties other than the CPSU didn't exist. While roughly between 1989 and 2012 Russian society had freedom of thought at least.

    Like, what on earth do you think Interior Ministry Order 870 was in response to?

    It's year 2002, when Putin still hasn't destroyed his (oligarchic, and honestly now those people don't seem much nicer) opposition, and federal troops in the Northern Caucasus were in some regards similar to an occupying force. I think it was in response to that, but also, as you might have noticed, these people don't need formalities to get something done.

    I don't know what you're trying to say. If you are somehow imagining USSR before breakup as something like the USA of today, just communist, I'm afraid it was not. It was a country almost entirely living in "safe poverty", where you wouldn't generally starve, but other than that it was pretty depressive. I mean, you should watch some Soviet movie classics, even the more cheerful kind will educate you on that.

    The 90s were a failure of trying to fix that thing when it stopped working. Yes, it was a catastrophe, but the USSR before it wasn't some heaven on earth or even a good place to live. Take Chikatilo (the serial murderer) - one suspect before him was tortured for admission of guilt and executed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    You didn’t yet specify where.

    You're being deliberately obtuse.

    Yes, it was a catastrophe, but the USSR before it wasn’t some heaven on earth

    Imagine saying this about Ukraine pre-invasion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    You’re being deliberately obtuse.

    I'm being patient, trying to help you understand. Not accepting bare statements is not being obtuse.

    Imagine saying this about Ukraine pre-invasion.

    This comparison is delusional. USSR was already ruined by 1989. The question was only where to go from there. You are comparing some of its systems conclusively crashing to a war.

    What happened in 1991 is that there was narrow balance on the consensus on a new union treaty, but the GKChP coup attempt (real or not) shattered that balance, allowing leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to sign its dissolution just so, and nobody protested.

    They didn't have the mandate for that, but the Soviet society in general was shaken by those few days of tanks on the streets and jammers being turned on first in a few years. Nobody wanted a totalitarian state back (after "glasnost" policy).

    So - before the coup attempt most of the union voted for its preservation (meaning a new union treaty, leaving things as they are wasn't an option, simply because nothing worked). After the coup you'd be hard pressed to find anyone supporting its preservation.

    Before the coup and during it the center also soiled its pants by trying to solve all ethnic conflicts with similar elegance (enraging locals, committing some crimes against civilians, then fucking right off) - them stopping the pogroms in Baku was probably the only bright spot (it's officially a day of mourning for Azeris, they call it the Black September, and western politicians too mourn those poor looters raping and burning Armenians all over the city, and condemn Soviet troops ; BTW, I mentioned Lebed before - he was the commander of that force).

    So in 1991 Yeltsin was a hero (unfortunately).

    Now between 1991 and 1993 the "shock therapy" and privatization happened, conducted in such a way that by 1993 like half of the populace thought that it's been enough. The other half kinda thought the same, but was more frightened of something like united communist and neo-Nazi reaction, thus supporting Yeltsin.

    It has to be clarified that in the crisis of 1993 the parliament really did consist of mostly communists and neo-Nazis, a really weird hybrid. While Yeltsin's supporters seemed "normal", and just for some liberal democracy.

    The constitutional court ruled that both presidential and parliament snap elections must be held, thus rotating both parties of the crisis, but then Yeltsin, as you've mentioned, shelled the parliament building and had his way.

    And like since 1993 to the 1996 election there was outrage over such a resolution of it all, and the 1996 election saw first widespread use in Russia of USA-style political campaigning, and there were protests, and and many people thought the election was stolen and Zyuganov actually won, but Zyuganov removed himself from that debate, so it was Yeltsin's victory in the end.

    Then, yeah, that clan sort of cemented their rule (and power in media) enough to successfully present Putin, well, as the second best thing after communists winning instead of Yeltsin in 1996, playing on resentment, and thus he won his only real election.

    The reason I've described all this is to explain that it was a gradual process, not some immediate apocalypse. And yes, in 1991 it went the wrong way, and in 1993 again the wrong way. But in the 1989 it didn't, and, say, when they talk about looting and ruin of Soviet industries - that too was happening gradually. Many of those actually stopped existing in the 00s, surviving 90s and even functioning well enough.

    And about level of life - I don't think you realize how much higher it became in the 00s in Russia as compared to both 90s and Soviet 80s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent