SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ain't-gonna-have-none-of-that-anti-talk dept.
China has barred two pro-independence politicians from taking seats in Hong Kong's legislature:
China's parliament passed a ruling on Monday that effectively bars two Hong Kong pro-independence politicians from taking office, Beijing's most direct intervention in the territory's legal and political system since 1997 handover. The National People's Congress (NPC) in Beijing ruled that lawmakers must swear allegiance to Hong Kong as part of China and that candidates would be disqualified if they changed the wording of their oath of office or if they failed to take it in a sincere and solemn manner.
The prospect of the ruling had sparked protests in the former British colony on Sunday. Foreign diplomats were watching closely, stressing the importance of the rule of the law to the city's international reputation. While the controversial decision effectively bars the two pro-independence Hong Kong politicians from being sworn in, a court in the Chinese-ruled city must still rule on the case, taking Beijing's decision into consideration.
Also at NYT and Washington Post.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Monday November 07 2016, @04:14PM
Well, while not technically required, there's already coercion to swear a loyalty oath in schools on a daily basis, so it's not that far off.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday November 07 2016, @04:25PM
and yet there is barely a significant percentage of stupid 'merikans who realize we ARE a militaristic Empire by just about any meaningful metric youcan think of...
IF you were to ask them by what criteria they would accept such an obvious conclusion, there is nothing yhey would accept because the conclusion is not something they want to own...
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday November 07 2016, @05:00PM
Yeah, I hate to liken that back to the election as everything here is made to do, but it really makes this whole voting thing here tricky.
On one side, you have a demagogue who can't stop lying, has their fingers in questionable deals, has no temperament or discipline for politics, actively vilifies rape accusers, is only out for themselves, and will only perpetuate the same policies that's led up to our mess.
On the other side, you have a demagogue who can't stop lying, has their fingers in questionable deals, has no temperament or discipline for politics, actively vilifies rape accusers, is only out for themselves, and will only perpetuate the same policies that's led up to our mess.
And you can't actually TALK to people about it, to, like, help yourself reason through it even, because they'll go on an emotional rant rather than actually being able to discuss things reasonably. I think that's why it gets brought up here so often. Ultimately, and to relate back to the original topic, I suppose I should at least get ready for the inevitable neo-mcarthyist movement to label me as a "disloyal American" if Trump wins or a "communist sympathizer" if Clinton wins. Maybe I could buy some Chinese made miniature American flags or something to try to redeem myself?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday November 07 2016, @05:32PM
spot on, olive, simply impossible to talk w any family members about what a POS killary is, because they 'know' trump = end of civilization...
(mandatory disclaimer: t-rump is a buffoon and a pig, WHY that should disqualify HIM, when it doesnt disqualify all the other buffoons and pigs 'we' elect, is beyond me)
here is kind of a minor point to me: killary HAS BEEN one of the primary warmongers who is personnally and indirectly responsible for the MURDERS of hundreds of thosands to millions, but t-rump hasnt killed anyone that i know of...
psychopathic murderer or thin-skinned narcissist ?
what a 'choice'...
oh well, will write-in snowden/manning as i did last time...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @05:43PM
That is false equivalency that could very well lead to our ruin.
Hillary, while not perfect, is a pretty damn fine politican, and proven to be more honest than the other candidates (including Bernie!). But people are more interested in presenting a "I'm neutral, enlightened, and thoughtful" by presenting a false equivalency of "they're both bad" when the facts don't bear that out at all. You may not like Hillary's politics, or her persona, but she is pretty damn clean to have withstood a 30-year witchhunt that has spent over $100-Million in taxpayer money and come up with NOTHING. No dirty politician could withstand that scrutiny and not end up in jail -- the fact that they couldn't find anything on her or her husband despite 30 years of trying, and trumping up all kinds of nonsense when they failed, is a very strong indicator that she's relatively uncorrupt, in stark contrast to her proponent.
But don't let the facts stop you from making a false equivalency. After all, you're not the only one that thinks cynicism and false equivalencies make them look smarter than they really are.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday November 07 2016, @05:53PM
well, gee, thanks,a non cow, for proving you are a superficial authoritarian who doesnt know shit from shinola...
that you could claim killary is clean as a hounds tooth is amusing, yet sad...
enjoy your New Improved Empire, dickhead...
oh, and i do -in fact- know more about politics than a pollyanna who hasnt a fucking clue about deep politics and the shadow gummint...
moron, you will be so proud when killary issues your brownshirt to you...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 07 2016, @06:56PM
and proven to be more honest than the other candidates (including Bernie!)
Maybe if you write it louder, it'll be true? It should be a wake up call to the Democrat party that Clinton is considered more dishonest than Trump is.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 07 2016, @09:50PM
This AC aside, I don't think anyone voting for Hillary actually believes a word she says. She's a compulsive liar. Anyone who votes for Hillary, apart from her personal cronies who expect (justifiably) to profit from her term in office, is doing so because they're afraid of Trump.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Monday November 07 2016, @07:44PM
Hello sir or madam,
I never said she did anything illegal. I agree that the email thing has come up with nothing illegal. I never once said corrupt either. I am sorry that you have put words into my mouth.
Yes, you are correct, I don't like her politics or persona. I am sorry you seem to be under the impression that I am voting or not voting for someone for any other reason.
So then, I suppose to my list of accusations, humorously tailored to be indistinguishable from Trump's, because I would assume any reasonable person at this point has surely got to not be taking this as seriously as you are. I am sorry that you took what was obviously supposed to be a joke so seriously.
But let's talk for a second about those accusations, because all humor has a hint of truth to it:
can't stop lying - She has about quite a few of the things below, but sure, maybe she's done it less than others. Does the least amount of lying mean she hasn't?
has their fingers in questionable deals, - She takes donations from places that might be seen as a conflict of interest, like various industrial-military and private security organizations.[1]
has no temperament or discipline for politics, - Writing off some 45% or so of her country's citizens as "deplorables"? The angry "why aren't I 50 points ahead video"? She's no Obama, that's for sure.
actively vilifies rape accusers, - She referred to Bill's accusers as "bimbos". She had them privately investigated for anything that could be used to discredit them. [2]
is only out for themselves, - I mean, this is more of a aggregate value assessment on my part. Call my cynical I guess. Oh, you did already.
and will only perpetuate the same policies that's led up to our mess - As you say, she has a sterling 30 year record. Her policies aren't going to change overnight, and her platform appears to be a continuation of Obama's platform.
Here's some brief articles talking about this stuff from the NYT, which I don't think any reasonable person would doubt would be unnecessarily unkind to her.
[1] NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/w19clinton.html [nytimes.com]
[2] NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html [nytimes.com]
So are they both identical? No, not in all honesty. I look at it as though I just got asked if had to choose between someone shitting in my mouth or setting me on fire. One of those is probably worse than the other, but I don't agree with you that it would be false equivalence to say that they are both 'bad'. I'm sorry that you likely didn't realize that was an attempt at humor as well.
As far as my cynicism goes, you're mistaken. I'm an idealist. Stein has her problems, like her stance on vaccinations, don't get me wrong... I dunno man, I can afford to sit this one out and enjoy my little protest vote. I'm pretty fortunate in life, all things considered. I'm sorry you apparently cannot.
As far as your presumptions about my intelligence, I'd like to suggest that you are a rude person and know nothing about me. Thank you though for proving my argument about how you can't even talk about things without something immediately getting emotionally charged in one direction or the other though.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 07 2016, @09:47PM
Good grief, really? She is a compulsive liar. She couldn't even say she had pneumonia when she had pneumonia (if indeed she had pneumonia and not something more serious). She just lied about it. Then there's her position on the TPP. She said publicly that she opposes the TPP, because Americans don't want it. But then in emails to Podesta she said she did, and only said she didn't because she feels the need to have a "public" opinion and a "private" opinion, which is something that anyone who's not a politician would call a lie. There are two substantiated examples in the last two months, but if we really dig into her lies we'll be here for another 30 years enumerating them.
Donald Trump is a jerk, but that doesn't exonerate Hillary in the slightest. Saying she's clean and honest is pissing on our heads and telling us it's raining. Go ahead and vote for such a piece of dreck as Hillary Clinton, AC, but don't take the rest of SN for fools, and don't pretend you actually believe what you're writing, or you are a fool.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday November 07 2016, @05:52PM
Maybe I could buy some Chinese made miniature American flags or something to try to redeem myself?
As a loyal citizen, I'm certain that sufficient purchases would redeem you as it would show that you would have resources to bedevil the government's prosecutors. However, my intuition tells me that you probably don't have the money for that - you need at least Congressman-level bucks for that strategy to work.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @08:39PM
Write in Other: 'No Confidence' on your ballot.
That is the only thing you can do this year to voice your protest. Sadly all other positions on my ballot this year don't HAVE an other field (and in some cases only have two same-party candidates for the positions!) Personally I think every ballot should include a bid of no confidence option for each position. Sure it might waste our taxpayer dollars to have a position vacant and have to re-run a new election outside of normal election periods, but it gives people an option for candidates who might not have been able to afford/place in a regular election which may in fact be better for the state or country as a whole. Certainly after this year's election more people might approve of it as an option.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday November 07 2016, @05:14PM
and yet there is barely a significant percentage of stupid 'merikans who realize we ARE a militaristic Empire by just about any meaningful metric youcan think of...
How about the metric of territory held?
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 07 2016, @05:48PM
I find an interesting metric: "how many non-U.N. military bases does your country have inside another country?"
So the almost 40 year old UNIFIL doesn't count, but Akrotiri and Dhekelia [wikipedia.org] does.
(I don't know of any lists of this btw)
Because for most countries in the world, this number is 0.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 07 2016, @05:52PM
D'oh.. just found the list on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday November 07 2016, @10:29PM
Germany's offshore military bases are inside the United States. lololol
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 07 2016, @06:13PM
I find an interesting metric: "how many non-U.N. military bases does your country have inside another country?"
I don't. After all, most empires, past and present didn't have military bases in other countries, they had them in their own territory. If you had a Roman fortress nearby, it was because you were part of the Roman empire either directly or as a completely subservient client state. Rome didn't have equal relationships with its clients like the US has with Japan, Taiwan, Canada, or Europe, for example, which are all regions that the US has military bases with.
Another metric is balance of trade. A huge trade deficit like the US has run forever, is kind of the opposite of what an empire does. It accumulates wealth and resources instead of dispersing them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @07:20PM
The US doesn't have military bases in Taiwan.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @06:45PM
Wikipedia has a helpful list [wikipedia.org] of empires by size.
First is, of course, the British Empire, with 13.71 million square miles, in 1920.
#5 is the Spanish Empire, 5.29 M mi2, 1810.
The US isn't on the list, because everyone knows it's not an empire. But the 3.80 M mi2 of the USA proper (including coastal waters, but not including overseas territories) would put it between #11 (Portuguese Empire, 4.02 M mi2, 1815) and #12 (Xiongnu Empire, 3.47 M mi2, 176 BC).
The Ottoman Empire is #22, 2.01 M mi2, 1683, and the Roman Empire is #24, 1.93 M mi2, 117.