69
Democrats Clash Over Move to Add Asylum Changes to War Funding Bill
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
69 points (97.3% liked)
News
23200 readers
3257 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, that is literally and legally a transfer and a transaction.
Jesus Christ.
Why do people with no understanding of language attempt to play semantic games?
An escalation of Taiwan's ability to defend itself against imperialism? You yourself admit that there's no chance of Taiwan invading China. So why is Taiwan being able to defend itself so worrying? If China's only interest is in peaceful reunification, Taiwan's military might is irrelevant. If China is willing to go to war to annex Taiwan against the wishes of it's people, that's imperialism, and makes you a bootlicker.
So why is this an escalation? Is that you support imperialism (obvious answer), or that you haven't fully thought through your own argument?
Oh, and for anyone following, in the past 30 years we've sold almost 100 billion dollars worth of military equipment to Taiwan, and are currently considering an aid package of 6 billion dollars over the next ten years. Much escalation. Very wow.
You're the one playing semantic games! Fuck, my point was that this new transfer is different and you jumped up my ass trying to pretend like zero escalation has happened and this is nothing new. This is clearly new! This is clearly a step above what we were doing before, and Democrats are selling out refugees to keep doing it (or did you forget what this thread is about?)
What the fuck ever. Technically transfer always happened. You were right.
But surely you realize that subsidized transaction is different from pure financial transaction!
Taiwan doesn't have to invade for these weapons to be used against China, you realize this right? All it takes is one boat being sunk because China is trying to control trade routes into Taiwan.
No, your point was the incorrect assumption based on headline reading and tankie telephone games that the US hadn't supplied Taiwan with weaponry before, which is patently false.
I still can't tell if you're just fucking stupid or disingenuous, or both. The bill in question, the bill in the article, the entire conversation around it, has nothing to do with Taiwan; Taiwan is something unrelated you brought up to wank over how evil and WARMONGERING the Democrats are for not sucking a dictator's toes like you do and how it's a "powder keg" that obviously slightly more military equipment over the next 10 years will cause to BLOW UP and FORCE the POOR OPPRESSED PRC to LIBERATE Taiwan the same way Russia is fucking liberating the Donbass right now.
In terms of 'escalation', not really. 6 billion free after selling almost 100 billion worth isn't anything more than token support.
"Oh no, how terrible, Taiwan won't let China use military force to control who gets in and out of Taiwan, it's a good thing this is an Anti-Imperialist(tm) move by China!"