Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 245: Delecto the Funky Mormon Senator

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Yes. China ceded Hong Kong island and the southern part of Kowloon to Britain in perpetuity in the 1840s. In 1898, China leased the remainder of what is today the Hong Kong SAR to Britain for 99 years. If the people of Hong Kong had demanded that the original treaties between China and Britain be enforced, most likely they would have been. The border would have moved in 1997 to restore the leased land to China and the remainder - including the city center - would have remained British.

In the 80s, China and Britain signed a new treaty restoring all of Hong Kong to China in 1997 on condition that China allow Hong Kong self-rule for 50 years. To date, China has kept strictly to the terms of the treaties it signed (the letter anyway, maybe not the spirit).

And yeah, if Taiwan had wanted to leave in the 70s or 80s, not as a independent Chinese state but as an independent non-Chinese state, that could probably have been arranged. But of course that wasn't really possible because the identity of the Taiwanese state and the overwhelming majority of the population is as Chinese.

I am not sure if you actually believe this.

Do you realize who you're responding to?
---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Yes. China ceded Hong Kong island and the southern part of Kowloon to Britain in perpetuity in the 1840s. In 1898, China leased the remainder of what is today the Hong Kong SAR to Britain for 99 years. If the people of Hong Kong had demanded that the original treaties between China and Britain be enforced, most likely they would have been. The border would have moved in 1997 to restore the leased land to China and the remainder - including the city center - would have remained British.

In the 80s, China and Britain signed a new treaty restoring all of Hong Kong to China in 1997 on condition that China allow Hong Kong self-rule for 50 years. To date, China has kept strictly to the terms of the treaties it signed (the letter anyway, maybe not the spirit).

And yeah, if Taiwan had wanted to leave in the 70s or 80s, not as a independent Chinese state but as an independent non-Chinese state, that could probably have been arranged. But of course that wasn't really possible because the identity of the Taiwanese state and the overwhelming majority of the population is as Chinese.

I am not sure if you actually believe this.

Yes.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Yes.

Okay.

---

""Why do we have to give it back?" former British premier Margaret Thatcher asked in 1984 in post-Falklands triumphalist mode. The impracticality of keeping it with Kowloon in Chinese hands was impressed upon her by civil servants.
Beijing let it be known that they would march the People's Liberation Army in anyway. China was not Argentina, Deng Xiaoping was not Leopoldo Galtieri. So Thatcher agreed in 1984 to hand it back in 1997."

Lol.

"In response, Deng Xiaoping cited clearly the lack of room for compromise on the question of sovereignty over Hong Kong; the PRC, as the successor of Qing dynasty and the Republic of China on the mainland, would recover the entirety of the New Territories, Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. China considered treaties about Hong Kong as unequal and ultimately refused to accept any outcome that would indicate permanent loss of sovereignty over Hong Kong's area, whatever wording the former treaties had.

During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like"."

Lmfao.

I mean... You believe some wild stuff, friend.

---

Corrik7 posted...

""Why do we have to give it back?" former British premier Margaret Thatcher asked in 1984 in post-Falklands triumphalist mode. The impracticality of keeping it with Kowloon in Chinese hands was impressed upon her by civil servants.
Beijing let it be known that they would march the People's Liberation Army in anyway. China was not Argentina, Deng Xiaoping was not Leopoldo Galtieri. So Thatcher agreed in 1984 to hand it back in 1997."

Lol.

"In response, Deng Xiaoping cited clearly the lack of room for compromise on the question of sovereignty over Hong Kong; the PRC, as the successor of Qing dynasty and the Republic of China on the mainland, would recover the entirety of the New Territories, Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. China considered treaties about Hong Kong as unequal and ultimately refused to accept any outcome that would indicate permanent loss of sovereignty over Hong Kong's area, whatever wording the former treaties had.

During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like"."

Lmfao.

I mean... You believe some wild stuff, friend.

I hear a lot of bluffing and puffery there. But you are ignoring the substance of what I said - which is that things would be different if the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan did not identify as Chinese. They always have, which is why they never tried for independence even when China was in a weaker position that it is now and probably would have let them go for the right price.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I hear a lot of bluffing and puffery there. But you are ignoring the substance of what I said - which is that things would be different if the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan did not identify as Chinese. They always have, which is why they never tried for independence even when China was in a weaker position that it is now and probably would have let them go for the right price.

Just admit you are wrong.

---

jakyl you are not allowed to make the next topic

i nominate sep
---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I hear a lot of bluffing and puffery there. But you are ignoring the substance of what I said - which is that things would be different if the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan did not identify as Chinese. They always have, which is why they never tried for independence even when China was in a weaker position that it is now and probably would have let them go for the right price.

Just admit you are wrong.

Corrik, I am (American) Chinese. Most of my family is in China. I have a family member who had a fairly high position in the government before retiring. You have no idea what you are talking about.

They said they could roll in the tanks. Why didn't they? Because it would undermine the image and world position they have worked so hard to build since Mao's death in 1976 - that of a reasonable, practical, country that is reliable and above all does not tell other countries what they can and can't do. And it would undermine foreign investment in China and trade with China.

In the earlier years (70s-90s) China was still a dirt poor country and needed foreign investment very badly. In 1984 Shenzhen (the city right across the border from Hong Kong) consisted mostly of rice paddies. Shenzhen has a higher GDP than Hong Kong today (lower per capita, but higher by virtue of greater population - though of course in the 80s HK had a way higher population too as Shenzhen didn't exist as a city yet)! My parents sent home remittances from their grad student income here in the 1980s, which is sort of unthinkable today.

So why didn't China roll tanks into Hong Kong and Macau in the 80s? Because it was not in their interest to do so. Not worth the risk when they had a vision for a much richer, greater, future. Notice that Portugal ultimately got the same result with Macau that Britain did with HK (the original lease return date was honored) without any of Thatcher's imperialist blustering.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik, I am (American) Chinese. Most of my family is in China. I have a family member who had a fairly high position in the government before retiring. You have no idea what you are talking about.

They said they could roll in the tanks. Why didn't they? Because it would undermine the image and world position they have worked so hard to build since Mao's death in 1976 - that of a reasonable, practical, country that is reliable and above all does not tell other countries what they can and can't do. And it would undermine foreign investment in China and trade with China.

In the earlier years (70s-90s) China was still a dirt poor country and needed foreign investment very badly. In 1984 Shenzhen (the city right across the border from Hong Kong) consisted mostly of rice paddies. Shenzhen has a higher GDP than Hong Kong today (lower per capita, but higher by virtue of greater population - though of course in the 80s HK had a way higher population too as Shenzhen didn't exist as a city yet)! My parents sent home remittances from their grad student income here in the 1980s, which is sort of unthinkable today.

So why didn't China roll tanks into Hong Kong and Macau in the 80s? Because it was not in their interest to do so. Not worth the risk when they had a vision for a much richer, greater, future. Notice that Portugal ultimately got the same result with Macau that Britain did with HK (the original lease return date was honored) without any of Thatcher's imperialist blustering.

I don't care if you negotiated the deal. You are wrong. Not going to sit here and try and leverage your genetics to act like it makes you correct. Normally colonies go to the UN and become formally sovereign nations. China refused this and said they had to come back to China as their territory. Macau was a bit different as Portugal tried to unload the colony to China multiple times and China put off taking it back over until 1999. However, it was always understood these territories would go back to China. By force if necessary as we see in regards to Hong Kong.

It has nothing to do with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau considering themselves a part of China as you claim.

---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik, I am (American) Chinese. Most of my family is in China. I have a family member who had a fairly high position in the government before retiring. You have no idea what you are talking about.

They said they could roll in the tanks. Why didn't they? Because it would undermine the image and world position they have worked so hard to build since Mao's death in 1976 - that of a reasonable, practical, country that is reliable and above all does not tell other countries what they can and can't do. And it would undermine foreign investment in China and trade with China.

In the earlier years (70s-90s) China was still a dirt poor country and needed foreign investment very badly. In 1984 Shenzhen (the city right across the border from Hong Kong) consisted mostly of rice paddies. Shenzhen has a higher GDP than Hong Kong today (lower per capita, but higher by virtue of greater population - though of course in the 80s HK had a way higher population too as Shenzhen didn't exist as a city yet)! My parents sent home remittances from their grad student income here in the 1980s, which is sort of unthinkable today.

So why didn't China roll tanks into Hong Kong and Macau in the 80s? Because it was not in their interest to do so. Not worth the risk when they had a vision for a much richer, greater, future. Notice that Portugal ultimately got the same result with Macau that Britain did with HK (the original lease return date was honored) without any of Thatcher's imperialist blustering.

I don't care if you negotiated the deal. You are wrong. Not going to sit here and try and leverage your genetics to act like it makes you correct. Normally colonies go to the UN and become formally sovereign nations. China refused this and said they had to come back to China as their territory. Macau was a bit different as Portugal tried to unload the colony to China multiple times and China put off taking it back over until 1999. However, it was always understood these territories would go back to China. By force if necessary as we see in regards to Hong Kong.

It has nothing to do with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau considering themselves a part of China as you claim.

What? Normally colonies don't have a country to go back to. The fact that they did here is exactly my point.
---

red sox 777 posted...

What? Normally colonies don't have a country to go back to. The fact that they did here is exactly my point.

There is no point here. You stated if Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan wanted to be their own independent nations that China would have let them. That's laughable.

I mean, look at Tibet if you can't understand threatening to take Hong Kong if not handed over and their however many threats at taking back Taiwan and issues with the world that don't consider it their territory formosa.

---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

What? Normally colonies don't have a country to go back to. The fact that they did here is exactly my point.

There is no point here. You stated if Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan wanted to be their own independent nations that China would have let them. That's laughable.

I mean, look at Tibet if you can't understand threatening to take Hong Kong if not handed over and their however many threats at taking back Taiwan and issues with the world that don't consider it their territory formosa.

You are misstating my position. Go back and read it or there's no point of arguing about it. And yes, think about why China sent troops into Tibet and not Taiwan or Hong Kong or Macau. I think my model does a good job of explaining why China did one but not the others and yours does not.

Maybe I'll rephrase this in a numbered list.

1. China places great importance on preserving its sovereign territory.
2. China also places great importance on being a great and rich country in the world.
3. China considers territory to be its sovereign territory if its people consider that land to be so.
4. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau have never denied that they were part of China.
5. Therefore, there is no need for China to invade those places to bring them back.
6. You can make a deal if everyone can get what they most want.

IRL, the path was chosen where HK, Macau, and Taiwan are de facto independent but always insist they are part of China. This is "One Country, Two Systems." An alternative way that I am suggesting could have been possible in the 70s and 80s is for China to accept that these places are not Chinese. There would have to be a way to save face to do that, probably structured as a magnanimous gift from China. Obviously you cannot do that now, after decades of insisting these places are Chinese.

Also, there is a huge difference in policy between Mao (pre-1976) and his successors.
---

Let's save ourselves the time. I feel I have definitively proven you wrong. You never are going to admit you are wrong. So instead of you trying to justify yourself as right while I scoff at you over and over, let's just end it here.

---

That's like saying a real leader would be able to secure sovereign independent nations for Taiwan and Hong Kong. When two groups are ideologically completely opposed to the point of no return, there is not much that can be done besides trying.

Bringing this back to its original context. You raised this comparison first with this post.

My point has been that this is a bad comparison because Taiwan and Hong Kong never expressed a wish to be independent countries at a time when such a thing was possible. So I disagree strongly with the implication that they are "ideologically completely opposed to the point of no return." No, Taiwan and Hong Kong have always been committed to return.

I also don't really agree that Turkey and the Kurds are opposed to the point of no return. They are no more doomed to war than the US and USSR were. And the US and USSR never went to war with each other.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Let's save ourselves the time. I feel I have definitively proven you wrong. You never are going to admit you are wrong. So instead of you trying to justify yourself as right while I scoff at you over and over, let's just end it here.

I feel you are definitively wrong, and you should admit it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Bringing this back to its original context. You raised this comparison first with this post.

My point has been that this is a bad comparison because Taiwan and Hong Kong never expressed a wish to be independent countries at a time when such a thing was possible. So I disagree strongly with the implication that they are "ideologically completely opposed to the point of no return." No, Taiwan and Hong Kong have always been committed to return.

I also don't really agree that Turkey and the Kurds are opposed to the point of no return. They are no more doomed to war than the US and USSR were. And the US and USSR never went to war with each other.

China can recognize Taiwans independence literally today. How is it not possible.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Let's save ourselves the time. I feel I have definitively proven you wrong. You never are going to admit you are wrong

Is this too long to be the new topic title going forward forever?
---

This conversation is like that Twitch channel that just had 2 voiced AIs having an eternal conversation
---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Bringing this back to its original context. You raised this comparison first with this post.

My point has been that this is a bad comparison because Taiwan and Hong Kong never expressed a wish to be independent countries at a time when such a thing was possible. So I disagree strongly with the implication that they are "ideologically completely opposed to the point of no return." No, Taiwan and Hong Kong have always been committed to return.

I also don't really agree that Turkey and the Kurds are opposed to the point of no return. They are no more doomed to war than the US and USSR were. And the US and USSR never went to war with each other.

China can recognize Taiwans independence literally today. How is it not possible.

Because China and Taiwan have spent the last 70 years insisting that Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan is still officially called the Republic of China. Everyone is now heavily invested in this position.

Also, you can't expect China to give something for nothing. In the 80s China was still a poor country and probably would have had a lower price but it's going to be much much harder to buy China today. A few Xi Jinping branded hotels in New York and DC isn't going to cut it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This conversation is like that Twitch channel that just had 2 voiced AIs having an eternal conversation

I wonder how hard it would be to write an AI that could master doublethink. Something that could condemn Hillary Clinton for doing X while refusing to see any wrongdoing from Donald Trump for doing X, while also being completely unaware of its real decision-making process, and doing all of it in good faith.
---

Bolton!

https://twitter.com/alexisgoldstein/status/1187725676385918988?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Bolton!

https://twitter.com/alexisgoldstein/status/1187725676385918988?s=21

Fuck Bolton nine ways to Sunday for obvious reasons, but I'll give him credit for doing the right thing for once.

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/1187714914326106114?s=21

what the fuck

---

Facebook is doing the right thing here. The people need to determine what sources to trust for themselves. They should not rely on Facebook or some generally trusted source to do it for them. Bravo to FB.
---

Breitbart, a website that featured a section on black crime

Is it the position of respectable Twitter that blacks don't commit crimes?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/1187714914326106114?s=21

what the fuck

Again. Every single person here that hasn't already needs to delete their Facebook account. And Instagram/Whatsapp/whatever else Facebook owns. No excuses tbh

It's an utter cancer on society.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-butt-dials-nbc-reporter-heard-discussing-need-cash-n1071901
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-butt-dials-nbc-reporter-heard-discussing-need-cash-n1071901

I can't repeat it enough. We are in the stupidest fucking timeline
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-butt-dials-nbc-reporter-heard-discussing-need-cash-n1071901

FUCK OFF 3 minute voicemail limit
---

I feel bad for future students.

12. "True or False: President Trump's lawyer buttdialed a news organization, contributing to evidence that the President was engaged in illegal behavior regarding his political opponent."
---

The late-night Giuliani butt dial came 18 days after a mid-afternoon Giuliani butt dial.

The greatest line in journalism history
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Breitbart, a website that featured a section on black crime

Is it the position of respectable Twitter that blacks don't commit crimes?

yes thats it you figured it out
---

https://twitter.com/lucasfoxnews/status/1187753691799007234?s=21

President Trump Today: "WE ARE BRINGING OUR SOLDIERS BACK HOME"

President Trump Wednesday: "A small number of U.S. troops will remain in the area where they have the oil."

Pentagon Oct 11th: Since May, 14,000 additional U.S. troops have been sent to the Middle East

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I feel bad for future students.

12. "True or False: President Trump's lawyer buttdialed a news organization, contributing to evidence that the President was engaged in illegal behavior regarding his political opponent."

What a disaster for the American school system
---

Dancedreamer posted...

I feel bad for future students.

12. "True or False: President Trump's lawyer buttdialed a news organization, contributing to evidence that the President was engaged in illegal behavior regarding his political opponent."

Answer: Neither, calls for an opinion to be formed.
---

Judge rules that the House is entitled to the Mueller grand jury material:

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1187811195643973632?s=21

---

https://twitter.com/veganleftovers/status/1187804037955117058?s=21

---

True or False Test - Identify each sentence as a) True, b) False, c) Opinion, or d) None of the above.

1. Donald Trump is an elephant.
2. Xi Jinping resembles Winnie the Pooh.
3. Studies show that elephants are more intelligent than donkeys.
4. Humans have caused Earth's climate to warm.
5. Long live the King.
6. The Earth is flat.
7. The sky is blue.
8. 2+2=5.
9. If the Party says that 2+2=5, then 2+2=5.
10. Hillary Clinton was the worst President of the United States.
---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/24/bernie-sanders-pete-buttigieg-more-supreme-court-judges-like-rbg-not-kennedy/ [Space] 4088421002/

Daily reminder that Mayor Pete is garbage and Bernie is great.
---

More judges like Scalia, Thomas, and Kavanaugh please.
---

To be fair to Mayor Pete, he probably only thinks of Kennedy as the guy who helped Obergfell rather than the guy who helped Citizens United.
---

Mayor Pete is "fine" and I would prefer him out of all the other moderates if that's what it comes to, but yeah that's a pretty not great opinion.

Dancedreamer posted...

To be fair to Mayor Pete, he probably only thinks of Kennedy as the guy who helped Obergfell rather than the guy who helped Citizens United.

This is also possible but it makes him seem uninformed. As 538 repeatedly pointed out, Kennedy was not a liberal and him being replaced by Kavanaugh didn't really lead to a significant shift in the court.

---

Mayor Pete might not want to nominate a liberal.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

To be fair to Mayor Pete, he probably only thinks of Kennedy as the guy who helped Obergfell rather than the guy who helped Citizens United.

Oh hell no, if CU is the first thing i remember Kennedy for and not Obergefell, so can he

Spoilers: Mayor Pete loves money in politics.
---

What's weird is Buttigieg entered the race as a much more progressive voice with talk about abolishing the Electoral College, etc.

I don't want to say the lobbyists/donors got to him but man it's awfully fishy how he made his sharp turn into the moderate lane and taking shots at the left more and more after his initial surge in polling and fundraising.

the curse of "candidates who at one time or another were in my top 3" struck again because these days i'm a hard pass on him.
---

The "pete wants to nominate judges like Kennedy" is a bit out of context because the context is within Pete's plan for massive court reform.

Pete's plan for court reform is a giant centrist mess so it is still awful even within this context.

---

xp1337 posted...

What's weird is Buttigieg entered the race as a much more progressive voice with talk about abolishing the Electoral College, etc.

I don't want to say the lobbyists/donors got to him but man it's awfully fishy how he made his sharp turn into the moderate lane and taking shots at the left more and more after his initial surge in polling and fundraising.

the curse of "candidates who at one time or another were in my top 3" struck again because these days i'm a hard pass on him.

I think the more likely explanation is just that the moderate "lane" is less crowded; if he competes there he just needs Biden to fall apart, not both Warren and Sanders.

---