President Biden and US politics catchall

Where goats go to escape
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

bit weird when she said China was going to go and get Hong Kong, I wonder if she knows where/what Hong Kong is
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

Good article about the crooks running the NRA, some of whom may now be looking at jail time !

Secret Recording Shows NRA Treasurer Plotting to Conceal Extravagant Expenses Involving Wayne LaPierre


Audio obtained by The Trace and ProPublica reveals, in real time, the gun lobbying group enacting a plan that would conceal payments for fancy hotels, limousines and other luxury expenses connected to its longtime CEO for a decade.

.....

https://www.propublica.org/article/nra- ... e-expenses
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:14 pm bit weird when she said China was going to go and get Hong Kong, I wonder if she knows where/what Hong Kong is
This is really silly, of course she knows what Hong Kong is. No one is claiming she's a genius and speaking to a Fox News audience at their level is always going to make you sound pretty basic but come on...
Last edited by Calculon on Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:22 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:14 pm bit weird when she said China was going to go and get Hong Kong, I wonder if she knows where/what Hong Kong is
This is really silly, of course she knows what Hong Kong is. No one is claiming she's a genius and speaking to a Fox News audience at their level is always going to make you sound pretty basic but come one...
I'm only noting the part where she spoke utter bollocks came across a bit weird. And it's not like there's a shortage of things one could actually use to highlight problems with China, so why invent one that makes one look an idiot?
Sinkers
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:04 am

Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:22 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:14 pm bit weird when she said China was going to go and get Hong Kong, I wonder if she knows where/what Hong Kong is
This is really silly, of course she knows what Hong Kong is. No one is claiming she's a genius and speaking to a Fox News audience at their level is always going to make you sound pretty basic but come one...
In fairness it was very much in the past tense.
Feel dirty saying this - but why oh why can’t the dems ever seem to phrase what’s going on as simply and effectively as this.
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:25 pm
Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:22 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:14 pm bit weird when she said China was going to go and get Hong Kong, I wonder if she knows where/what Hong Kong is
This is really silly, of course she knows what Hong Kong is. No one is claiming she's a genius and speaking to a Fox News audience at their level is always going to make you sound pretty basic but come one...
I'm only noting the part where she spoke utter bollocks came across a bit weird. And it's not like there's a shortage of things one could actually use to highlight problems with China, so why invent one that makes one look an idiot?
IIRC what she said was correct, if a bit weird. it was fine in the context of giving an answer for that audience. pretty sure that coming across as very intelligent, not saying Niki Haley can do that, would be a turn off for many Republican voters
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Haley's not the adult in the room, no matter how much she prevaricates and her opponents flounder.

She's just as hamstrung by Trump's base as all the Republican candidates are.

She pretends to have serious answers, but can't even answer the most basic question imaginable about the defining event in post-independence America.

A question most American kids over the age of six could answer in seconds, with a single word.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:54 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:25 pm
Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:22 pm

This is really silly, of course she knows what Hong Kong is. No one is claiming she's a genius and speaking to a Fox News audience at their level is always going to make you sound pretty basic but come one...
I'm only noting the part where she spoke utter bollocks came across a bit weird. And it's not like there's a shortage of things one could actually use to highlight problems with China, so why invent one that makes one look an idiot?
IIRC what she said was correct, if a bit weird. it was fine in the context of giving an answer for that audience. pretty sure that coming across as very intelligent, not saying Niki Haley can do that, would be a turn off for many Republican voters
'China said they were going to take Hong Kong, it happened'

But the inference from that is surely they took it be use of force, or perhaps some other coercive means, and not simply the lease ran out and it defaulted back to Chinese control. And especially that's the inference set alongside a series of other threats being made by authoritarians. And if she wants to be strong on authoritarians there remains the problem she lacks the will to call out the fat orange wanker
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:42 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:53 pm There are at least two topics in American politics where there is no, winning, just degrees of losing:

1) Abortion - You'll always piss off someone
2) Israel - See #1
3. Gun Control
4. Religious freedom...

...as long as that religion's Christianity, of course.
User avatar
Kiwias
Posts: 6853
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:44 am

de Santis trolled brutally at Iowa meeting

User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:28 am
Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:54 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:25 pm

I'm only noting the part where she spoke utter bollocks came across a bit weird. And it's not like there's a shortage of things one could actually use to highlight problems with China, so why invent one that makes one look an idiot?
IIRC what she said was correct, if a bit weird. it was fine in the context of giving an answer for that audience. pretty sure that coming across as very intelligent, not saying Niki Haley can do that, would be a turn off for many Republican voters
'China said they were going to take Hong Kong, it happened'

But the inference from that is surely they took it be use of force, or perhaps some other coercive means, and not simply the lease ran out and it defaulted back to Chinese control. And especially that's the inference set alongside a series of other threats being made by authoritarians. And if she wants to be strong on authoritarians there remains the problem she lacks the will to call out the fat orange wanker
I don't want to defend this one awkward statement of hers but HK island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the UK. In 1979 the Brits told the Chinese that it would be better if post 1997 they continue to administer not only HK island and Kowloon Peninsula, as is their legal right, but also continue to administer the New Territories. Deng Xiaoping told them that China will not only take back the New Territories but the whole of HK, and they did.

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".[37]
User avatar
TB63
Posts: 4014
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:11 pm
Location: Tinopolis

User avatar
Niegs
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:20 pm

It's a real wonder that she hasn't dumped him, but maybe it's beneficial to keep up the pretense and just stay somewhat separated?

Would be hilarious for now-single Trudeau to have a go.

Image
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

She re-negotiate their pre-nup, & now her kid gets an equal share of his estate, to his other adult kids, where originally he got no share, that was the price of her staying with him after the porn star & all their other bullshit.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 10:26 am
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:28 am
Calculon wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 11:54 pm

IIRC what she said was correct, if a bit weird. it was fine in the context of giving an answer for that audience. pretty sure that coming across as very intelligent, not saying Niki Haley can do that, would be a turn off for many Republican voters
'China said they were going to take Hong Kong, it happened'

But the inference from that is surely they took it be use of force, or perhaps some other coercive means, and not simply the lease ran out and it defaulted back to Chinese control. And especially that's the inference set alongside a series of other threats being made by authoritarians. And if she wants to be strong on authoritarians there remains the problem she lacks the will to call out the fat orange wanker
I don't want to defend this one awkward statement of hers but HK island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the UK. In 1979 the Brits told the Chinese that it would be better if post 1997 they continue to administer not only HK island and Kowloon Peninsula, as is their legal right, but also continue to administer the New Territories. Deng Xiaoping told them that China will not only take back the New Territories but the whole of HK, and they did.

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".[37]
If you don't want to defend the awkward statement don't. Also look up the 99 year lease, the one which expired in '97 (was it '97?)

Unless in the 1970s one had a way to extend the lease it was a done deal, sure the British could ask, but China could simply say no. Had to see what 'rights' the British had to rule post 1997

Even if someone Britain had wrangled some sort of legal claim logistically how would one serve the territory if China opposed and proved truculent around say use of ports, supply of utilities... . There was simply no need to say China was threatening to take HK, it was always going back to them, only an idiot would claim otherwise.
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

fishfoodie wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:38 pm She re-negotiate their pre-nup, & now her kid gets an equal share of his estate, to his other adult kids, where originally he got no share, that was the price of her staying with him after the porn star & all their other bullshit.
His estate will be eaten by his creditors catching up and the litigation the brood will launch against each other.
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 9:25 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:38 pm She re-negotiate their pre-nup, & now her kid gets an equal share of his estate, to his other adult kids, where originally he got no share, that was the price of her staying with him after the porn star & all their other bullshit.
His estate will be eaten by his creditors catching up and the litigation the brood will launch against each other.
Yeah, 20% of fuck all is fuck all, but I'm not sure what the laws are vis-a-vis alimony etc in the US, & where they come in the hierarchy of creditors ?
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 9:21 pm
Calculon wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 10:26 am

I don't want to defend this one awkward statement of hers but HK island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the UK. In 1979 the Brits told the Chinese that it would be better if post 1997 they continue to administer not only HK island and Kowloon Peninsula, as is their legal right, but also continue to administer the New Territories. Deng Xiaoping told them that China will not only take back the New Territories but the whole of HK, and they did.


If you don't want to defend the awkward statement don't. Also look up the 99 year lease, the one which expired in '97 (was it '97?)

Unless in the 1970s one had a way to extend the lease it was a done deal, sure the British could ask, but China could simply say no. Had to see what 'rights' the British had to rule post 1997

Even if someone Britain had wrangled some sort of legal claim logistically how would one serve the territory if China opposed and proved truculent around say use of ports, supply of utilities... . There was simply no need to say China was threatening to take HK, it was always going back to them, only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Again... legally the UK had every right to administer Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon
peninsula in perpetuity. Practically, it would have been difficult without the New Territories and especially without Chinese cooperation. The Chinese DID threaten to take Hong Kong Island and Kowloon by force if the Brits, who again, had a legal right to administer the Territories in perpetuity, did not leave. So although, imo, she phrased it awkwardly, she was correct.

I think Nikki Haley has a better understanding of the Hong Kong handover than you because this:
simply the lease ran out and it defaulted back to Chinese control.
is just wrong, which is why there where many rounds of negotiations before the Sino-British Joint Declaration
User avatar
Guy Smiley
Posts: 6018
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm

My rough understanding is that Britain won HK Island as a result of the First Opium War and Kowloon as a result of the Second...

they then negotiated a lease on the New Territories which ran for 99 years, expiring in '97 was it?

So yeah... Britain surprisingly held HK and Kowloon, but let's be real about it, there was no way they were going to hold them while they vacated the lease on the New Territories. Saying they had every legal right is like saying say... Palestinians have every right to live untroubled in the Left Bank and Gaza.

I mean... they do, but no fucking way is it gonna happen. Hegemony happens instead.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:19 am
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 9:21 pm
Calculon wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 10:26 am

I don't want to defend this one awkward statement of hers but HK island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the UK. In 1979 the Brits told the Chinese that it would be better if post 1997 they continue to administer not only HK island and Kowloon Peninsula, as is their legal right, but also continue to administer the New Territories. Deng Xiaoping told them that China will not only take back the New Territories but the whole of HK, and they did.


If you don't want to defend the awkward statement don't. Also look up the 99 year lease, the one which expired in '97 (was it '97?)

Unless in the 1970s one had a way to extend the lease it was a done deal, sure the British could ask, but China could simply say no. Had to see what 'rights' the British had to rule post 1997

Even if someone Britain had wrangled some sort of legal claim logistically how would one serve the territory if China opposed and proved truculent around say use of ports, supply of utilities... . There was simply no need to say China was threatening to take HK, it was always going back to them, only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Again... legally the UK had every right to administer Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon
peninsula in perpetuity. Practically, it would have been difficult without the New Territories and especially without Chinese cooperation. The Chinese DID threaten to take Hong Kong Island and Kowloon by force if the Brits, who again, had a legal right to administer the Territories in perpetuity, did not leave. So although, imo, she phrased it awkwardly, she was correct.

I think Nikki Haley has a better understanding of the Hong Kong handover than you because this:
simply the lease ran out and it defaulted back to Chinese control.
is just wrong, which is why there where many rounds of negotiations before the Sino-British Joint Declaration
It practically could not have been done, any suggestions otherwise are idiotic.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Kiwias wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 10:22 am de Santis trolled brutally at Iowa meeting

'Merica man

User avatar
TB63
Posts: 4014
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:11 pm
Location: Tinopolis

User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:49 am
Calculon wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:19 am
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2024 9:21 pm

If you don't want to defend the awkward statement don't. Also look up the 99 year lease, the one which expired in '97 (was it '97?)

Unless in the 1970s one had a way to extend the lease it was a done deal, sure the British could ask, but China could simply say no. Had to see what 'rights' the British had to rule post 1997

Even if someone Britain had wrangled some sort of legal claim logistically how would one serve the territory if China opposed and proved truculent around say use of ports, supply of utilities... . There was simply no need to say China was threatening to take HK, it was always going back to them, only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Again... legally the UK had every right to administer Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon
peninsula in perpetuity. Practically, it would have been difficult without the New Territories and especially without Chinese cooperation. The Chinese DID threaten to take Hong Kong Island and Kowloon by force if the Brits, who again, had a legal right to administer the Territories in perpetuity, did not leave. So although, imo, she phrased it awkwardly, she was correct.

I think Nikki Haley has a better understanding of the Hong Kong handover than you because this:
simply the lease ran out and it defaulted back to Chinese control.
is just wrong, which is why there where many rounds of negotiations before the Sino-British Joint Declaration
It practically could not have been done, any suggestions otherwise are idiotic.
So you finally get it that the lease did not cover HK island and that the Chinese did threaten the UK, so what Niki Haley said was not in fact "utter bollocks"
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:40 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:49 am
Calculon wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:19 am

Again... legally the UK had every right to administer Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon
peninsula in perpetuity. Practically, it would have been difficult without the New Territories and especially without Chinese cooperation. The Chinese DID threaten to take Hong Kong Island and Kowloon by force if the Brits, who again, had a legal right to administer the Territories in perpetuity, did not leave. So although, imo, she phrased it awkwardly, she was correct.

I think Nikki Haley has a better understanding of the Hong Kong handover than you because this:
is just wrong, which is why there where many rounds of negotiations before the Sino-British Joint Declaration
It practically could not have been done, any suggestions otherwise are idiotic.
So you finally get it that the lease did not cover HK island and that the Chinese did threaten the UK, so what Niki Haley said was not in fact "utter bollocks"
In any practical sense there was a lease, it was expiring, and there was nothing to be done unless China oddly went along with a request from the UK that it/we should maintain control.

It's a small point amongst what she was saying there, and hardly as bad as her failure to answer to the reasons for the Civil War, but she was wrong, and there were/are plenty of examples she could have used were she not thick as mince.
Sinkers
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:04 am

I doubt that she’s thick. I suspect she knows exactly which buttons to push (china) and which to avoid (slavery).
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Sinkers wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:04 pm I doubt that she’s thick. I suspect she knows exactly which buttons to push (china) and which to avoid (slavery).
I'm not sure trying to avoid pushing that particular button worked out very well for her...

A serious lack of judgement on her part imho; a disingenuous deflection which was never going to fly coming from anyone, let alone the former governor of the first state that voted to secede from the Union in 1860.

But hey, as long as the MAGA base laps it up and the donations keep rolling in, right "Ambassador"?
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Anyway, pretty sure she'll still be in the game after today's Iowa caucuses, whereas it may well be one-and-done for DeSantis and Ramaswamy.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Gumboot wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 pm
Sinkers wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:04 pm I doubt that she’s thick. I suspect she knows exactly which buttons to push (china) and which to avoid (slavery).
I'm not sure trying to avoid pushing that particular button worked out very well for her...

A serious lack of judgement on her part imho; a disingenuous deflection which was never going to fly coming from anyone, let alone the former governor of the first state that voted to secede from the Union in 1860.

But hey, as long as the MAGA base laps it up and the donations keep rolling in, right "Ambassador"?
It didn't work for her in a previous run for office either, so she looked at her first gaffe and thought I'll just give that another whirl. Maybe she was looking at Trump and thinking if I make too many gaffes to report that in itself is something of a solution
Slick
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Trump increases his vote with women, young voters and evangelicals.... what the fuck is wrong with these people
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:13 pm
Calculon wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:40 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:49 am

It practically could not have been done, any suggestions otherwise are idiotic.
So you finally get it that the lease did not cover HK island and that the Chinese did threaten the UK, so what Niki Haley said was not in fact "utter bollocks"
In any practical sense there was a lease, it was expiring, and there was nothing to be done unless China oddly went along with a request from the UK that it/we should maintain control.

It's a small point amongst what she was saying there, and hardly as bad as her failure to answer to the reasons for the Civil War, but she was wrong, and there were/are plenty of examples she could have used were she not thick as mince.
And oddly enough China did initially propose exchanging sovereignty over HK for continued
British administration. Exactly like how they did with
Macau and Portugal . So the idea was not that far fetched and the reason why the British initially pushed the idea despite the PRC subsequenly changing their minds (and threatening the Brits).
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Gumboot wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 pm
Sinkers wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:04 pm I doubt that she’s thick. I suspect she knows exactly which buttons to push (china) and which to avoid (slavery).
I'm not sure trying to avoid pushing that particular button worked out very well for her...

A serious lack of judgement on her part imho; a disingenuous deflection which was never going to fly coming from anyone, let alone the former governor of the first state that voted to secede from the Union in 1860.

But hey, as long as the MAGA base laps it up and the donations keep rolling in, right "Ambassador"?
She's hated by MAGA who regard her as a RINO, anchor baby and a warmonger. She's also now stated that
she's not willing to be Trump's VP.
User avatar
Uncle fester
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:42 pm

Trump romped home in Iowa anyway.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Slick wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:27 am Trump increases his vote with women, young voters and evangelicals.... what the fuck is wrong with these people
They're Republicans?
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Calculon wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:04 am
Gumboot wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 pm
Sinkers wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:04 pm I doubt that she’s thick. I suspect she knows exactly which buttons to push (china) and which to avoid (slavery).
I'm not sure trying to avoid pushing that particular button worked out very well for her...

A serious lack of judgement on her part imho; a disingenuous deflection which was never going to fly coming from anyone, let alone the former governor of the first state that voted to secede from the Union in 1860.

But hey, as long as the MAGA base laps it up and the donations keep rolling in, right "Ambassador"?
She's hated by MAGA who regard her as a RINO, anchor baby and a warmonger. She's also now stated that
she's not willing to be Trump's VP.
Not sure what you see in her tbh. The best of a bunch of busted also-rans?

Do you really believe a word that dribbles out of the corner of her crooked mouth at this late stage? C'mon man, she'll say anything to stay in the base's good graces. And regardless of what she says, there's no chance she'd turn down a shot to be The Donald's VP.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:01 am
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:13 pm
Calculon wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:40 pm

So you finally get it that the lease did not cover HK island and that the Chinese did threaten the UK, so what Niki Haley said was not in fact "utter bollocks"
In any practical sense there was a lease, it was expiring, and there was nothing to be done unless China oddly went along with a request from the UK that it/we should maintain control.

It's a small point amongst what she was saying there, and hardly as bad as her failure to answer to the reasons for the Civil War, but she was wrong, and there were/are plenty of examples she could have used were she not thick as mince.
And oddly enough China did initially propose exchanging sovereignty over HK for continued
British administration. Exactly like how they did with
Macau and Portugal . So the idea was not that far fetched and the reason why the British initially pushed the idea despite the PRC subsequenly changing their minds (and threatening the Brits).
Well now I know something was at one point possibly mooted but never came to pass that makes her madness reasonable.

There is some claim that Britain could have continued rule, but (a) China disputes many of the older treaties asserting they were established in wholly unfair manner, and (b) the area we could perhaps in theory have retained is a tiny part without the new territories, it's not worth it in itself, and it wouldn't have been practicable anyway. One might try to gloss over just how much China would have objected, but it's hard enough keeping hold of some marbles these days, HK would have proved a whole different level of challenge.

Haley is a moron, she picked an example knowing feck all about it, and there are plenty of easy examples she could have picked to cite Chinese expansionist outlook she overlooked in order to pick one which makes no sense. One might as well say if you keep jumping a little bit higher eventually you'll touch the moon, well maybe not quite that, but what she said in that line remains gibberish
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:17 am
Calculon wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:01 am
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:13 pm

In any practical sense there was a lease, it was expiring, and there was nothing to be done unless China oddly went along with a request from the UK that it/we should maintain control.

It's a small point amongst what she was saying there, and hardly as bad as her failure to answer to the reasons for the Civil War, but she was wrong, and there were/are plenty of examples she could have used were she not thick as mince.
And oddly enough China did initially propose exchanging sovereignty over HK for continued
British administration. Exactly like how they did with
Macau and Portugal . So the idea was not that far fetched and the reason why the British initially pushed the idea despite the PRC subsequenly changing their minds (and threatening the Brits).
Well now I know something was at one point possibly mooted but never came to pass that makes her madness reasonable.

There is some claim that Britain could have continued rule, but (a) China disputes many of the older treaties asserting they were established in wholly unfair manner, and (b) the area we could perhaps in theory have retained is a tiny part without the new territories, it's not worth it in itself, and it wouldn't have been practicable anyway. One might try to gloss over just how much China would have objected, but it's hard enough keeping hold of some marbles these days, HK would have proved a whole different level of challenge.

Haley is a moron, she picked an example knowing feck all about it, and there are plenty of easy examples she could have picked to cite Chinese expansionist outlook she overlooked in order to pick one which makes no sense. One might as well say if you keep jumping a little bit higher eventually you'll touch the moon, well maybe not quite that, but what she said in that line remains gibberish
What example should she have used instead of the Hong Kong one?
User avatar
Calculon
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Gumboot wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:17 am
Calculon wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:04 am
Gumboot wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 pm

I'm not sure trying to avoid pushing that particular button worked out very well for her...

A serious lack of judgement on her part imho; a disingenuous deflection which was never going to fly coming from anyone, let alone the former governor of the first state that voted to secede from the Union in 1860.

But hey, as long as the MAGA base laps it up and the donations keep rolling in, right "Ambassador"?
She's hated by MAGA who regard her as a RINO, anchor baby and a warmonger. She's also now stated that
she's not willing to be Trump's VP.
Not sure what you see in her tbh. The best of a bunch of busted also-rans?

Do you really believe a word that dribbles out of the corner of her crooked mouth at this late stage? C'mon man, she'll say anything to stay in the base's good graces. And regardless of what she says, there's no chance she'd turn down a shot to be The Donald's VP.
I'd much rather have two pro Ukraine candidates run
than the chance of Trump winning.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Calculon wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:51 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:17 am
Calculon wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:01 am

And oddly enough China did initially propose exchanging sovereignty over HK for continued
British administration. Exactly like how they did with
Macau and Portugal . So the idea was not that far fetched and the reason why the British initially pushed the idea despite the PRC subsequenly changing their minds (and threatening the Brits).
Well now I know something was at one point possibly mooted but never came to pass that makes her madness reasonable.

There is some claim that Britain could have continued rule, but (a) China disputes many of the older treaties asserting they were established in wholly unfair manner, and (b) the area we could perhaps in theory have retained is a tiny part without the new territories, it's not worth it in itself, and it wouldn't have been practicable anyway. One might try to gloss over just how much China would have objected, but it's hard enough keeping hold of some marbles these days, HK would have proved a whole different level of challenge.

Haley is a moron, she picked an example knowing feck all about it, and there are plenty of easy examples she could have picked to cite Chinese expansionist outlook she overlooked in order to pick one which makes no sense. One might as well say if you keep jumping a little bit higher eventually you'll touch the moon, well maybe not quite that, but what she said in that line remains gibberish
What example should she have used instead of the Hong Kong one?
To illustrate their expansionism one could stick with Tawain, or with a US audience in ind keep it simple and use Tibet. Or expand and go with China redrawing international waters creating 'reefs' way off the coast, or draw attention to some aspect of Belt and Roads which would play well to a US audience, or, or.... Just don't make up a stupid remark which makes your commentary look for shit.

It's be nice if one could draw a line from Chinese support for Russia creating problems for Ukraine, creating problems for the USA. But the Republicans are now in more of a pro-Russia phase so it's not so easy to speak against authoritarianism and corruption and have that play well in GOP politics
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 10886
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:53 pm But the Republicans are now in more of a pro-Russia phase
No, they're in an increased Anti-Biden phase with elections coming up. They just say they want the opposite of what the Dems are doing. It's immensely childish. :bimbo:
Post Reply