US President Joe Biden said Wednesday he still believes Chinese President Xi Jinping is a dictator, even as the two leaders made progress in their relationship during a meeting outside San Francisco.

“Well, look, he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours,” Biden told CNN’s MJ Lee. “Anyway, we made progress.”

When asked about Biden’s latest comment at a Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing on Thursday, a spokesperson called it “extremely erroneous” and an “irresponsible political maneuver, which China firmly opposes.”

  • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean he literally abolished the term limits which were put in place to prevent another dictator from taking power in China.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      He also has complete control over the party that controls the chinese equivalent of a congress, who then votes him into power. He won the last election with 100% of the vote, 2,952 For and 25 Absent.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Gee, I hope the Chinese dictator isn’t offended.

    You realize if Biden had failed to call Xi a dictator, they’d be squawking about how he was weak.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      This headline, while accurate, puts Biden’s statement in a way most likely to undermine current cooperations with China. The goal is to offend Xi and scuttle any deals reached, and if that doesn’t work, at least it paints Biden as a hypocrite for working with a dictator.

      It’s scortched earth politics. It’s not meant to be news.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        at least it paints Biden as a hypocrite for working with a dictator.

        The United States has generally had no problem working with anyone, including Dictators. We’ve only every refused to do so when their crimes grow so obscenely large that they literally cannot be overlooked.

        • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          You underestimate how much the US is willing to overlook. I think it’s more fair to say they’ll work with anyone who benefits them up until the point they become a liability.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean Biden casually bribed the Pakistan army to remove the previous government and yet he calls Pakistan a totally legit democracy even though elections still haven’t happened.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    When asked about Biden’s latest comment at a Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing on Thursday, a spokesperson called it “extremely erroneous” and an “irresponsible political maneuver, which China firmly opposes.”

    Beijing responded furiously over the summer when the president made a similar comment and compared his Chinese counterpart to “dictators” in June.

    The president made that comment during an off-camera campaign reception in California, hitting Xi for being caught by surprise after the US had shot down a Chinese spy balloon that had veered off course over the United States.

    “The remarks seriously contradict basic facts, seriously violate diplomatic etiquette, and seriously infringe on China’s political dignity,” the spokesperson for the foreign ministry said.

    Wednesday’s comment could threaten to derail the positive energy coming out of the meeting, which Biden described earlier in the news conference as “some of the most constructive and productive discussions we’ve had.”

    “Both sides should understand each other’s principles and bottom lines, not make or stir up trouble or cross boundaries, (but instead) communicate more, have more dialogue and more discussions, and handle differences and accidents calmly,” Xi said.


    The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Leader of a country that has a different form of governance than America? Must be a dictator.

    Only America can be good.

  • Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    While Xi’s move to remove term limits and humiliate his predecessor is worrying and very much dictator moves, china is still more democratic than most people realize. It’s just another model of democracy. Democracy happens within the Chinese Communist party, which anyone can join and participate in to elect local officials, which elect regional officials and so on.

    Obviously not perfect, but not completely dictatorial eitherr.

    • Raymonf@lemmy.uhhoh.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      within the Chinese Communist party, which anyone can join and participate in to elect local officials

      This is definitely not the case anymore. Realistically speaking, it was never as simple as “anyone can join.” Today, most people will go through a lengthy process to just be denied membership.

      Guess who you can thank for this…

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      If I go in a public square and liken Xi to Winnie the Pooh for several hours, will I be returning home untouched by the government and continue to live without government reprisal?

      I think we could learn a lot from their more restrained capitalism system. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize the authoritarian dictatorship.

      There’s an old Soviet Russia joke that applies here. They had freedom of speech too – in the US you can rant about Reagan all day and the government won’t do any reprisal, and in the USSR you can also rant about Reagan without any reprisal!

      • CatTrickery@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Recently in the UK, we had a lot of “not my king” protests where people were arrested for blank signs after people had signs mentioning Prince Andrew’s misdeeds.

      • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I get where you’re coming from but that’s not an argument about the defining characteristics of dictatorships, that’s an argument about the existence or lack thereof of free speech.

        In my opinion a better argument would be that China has 1 leader at the top of the ladder with near unquestionable power over government precedings who will remain in that position until he either dies or chooses to step down. That already would make him something analogous to a monarch, but add the regular use of military strength in forcing compliance from the masses and now we have a dictator.

      • Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Try saying From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free! In Berlin. Or the many US states were boycotting Israel is illegal.

        • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The last point doesn’t count, we’re talking about Free Speech.

          For the first one, it’s understandable why the Krauts have to be on the side of Israel hardcore due to their, uh, “history” with the Jews. Sucks but hey, that’s life.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Seems a bit disingenuous to use a phrase co-opted by antisemites as your example here. I don’t believe most people say it with that intent, but that doesn’t change that Hamas and company use it to refer to ethnic cleansing.

          Wikipedia has a pretty good page that discusses the history of it. My perception is that it was used by proponents for a one state solution, but the opposition to it very purposely boosted the violent groups who used it. It’s like if I talk about the blood and soil in Israel or Palestine or work in the number 88. There are clear antisemitic connotations to those. It’s fairly idiotic to use any phrases like that if your goal is to keep antisemitism completely separate from criticism of Israel.

          Anyway, assuming you’re in the US, you did just say it without reprisal too. This is one of those cases where providing an example immediately disproves it, because clearly, you’re allowed to say it.

          That isn’t to say that some people haven’t tried to criminalize or have successfully criminalized similar sentiments. But the difference is that if I post about Xi being Winnie the Pooh on Chinese social media, I’m going to see reprisal from the government no matter where in the country I post it from. There are shades of authoritarian disallowance of criticism, and the US certainly has some of that. China is just considerably more.

          Edit: I’m thinking of the original charter. The most recent version actually makes it clear that it isn’t directed towards all Jewish people.

          • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Hamas specifically notes in their charter that they do not call for genocide against Jewish people. They specifically note that they do not have a problem with Judaism, and that their fight is only with Zionism, AND they specifically note that “From the river to the sea” is a call for a one state solution, not genocide.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s the most recent revision. The original document didn’t make those distinctions, and it’s what people think of.

              • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                So what you mean to say is that Hamas doesn’t use it to call for genocide of Jewish peoples, and that you were spreading misinformation in your previous comment.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  I should edit it to be past tense, fair does.

                  It remains true however that they said it in their original charter. My point is just that people are (erroneously) thinking of that previous charter when it comes to this. I’m no longer passing any value judgment. The association is valid, but it’s based on an old revision and new revision doesn’t have that association.

          • Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            “As of 2021, 35 states have passed bills and executive orders designed to discourage boycotts of Israel.[4] Many of them have been passed with broad bipartisan support.[5] Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel.”

            Not as bad as I remembered. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws