Election 2020 - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15026745
Drlee wrote:But always a cowardly one. Hard choices are what adults do.


And, quite often, the decision to not vote (while I've never made that myself) can be a hard one to make. You hold no such station which allows you to legitimately judge another's decision to not vote for a particular person. Their decision not to select someone is every bit as valid as anyone else's choice.

I don't really suspect that you'll comprehend this, but only a fucking idiot would vote for the "lesser of two evils" because, no matter how you slice it, you're still voting for evil. It seems clear that you're comfortable voting for evil. That says much about you.

You seem to believe that a vote must be cast for someone, and that's just not how it is. That you see not voting for someone as "cowardly" speaks to the belief that you're unable to think for yourself and that you do what you're told to do...
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15026751
colliric wrote:This is not how the Cantonese Chinese view the situation, and they're right. It's is a fact that Britian was at risk of war with China, and communist invasion, if they did not agree to hand back Hong Kong to Beijing. Britain would have been in violation of current International law, allowing the CCP to portray itself as the "victim" and move in the troops to take the city back by force. The Hong Kong people understand this situation, which is the reason they do NOT blame the UK for what had happened. The UK approached the situation in a level-headed manner and successfully avoided putting the Hong Kong people at risk of immediate communist invasion.

The Communist Party are bastards. Attempting to transfer the blame for the situation to Thatcher is dishonest. Her hands were tied and the Cantonese people know more about that fact than you, they have lived under constant threat of Communist invasion their whole lives.


Whatever you say,but, the inevitable was merely delayed & Thatcher would have been as realistic as anyone that the U.K couldn't stop China had it wanted to physically take over Hong Kong around the time the agreement was made or whenever it chose.

The boot is now on the other foot in terms of power, China has military muscle, not that it needs to wield it over Hong Kong & it would be silly of the U.K to make a political crisis out of an issue that is none of it's business.
China will 'honour' the agreement, but will ensure that it's interest will not be threatened by anyone in Hong Kong or elsewhere.

Britain wasn't compelled to hand back Hong Kong in 1997, it was simply Thatcher's decision based on reality, or 'real politik', that we couldn't defend a territory far away, when Tory economics(as usual)was wrecking the country, thereby depriving this country of any adventurous ideas that were once common currency as a world power.

Long gone are the gunboat diplomacy days of British power displayed in the opium war with China,which resulted in the treaty of Nanking, when China ceded Hong Kong to Britain,we could barely muster the resources to reclaim the Falklands back from Argentina, that was both costly & exposed just how weak this country really is.

Building large aircraft carriers(Labour's idea)as a 'tour de force', is just a fig leaf over our military weakness that changes nothing with the reality on the ground.
User avatar
By Ter
#15026756
Nonsense wrote:Whatever you say,but, the inevitable was merely delayed & Thatcher would have been as realistic as anyone that the U.K couldn't stop China had it wanted to physically take over Hong Kong around the time the agreement was made or whenever it chose.

The boot is now on the other foot in terms of power, China has military muscle, not that it needs to wield it over Hong Kong & it would be silly of the U.K to make a political crisis out of an issue that is none of it's business.
China will 'honour' the agreement, but will ensure that it's interest will not be threatened by anyone in Hong Kong or elsewhere.

Britain wasn't compelled to hand back Hong Kong in 1997, it was simply Thatcher's decision based on reality, or 'real politik', that we couldn't defend a territory far away, when Tory economics(as usual)was wrecking the country, thereby depriving this country of any adventurous ideas that were once common currency as a world power.

Long gone are the gunboat diplomacy days of British power displayed in the opium war with China,which resulted in the treaty of Nanking, when China ceded Hong Kong to Britain,we could barely muster the resources to reclaim the Falklands back from Argentina, that was both costly & exposed just how weak this country really is.

Building large aircraft carriers(Labour's idea)as a 'tour de force', is just a fig leaf over our military weakness that changes nothing with the reality on the ground.


I read an article at the time with some details about the handover.
The lease on The New Territories was running out and Hong Kong could not survive without them. Thatcher was trying to hang on to Hong Kong but they convinced her that it was not realistic, HK without the New Territories was not self-sufficient in drinking water for instance.
Chris Patten, who failed to get elected as an MP, was given the consolation price of being the last governor of Hong Kong. Just before the handover he organised elections there, the hypocrite, after British rule for hundreds of years without any elections.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15026765
I don't really suspect that you'll comprehend this, but only a fucking idiot would vote for the "lesser of two evils" because, no matter how you slice it, you're still voting for evil. It seems clear that you're comfortable voting for evil. That says much about you.


:roll:

No son. I am old enough to know that voting for the "lesser of two evils" is always the only choice. And I am patriot enough to know that voting for the lesser of two evils still gives my country the better leadership given the choices available.

I have a good friend who claims he "could just not vote for Clinton" so he wrote in Colon Powell. First of all, I doubt that. But even if he did I remind him every time he complains that he is partially responsible for President Trump. And he hates to hear that. But it is true.

Certainly we can blame the mouth breathers who voted for Trump for what is going on today. Some good and some bad. But the people who did not vote or wrote in some bullshit thinking they are clever, at the end of the day, might as well have voted for Trump. At least they should have the honesty to admit it.

I have no time for vacillating weaklings. Puffed up tough guys that when faced with a real tough choice run away and hide behind their crybaby excuses. Wimps to a man.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15026805
Drlee wrote::roll:

No son. I am old enough to know that voting for the "lesser of two evils" is always the only choice. And I am patriot enough to know that voting for the lesser of two evils still gives my country the better leadership given the choices available.


It's not always the only choice. But [rule 2 insult removed - Prosthetic Conscience] people can't comprehend that...

I have a good friend who claims he "could just not vote for Clinton" so he wrote in Colon Powell. First of all, I doubt that. But even if he did I remind him every time he complains that he is partially responsible for President Trump. And he hates to hear that. But it is true.


Not, it's not.

That's just something that [rule 2 insult removed] libs say to justify why their shitty candidate lost the election.

I have never voted against someone. I have always voted for someone. There were certain things which Trump talked about which got me to vote for him. Had he not made his positions known, or if I disagreed with everything he said, I would not have voted for him, but I also wouldn't have cast my vote for Clinton.

I know this whole concept is soaring effortlessly over your head, but choosing not to cast a vote is okay...
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15026817
Ter wrote:I read an article at the time with some details about the handover.
The lease on The New Territories was running out and Hong Kong could not survive without them. Thatcher was trying to hang on to Hong Kong but they convinced her that it was not realistic, HK without the New Territories was not self-sufficient in drinking water for instance.
Chris Patten, who failed to get elected as an MP, was given the consolation price of being the last governor of Hong Kong. Just before the handover he organised elections there, the hypocrite, after British rule for hundreds of years without any elections.


Thanks for refreshing my 'lost' memories Ter,seems much clearer now reading your post.
User avatar
By Down East
#15026855
Drlee wrote::roll:

No son. I am old enough to know that voting for the "lesser of two evils" is always the only choice. And I am patriot enough to know that voting for the lesser of two evils still gives my country the better leadership given the choices available.

I have a good friend who claims he "could just not vote for Clinton" so he wrote in Colon Powell. First of all, I doubt that. But even if he did I remind him every time he complains that he is partially responsible for President Trump. And he hates to hear that. But it is true.

Certainly we can blame the mouth breathers who voted for Trump for what is going on today. Some good and some bad. But the people who did not vote or wrote in some bullshit thinking they are clever, at the end of the day, might as well have voted for Trump. At least they should have the honesty to admit it.

I have no time for vacillating weaklings. Puffed up tough guys that when faced with a real tough choice run away and hide behind their crybaby excuses. Wimps to a man.


Wimps, crybabies, and mouth breathers......oh boy!

Pretty much sums up your lack of objectivity anyways.

I guess it's fairly easy to be manly sitting at a computer, but I'll take your word for it. :roll:
User avatar
By Drlee
#15026887
Objectivity about what?

I do believe that Trump voters are mostly wimps and crybabies. I use the term mouth-breather because it us an old time term for someone who is not very smart. I have met very few smart Trump voters. I am sure there are many. I have just not met any.

The purpose of a debate form is to express opinions and not hold anyone to any objective standard. If this hurts your feelings then I am sorry. You should consider getting thicker skin.
By Hindsite
#15026973
Drlee wrote:The purpose of a debate form is to express opinions and not hold anyone to any objective standard. If this hurts your feelings then I am sorry. You should consider getting thicker skin.

Some people expect the other debater to debate in good faith. That is something you Trump haters seem incapable of doing.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15026989
@Hindsite Some people expect the other debater to debate in good faith. That is something you Trump haters seem incapable of doing.


Give us an example sport?
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15027021
foxdemon wrote:I do find it interesting that China is buying gold in such large quantities. Could they be preparing for an attack on the USD status as global reserve currency?

There is nothing they can do to the US that wouldn't hurt them more. China may want to have the world's reserve currency, but the reason they cannot do this is that they run trade surpluses. In fact, this is why they are having problems with the US now. Their belt-and-road initiative isn't really helping either.

JohnRawls wrote:2) The economic growth in the last 10 years has been fueled by a large debt expansion which had enormous waste.

Yes. They've built entire cities with nobody in them. It was just an effort to keep the GDP number artificially high.

Nonsense wrote:The boot is now on the other foot in terms of power, China has military muscle, not that it needs to wield it over Hong Kong & it would be silly of the U.K to make a political crisis out of an issue that is none of it's business.
China will 'honour' the agreement, but will ensure that it's interest will not be threatened by anyone in Hong Kong or elsewhere.

I think after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was an overweening and unjustified sense of optimism that communism would collapse in China. Giving up Hong Kong while retaining a capitalist system and granting MFN status to China was seen as the beginning of the end of CCP rule, but that has not materialized. Remember the Tiananmen square protests happened in 1989 after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I think a Chinese invasion of Hong Kong will cause considerable economic problems for China, which I don't think they are seeing yet. I think Xi Jinping is playing to a domestic political audience, but seems unaware of the problems China will face if it invades Hong Kong.

Nonsense wrote:Long gone are the gunboat diplomacy days of British power displayed in the opium war with China,which resulted in the treaty of Nanking, when China ceded Hong Kong to Britain,we could barely muster the resources to reclaim the Falklands back from Argentina, that was both costly & exposed just how weak this country really is.

They recently let Iran seize a British-flagged oil tanker. A lot of Britain's weakness is political more than military.

Nonsense wrote:Building large aircraft carriers(Labour's idea)as a 'tour de force', is just a fig leaf over our military weakness that changes nothing with the reality on the ground.

Two aircraft carriers with F-35s can do considerable damage to an enemy, but not if there is no political will to use them.

Anyway, Trump will have to pull out all the stops in 2020. The media hates him and will do their level best to destroy him. Apparently, Scaramucci has gotten some sort of payoff to needle Trump. I imagine there will be others. However, Russiagate is a clear failure, so they have pivoted to "white supremacy." Byron York covered this recently: New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism

Personally, I think that's going to fail too. The reason--like Russiagate--is that it's not based on truth. It's predicated on the politics of personal destruction. Additionally, in calling Trump a racist, they are now basically doubling down on calling Trump's supporters "deplorable." That didn't work out well in 2016. The interesting thing about American politics now is that you can't get a clear idea of what will happen until election day, because the media deliberately misreports everything. We're drowning in disinformation. Additionally, people lie to pollsters. A lot of people strongly agree with what Trump says, but they strongly disagree with him saying it. So he's much stronger than he appear in the polls.
By Istanbuller
#15027025
blackjack21 wrote:There is nothing they can do to the US that wouldn't hurt them more. China may want to have the world's reserve currency, but the reason they cannot do this is that they run trade surpluses. In fact, this is why they are having problems with the US now. Their belt-and-road initiative isn't really helping either.

World's reserve currency is something people trust and voluntarily accept. The financial system the US has built is based on trust. Economically speaking, The US has been always fair and honest to the world.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15027040
I think after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was an overweening and unjustified sense of optimism that communism would collapse in China. Giving up Hong Kong while retaining a capitalist system and granting MFN status to China was seen as the beginning of the end of CCP rule, but that has not materialized. Remember the Tiananmen square protests happened in 1989 after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I think a Chinese invasion of Hong Kong will cause considerable economic problems for China, which I don't think they are seeing yet. I think Xi Jinping is playing to a domestic political audience, but seems unaware of the problems China will face if it invades Hong Kong.


He does. And if he invades Hong Kong he will be playing directly into Trump's hand. *Though I don't necessarily think this is any sort of plan.

Once Xi invades Hong Kong Trump can instantly end the preferential trading status Hong Kong enjoys. He can sit back and say "See...I told you China was a bad actor. See how it ignores its obligations?" He may even force China to try to use its US investments as some sort of leverage. The problem with that is that it would inevitably backfire and cost China far more than it stands to gain. Its own currency would rise dramatically, making its products more expensive in markets other than the US at the same time it is hurt by tariffs and would be hurt even more by a falling US economy. On top of this tanking the economy of China's fourth largest trade zone and easiest access to global currency markets is not a good idea.

It may be that Trump knows this. It may be that he is willing to play this brinkmanship if for no other reason than it resonates with his base.

We're drowning in disinformation. Additionally, people lie to pollsters. A lot of people strongly agree with what Trump says, but they strongly disagree with him saying it. So he's much stronger than he appear in the polls.


Yup. He sure is. And the democrats are doing exactly the wrong thing. They need to tell AOC and her cronies to sit down and shut up for a year. Promise them whatever but get them to be quiet. Those on the progressive side of the democratic party and minorities have nowhere else to go. They are in the bucket. They will vote early and vote often. The democratic parties best hope is to rally behind Biden and get someone's hand firmly up his back so he doesn't fuck up and get off message. He needs to run as "middle class Joe" and go straight for Trump's base. Straight at it. Same issues. It is abhorrent to say but they can't cede huge swatches of the fly-over states to Trump on some failed notion that playing the race card in rural Ohio has a chance in hell of working.

I am tempted to go on but what the hell. Both Blackjack and I called the 2016 election for Trump when everyone else thought Hillary was a shoe in. Him before me. The way it is going now the democrats are squandering the advantages they have coming out of 2018. Everyone likes a parade and they should have kept that going. Instead they are allowing Trump to drive their agenda. They need to get these 2,749 candidates to go home and run for the Senate so they can have a tiny chance of taking or at least stalemating that. At then end of the day Trump fatigue syndrome is their best bet. They own the press if they will only use it. I doubt they can do it at this point.
By Hindsite
#15027124
The main stream press have been discredited by their hatred for Trump that led them to lie by their accusing him of being a trader to our nation and a puppet of Putin. Anyone that cares at all about a stable economy and the Constitution would be a fool to vote for any of the Democrats in 2020. The most recent issue of the NRA Freedom magazine has the cover title "Gun Control's Ship of Fools" featuring nine caricatures of the leading Democrat candidates for president. The editor states that some of these candidates are now so far away from American freedom they are loudly advocating for gun bans and forced confiscation of popular firearms.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15027158
The main stream press have been discredited by their hatred for Trump that led them to lie by their accusing him of being a trader to our nation and a puppet of Putin.


You mean like Fox News? That is the most mainstream of media if viewership is to be considered. So I agree. They hate Trump.


Anyone that cares at all about a stable economy and the Constitution would be a fool to vote for any of the Democrats in 2020.


Very true. Democrats believe in a perfidious balanced budget and in raising revenue to get it. They also believe in the completely outmoded notion of one-person-one-vote.


The most recent issue of the NRA Freedom magazine has the cover title "Gun Control's Ship of Fools" featuring nine caricatures of the leading Democrat candidates for president. The editor states that some of these candidates are now so far away from American freedom they are loudly advocating for gun bans and forced confiscation of popular firearms.


Actually none of them are for "gun bans" and none for confiscation of popular firearms. But the truth be damned. The NRA has you fooled.
By Hindsite
#15027182
Drlee wrote:You mean like Fox News? That is the most mainstream of media if viewership is to be considered. So I agree. They hate Trump.

But you obviously don't watch FOX News much. Fake news CNN and MSNBC were the ones claiming Trump colluded with the Russians. Most of the Trump haters are at CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, and Washington Post.

Drlee wrote:Democrats believe in a perfidious balanced budget and in raising revenue to get it.

That is called tax and spend and running up huge national debts.

Drlee wrote:They also believe in the completely outmoded notion of one-person-one-vote.

Even if that person is not a citizen and does not have a verified ID card.

Drlee wrote:Actually none of them are for "gun bans" and none for confiscation of popular firearms. But the truth be damned. The NRA has you fooled.

After Shootings, 2020 Democrats Race Further To The Left On Gun Confiscation
AUGUST 7, 2019

Several candidates, including current front-runner Joe Biden, have called for Australian-style gun buyback programs where owners of firearms would sell back their weapons to the government at government-determined prices.

While Biden has endorsed the policy as an optional measure, former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, who is from El Paso, where 22 people were killed in Saturday’s shooting, has endorsed a mandatory one, where owners of weapons deemed illegal under federal law would be required to sell their guns to the government. Both candidates have also called for bans on “assault weapons” with loose definitions of the term, which would require owners of such firearms to sell their guns to federal officials under O’Rourke’s proposal.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/07/sh ... fiscation/

Joe Biden Admits He Wants to Confiscate Guns "BINGO"


Red flag laws: Should US police be able to seize guns? - BBC News
User avatar
By jimjam
#15027183
Hindsite wrote:running up huge national debts.

I believe that Obese Donald is presiding over a $1,000,000,000,000 national debt this year ….. a tad on the huge side :lol:

Hindsite wrote:loudly advocating for gun bans and forced confiscation of popular firearms.


This is inherently stupid. there are 330,000,000 Americans with 393,000,000 guns. Wanna ban/confiscate them? :eek: :lol:
By Hindsite
#15027205
jimjam wrote:I believe that Obese Donald is presiding over a $1,000,000,000,000 national debt this year ….. a tad on the huge side :lol:

That is what is required when social Democrats are needed to approve budgets for greater defense.

jimjam wrote:This is inherently stupid. there are 330,000,000 Americans with 393,000,000 guns. Wanna ban/confiscate them? :eek: :lol:

I don't, but some of the Democrats running for president say they do, which I agree is a stupid position to take.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15027208
That is what is required when social Democrats are needed to approve budgets for greater defense.


:lol: Gibberish. Try again. Use your words.

I don't, but some of the Democrats running for president say they do, which I agree is a stupid position to take.


And this is patently untrue. But then truth is meaningless to a Trump supporter. It is a very small series of steps from ignoring lies, to accepting lies, to justifying lies to lying.
By Hindsite
#15027451
Drlee wrote:And this is patently untrue. But then truth is meaningless to a Trump supporter. It is a very small series of steps from ignoring lies, to accepting lies, to justifying lies to lying.

The truth is meaningless to the Trump haters that accused him of colluding with Russia and even treason.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 26
EU-BREXIT

@B0ycey Also which is worse for the NHS? Br[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Not one Trump supporter has attempted to counter […]

The Evolution Fraud

Thanks for doing the homework for me. So you are […]

No one cares because it doesn't fit people's polit[…]