It can, if you insist that 固有之疆域 included China. However, since the constitution failed to specify what constitutes as 固有之疆域, or whose 固有之疆域, you can pretty much make it up.
If 固有之疆域 is the ROC’s territory at its founding, then constitutionally Taiwan is not ROC territory, since at that time Taiwan was a part of Japan.
If 固有之疆域 is Qing’s territory at its largest, then ROC is actually claiming places such as Vladivostok.
If 固有之疆域 is any former territory held by one of the recognized Chinese dynasties, then the constitution is also claiming Korea, Vietnam, even Iraq if you count the Mongols.
I think it’s not lost upon most people that the Trump administration has committed to selling more weapons to Taiwan whereas the Obama administration refused to sell additional fighters and only offered upgrades. China’s strategy right now is to fly across the strait and force Taiwan to constantly scramble fighters and wear them down without replacement options.
Trump is also more outwardly combative with China than most other recent presidents have been.
Biden as Obama’s vice president represents a continuation of Obama era policies just by mere association, so I’d discount the possibility of further arms sales to Taiwan if Biden wins.
The only Biden supporters in Taiwan I can foresee would be a subset of KMT supporters—Tsai won the last election, therefore I’d figure it follows most Taiwanese people would choose Trump over Biden.
The DPP is much more aligned with the Democrats in terms of political ideology. Both are center-left parties that promotes equity and equal rights. There are many DPP politicians and supporters who understands Taiwan needs an internally strong America to keep China at bay.
Let’s put it more simply and American centric. You’re a democrat in America who wants a gun (statistically uncommon but it still happens). You have two managers running the gun store. Another democrat who doesn’t want to sell to you, or a republican who will. Who do you want running the gun store when you visit?
I don’t think that’s true of the progressive wing of the Democrats anymore, they say “we want equal right’s for everyone” like Bernie Sanders did in the debates, yet the very next sentence out of his mouth was “Im going to have a woman VP”.
Which is fine, you just can’t implement equality of outcome policies and affirmative action policies and say “we want equal right’s for everyone” because that’s not what you are doing.
I don’t think DPP and KMT easily equate to Democrats and Republicans, the KMT are the more friendly party to China, who happen to be a far left authoritarian party, the DPP seems more committed to a democracy. Whereas in the States, it’s the Democrats which are more China friendly, so it’s all messed up a bit.
I think perhaps you conflate your affiliation with the DPP and the Democrats to have them aligned more ideologically than perhaps they do. Although I would agree if you suggested Democrats and DPP were more alligned on the issue of LGBT rights.
For me, the only true determinant of left or right is social and economical. The left believes that the government should maintain social and economic equity.
The right believes the government should maintain social and economic equality, and by equality they mean if you have less you should work harder.
Most political parties are a mix of the two, and where they stand on the spectrum is only relative to their rivals.
Whether a place is democratic or totalitarian is a separate axis that can be both left or right.
That why I think calling China far left just because it claims to be a “communist” country is plain false. In practice China has been very much right, compared to say… Europe or most of the world, for the last 3 decades.
I think they are more aligned on any issues with the word rights attached to it.
I don’t think you can just call regimes you don’t like right wing. The identity politics stuff being pushed lately seems to be more from the progressive wing, but that is not so much about equal rights IMO and needs to be enforced by an authoritarian legal system.
Authoritarian types of politics you seem to have placed on the right of the spectrum without acknowledging the left have an authoritarian wing too.
For what it’s worth I liked the hippy type of politics of the 60’s, equal rights for everyone, don’t judge people by their colour, sex, sexual orientation, everyone should be treated with respect. I don’t see that as where the Democrats or the left in general is going though.
Like I mentioned, I believe left and right and determined by how one believes fairness should be measured socially and economically. The left believes in equity. The right believes in equality. So I am not sure how that would be calling regimes I don’t like right wing.
Exactly why I said the left believes in equity, and the right believes in equality.
For the left, everyone’s starting point is a part of the consideration when it comes to measuring fairness. So if there has been a history of systematic bias towards the minority, then there should be some way to make up for their disadvantage in order to achieve fairness. That is essentially what you refer to as “identity politics” boils down to.
Also, you do not need an authoritarian legal system to achieve anything. All you need to propose a vision and the right incentives to get people onboard. That’s what democracy is about.
It’s more tedious, time consuming and requires a lot of frank conversations, but in the end it supposedly stops powers being too concentrated on just a few people.
In the post you are replying to, I specifically said this about democracy vs. non-democracy
So again, I don’t know why you insist I am saying right equals non-democratic.
I think I had a typo in the original passage, but I think what I was trying to say can be inferred from the context.
I don’t mean to be rude hansioux, but what on Earth are you talking about? Is this the same China that within living memory systemically murdered nearly every landlord there? How was that not a move more predicated on equity than equality? What are we even talking about anymore? I feel like we’re not discussing things according to the generally accepted concepts of left versus right.
The political compass type diagrams people use generally has left to right as a spectrum indicating economic policy whereas the vertical axis is libertarian to authoritarianism. If you have a country that imposes socialism but still has governmental control over whether same sex marriage is banned that is perfectly capable of being an authoritarian left whereas a socialist government that allows same sex marriage would be more likely libertarian left. That’s one of the more common models people use when discussing politics and to use a different model imposes difficulty in communication because the standards aren’t the same.
First of all, in my post I said for the past 3 decades. Second of all if you think killing every landlord is somehow equity, you and the CCP have misconstrued the word.
Why? Because people begin to realize that the Democrats are beholden to the media, entertainment, marketing and financial industries, which are corrupted by China.
Their integrity has been compromised and susceptible to Chinese extortion.
Actually, many democrats have passed legislation favorable to Hong Kong and Taiwan recently. It is definitely not a black and white issue, and CN has people/entities on both sides that they have successfully compromised.
Democrats are consistently on the record of being against CCP human rights abuse, but they are more precise about their critique - in aggregate, the US Left’s criticism is more targeted toward China’s gov, instead of the ham-fisted jingoism you see often employed by Trumpists on the Right.
I think the real answer potentially to OP’s question is that "an enemy of an enemy is a friend"
Though poorly calibrated and tone deaf pretty consistently throughout, Trump admin loves to antagonize the CCP via the trade war and via signal boosting the flies in the ointment for them (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet etc).
Unfortunately though, just like he did with the Uyghurs and HK protestors, Trump will privately sell any ally, no matter how loyal, down the river if something is in it for him. This is why he must be voted out. He is only in it for himself and the free world suffers for it.
Fringe theory, but would not be too surprising if Trump is pressuring - to the point of extortion perhaps - Li Hongzhi and the Falun Gong in the US to sing his praises via their rag, The Epoch Times. Trump is known to love leveraging power dynamics. Not sure if he had a hand in the whole Gülen kidnapping/rendition attempt that made the news a while back, but it would not be shocking:
Lots of could have, would have, might have, allegedly, supposed, etc. in that Guardian article over 2.5 years ago.
A grammarian’s wet dream in that article.
Not as assertive as you like? Interesting angle to disqualify the theory.
I am curious then, about your take on Obama actually not being born in the US. It might be completely off-the-wall and not at all based in reality, but at least Trump was confident and assertive when he made the accusation! People believe so much more outlandish theories for so much less effort. I hope your rubric stays consistent when digesting media from across the media spectrum – assuming you expose yourself to variety in the first place.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
Seems like so many people are in love with who they WANT Trump to be – not who he actually is. He constantly, unlike any other president in history, via Twitter provides us insights into what kind of person he is with the outrageous and lie-plagued invective only sociopaths and bullies use.
Surely you are constantly feeling pings of cognitive dissonance with each new gaffe he makes each week. No? You see them constantly on Twitter, or in his speeches via C-SPAN. The “liberal media” does not even have to repackage Trump’s product for it to be obvious it is a train wreck to anyone using their brain.
Sadly, this is what US allies have to work with though, so they try to make the best of it, biting their tongue until it bleeds. Shameful.
The identity politics stuff being pushed lately seems to be more from the progressive wing, but that is not so much about equal rights IMO and needs to be enforced by an authoritarian legal system.