> China is our better bet in this coming disaster.
The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country. The EU only somewhat shares these values, which we can see from the normalization of censorship in its regulations, frequent calls to ban political parties, and the cancellation of election results in Romania. Europe has a vast history of expansionism, which we saw in brutal colonization across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Greenland itself is a result of expansionism.
China is also a country that is pro censorship and doesn’t value democracy. It annexed Tibet and Xinjiang and will do the same to Taiwan. The CCP has caused tens of millions in deaths, not just in the annexed areas but even among its own people.
I can see Europeans practicing some of those same authoritarian tactics China does. So maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at this statement of viewing China as a better partner. But it still seems odd to see people here admitting that they prefer an authoritarian dictatorship as their friend. In my opinion it says more about Europe than America.
"The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country"
I hope we will finally make peace
with reality and stop giving sh*t about things valued in this or that country.
It is completely irrelevant for the EU what US values or loves and what kinds of authoritarian practices are present in China. What matters is what they can give us and what do they want in return.
US makes it clear it won't give us anything, and will demand a lot. It is China, then.
> The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country.
Trump is destroying democracy and free speech (notably press freedom).
Regarding freedom, I don't buy the US vision. The US culture values individual freedom at the expense of the many.
From my point of view, freedom is not possible without equality between people.
Otherwise, some people impose their will (their freedom) on others.
In this sense, regulation is an instrument of freedom.
> Trump is destroying democracy and free speech (notably press freedom).
Can you name specifics? What freedom does the press not have that they had a few months ago? How is there any less democracy now than before? Nothing has changed about the rights of people to vote or publish - if anything these things are getting better by removing wasteful spending propping up one side of the press, stopping illegal immigration, etc.
> The US culture values individual freedom at the expense of the many. From my point of view, freedom is not possible without equality between people.
It’s an interesting point that I need to think more about. Personally, I still think individual freedom is the only real freedom. The US law is well thought out in limiting individual “rights” in minor ways (like not being able to harm others) while preserving most of it. Those choices let everyone live freely and more equally than any other system.
> Can you name specifics? What freedom does the press not have that they had a few months ago?
Every week, Trump is threatening the free press that criticizes him.
He suspended the Associated Press from acceding to the Oval Office just because they speak about "Gulf of Mexico".
He said that that negative cover of his actions should be illegal.
> How is there any less democracy now than before?
A free press is an important pillar of democracy.
By repeatedly threatening or even attacking it, you are attacking the very fabric of democracy.
Democracy is not just voting, you have to be informed otherwise you are blind. You must also be educated to make decisions in your own best interest. A true democracy requires that anyone has access to education.
Democracy also needs time to make decisions, and to make decisions collectively (at least in a parliamentary way). Trump decides unilaterally by issuing decrees.
This is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.
Moreover, he decides so quickly that the DOJ cannot ensure that the Constitution and Human rights are respected.
Some of Trump's allies even claim that the USA will need him in 2029: they are ambiguously threatening the very existence of an election.
Trump is attacking free speech by banning the use of some terms in emails, attacking schools (e.g. Columbia) and threatening companies with DEI programs.
I could go on.
> if anything these things are getting better by removing wasteful spending
Even if it was true, you need time to change something.
Otherwise you break lives and companies.
The AP has no right to participate in a press conference put on by the administration, just like a random person can’t show up. Not only can they be excluded, but there is also no requirement that the administration even do news conferences at all. That doesn’t mean any right of the press has been infringed. As I said, they still can publish whatever they want.
> By repeatedly threatening or even attacking it, you are attacking the very fabric of democracy.
You’re suggesting that the press is above criticism, and I disagree. I think the press does need to be held accountable when they are biased or spread misinformation or do bad work to chase clicks, for example. But this is different from their rights being infringed. Just like the press can say what they want, with only some exceptions, so can the administration. That seems balanced to me.
> Trump decides unilaterally by issuing decrees. This is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.
Why is it that executive orders are executive orders under one administration but “decrees” under another?
> Moreover, he decides so quickly that the DOJ cannot ensure that the Constitution and Human rights are respected.
This isn’t the DOJ’s job. If someone thinks their legal rights are violated by an executive order, they can file a lawsuit and fight it in the courts. There is also no such thing as “ensuring human rights” in American law - there’s just enforcement of the laws passed by Congress and upholding the constitution (which may include ensuring human rights but it might mean something different from what you intend).
This is a tangent, but I want to point out that the previous administration was the one who repeatedly violated the constitution - for example when Biden and his appointees would yell at tech companies to pressure them into censoring the public (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe...). That’s literally a violation of the most important right in the US constitution.
> Democracy also needs time to make decisions, and to make decisions collectively (at least in a parliamentary way).
Democracy did make a decision - to elect Trump. I don’t think democracy requires every single daily decision of the administration to be reviewed - that’s just impractical, and no country does that. The executive branch has the right to do its job.
> Trump is attacking free speech by banning the use of some terms in emails, attacking schools (e.g. Columbia) and threatening companies with DEI programs.
You’re mixing a few different things here. A president banning things like DEI in their own agencies is legal. A president removing funding for schools who break the law or enable criminals, as was the case in Columbia, is legal. There’s no unlimited right for any school to get free taxpayer money. And as for companies with DEI programs - given that many of those companies break the law by discriminating based on race and gender as part of their DEI programs, they deserve punishment under the law. You framed this as “threatening” them, but I view it as simply holding them accountable.
The press is and has always been an important part of the balance of power between the people and the barely concealed sociopaths that we choose to govern us. Full stop . When people start suggesting that the lugenpresse is some kind of enemy class it's time to get the Nazi smashing machine going.
The AP is the nation's premier news source, it's relied upon by nearly every other news source for coverage. Banning the AP from the White House for not hewing to the WH's ideological garbage is an attack on the free press, even if it is not (and I think it likely is) a violation of the First Amendment.
Then we have the attacks on Perkins Coie and other law firms for their legal work, revoking their credentials - another violation of the First Amendment, which protects not just speech but action.
The Secretary of State revoking a green card for protected speech? Again an assault on the First Amendment.
Trump repeatedly sues media organizations, several of which have folded in a way to basically pay a bribe.
Revoking funding to Columbia, a private university, for not being draconian enough against people protesting a genocide in Gaza? Also a free speech violation.
And as for the Biden admin pressuring social media companies on Covid and election misinfo? The administration was simply requesting that the companies review content that was against the guidelines - stuff like Alex Berenson's disinfo on vaccines and illegal tweets about voting by SMS. The former kind of content likely killed 100,000s of people, the latter was illegal.
Spare us your Trumpy gaslighting on DEIA - having a goal of having a more diverse and inclusive workplace and educational institutional isn't illegal.
Maybe try doing your own research instead of sputtering out MAGA talking points.
How about those Palestine protestors having their citizenship revoked for expressing their opinion? Supporting Palestine is illegal in Europe too, of course, but they haven't revoked citizenships over it (yet).
No one has had their US citizenship revoked. Some legal permanent residents (not citizens) who have supported terrorist organizations such as Hamas might be deported depending on the outcomes of their court cases. I don't support those actions but let's be clear about what's actually happening.
Expressing their opinion? The protestors literally assaulted Jewish students. They illegally took over property. They prevented people from accessing the classes they pay for. This was an illegal riot and terroristic to any observer.
Also no one has their citizenship revoked. People who are immigrants but not yet citizens are getting booted for breaking the law in numerous ways, including supporting sanctioned terrorist groups. It goes well beyond legally protected speech, even for America.
Then I must have mixed up details from two different stories. But he's relevant anyway. Are permanent residents exempt from the first amendment, or is he being deported for something other than his speech?
Denaturalization means taking away someone's citizenship. Nobody's citizenship was taken away in this specific case.
I think most would agree that "taking away someone's permanent residency card" is not on the same level of outrageous as "taking away someone's citizenship." I agree that both are drastic measures, but one is way more outrageous.
Whether it was justified in this specific case or not, and to which degree, is an entirely separate story.
If you mixed it up with some other case and manage to locate it, please reply with a link, because I am genuinely curious too (not trying to be snarky, I mean it). So far, I was not able to find a single case of a US citizen getting denaturalized recently, except this one[0]. But this one kind of makes sense, since he lied on documents during the naturalization process about his involvement in extra-judicial killings in El Salvador back in the day (which would have almost definitely prevented him from becoming a US citizen, in the first place, if he was truthful):
> Arnoldo Antonio Vasquez, a native of El Salvador, is alleged to have concealed and misrepresented his involvement in the extra-judicial killing of 10 civilians in San Sebastian, El Salvador, in September 1988, when he was an officer in the Salvadoran military. Vasquez was previously identified by then-Vice President Dan Quayle in a list of Salvadoran soldiers responsible for these killings. Vasquez concealed his involvement in the San Sebastian killings throughout his immigration and naturalization proceedings. Vasquez was naturalized as a U.S. citizen Jan. 13, 2005.
The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country. The EU only somewhat shares these values, which we can see from the normalization of censorship in its regulations, frequent calls to ban political parties, and the cancellation of election results in Romania. Europe has a vast history of expansionism, which we saw in brutal colonization across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Greenland itself is a result of expansionism.
China is also a country that is pro censorship and doesn’t value democracy. It annexed Tibet and Xinjiang and will do the same to Taiwan. The CCP has caused tens of millions in deaths, not just in the annexed areas but even among its own people.
I can see Europeans practicing some of those same authoritarian tactics China does. So maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at this statement of viewing China as a better partner. But it still seems odd to see people here admitting that they prefer an authoritarian dictatorship as their friend. In my opinion it says more about Europe than America.