Yeah. A top-heavy population pyramid - generally regarded as a pretty fucking bad thing. Several other countries are struggling with similar issues, but none that are so reliant on large labor pools to maintain their place in the current world economy.
It's not, ultimately. China is making a bad gamble here. Concessions are fleeting - investment is not. Concessions can change whenever governments do, or popular opinion does.
One might also say this is a "When you owe the bank a trillion dollars, the bank is in trouble" moment.
If the CIA operated like the KGB, we'd have an autocrat in the White House, and the CIA would still be selling drugs on US streets to destabilize internal demographics.
This is the organization that had data that torture wasn't effective, and then was told by the fucking president to stop torturing people, and it came out several years later in front of Congress that they just kept on torturing people regardless.
I assume the “establishment Liberals” are all on a spectrum- some are more centrist while others are more progressive; it’s why I mentioned them separately from the other three and only lumped the two together.
I don't know man, I feel like Establishment Liberals are just "Joe Biden without the GOP cockblocking him", which, while good, is something I would still very much count as much more moderate than progressives.
How are they mutually exclusive arguments? The only alternative would be to assert the reverse - that any failure of a progressive candidate is the fault of centrists; but as centrists are the majority of the electorate, that's a pretty silly argument.
We're in the minority here. A significant minority, but a minority. Our choices are to be part of a coalition, or hand victory to fascists.
What, are we listening to Clinton now?