U.S. Politics 2016: The Mayans Were Only Off By 1418 Days

[Yukle]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The President of Taiwan is in fact not a man, but a woman (Tsai Ing-wen) and she does not claim any dominion over all of China. Also, I'm not sure why you believe Republicans should say anything here -- being tougher with China was one of the things Trump promised during the campaign and he appears to be doing that.

You're right, she is a woman. But as shown below...

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Actually, officially on the QT Taiwan does exactly that. Taiwan claims to be the legit government of a single China, and Beijing claims the same (which includes Taiwan). The One China policy means both administrations recognise there is one China, but they agree to park the dispute over who is the legit government of One China.

Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China. They claim all of mainland China, and base this claim on the fact that they were the legitimate government of China from 1911 until their defeat in 1949. But they don't recognise the communist party's rule, so they claim to govern China itself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Taiwan also claims Mongolia, parts of Russia, half of Tajikistan and all of the South China Sea. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#/media/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg

I don't think that's quite on the same level as the claim to Taiwan.

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't think that's quite on the same level as the claim to Taiwan.

By that, do you mean that China's claim to Taiwan is less problematic than Taiwan's claim to all of China and its surrounding areas?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Yukle said:

By that, do you mean that China's claim to Taiwan is less problematic than Taiwan's claim to all of China and its surrounding areas?

China isn't willing to do terrible things to nations who refuse to recognize their claim to mongolia and Tajikistan.

[Yukle]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

China isn't willing to do terrible things to nations who refuse to recognize their claim to mongolia and Tajikistan.

I wasn't aware that China claimed these areas. I know that they claim part of India, though.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Actually, officially on the QT Taiwan does exactly that. Taiwan claims to be the legit government of a single China, and Beijing claims the same (which includes Taiwan). The One China policy means both administrations recognise there is one China, but they agree to park the dispute over who is the legit government of One China.

43 minutes ago, Yukle said:

You're right, she is a woman. But as shown below...

Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China. They claim all of mainland China, and base this claim on the fact that they were the legitimate government of China from 1911 until their defeat in 1949. But they don't recognise the communist party's rule, so they claim to govern China itself.

It is true that Taiwan has historically claimed to be the legitimate government of a single China. However, my statement still stands: Tsai herself does not claim dominion over mainland China. She leads a party that is nominally in favor of Taiwanese independence and her refusal to reaffirm the "One China" consensus has in fact created problems because China is happier with the prima facie absurd claim that the legitimate government of China is in Taiwan than it is with the idea of an independent Taiwan.

[OldGimletEye]

And now, another episode of: Shit Republicans Believe:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant

Quote

The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s backrooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general whom President-elect Donald Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared stories about another anti-Clinton conspiracy theory involving pedophilia. None of them were true. But the fake stories and threats persisted, some even aimed at children of Comet Ping Pong employees and patrons. The restaurant’s owner was forced to contact the FBI, local police, Facebook and other social-media platforms in an effort to remove the articles.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, is Trump going to reverse our 40+ year position with regard to China and Taiwan?

Feels like he already has.

[LongRider]

7 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

We could of had Don King.

"He coulda been a contender!"

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

It is true that Taiwan has historically claimed to be the legitimate government of a single China. However, my statement still stands: Tsai herself does not claim dominion over mainland China. She leads a party that is nominally in favor of Taiwanese independence and her refusal to reaffirm the "One China" consensus has in fact created problems because China is happier with the prima facie absurd claim that the legitimate government of China is in Taiwan than it is with the idea of an independent Taiwan.

Would be good if you could link to an article I don't have to pay a subscription to read. But the headline and first paragraph seems to be enough of an indication that it's not a rejection or repudiation ot One China, and it is a reaffirmation of a commitment to maintain a stable relationship, which at the moment is identical to maintaining the current One China status quo.

Until the government of Taiwan officially changes policy then the President of Taiwan officially believes the Taiwan regime is the legitimate rulers of all of China. And the rhetorical point of the post that lead to this discussion is about official Taiwan policy, not the personal belief of the current president.

And until such time as Beijing is willing to entertain independence, the nominal opinions of an individual and a political party in Taiwan, if turned into official govt policy and an actual statement of independence would be highly likely to trigger a military response from Beijing. China doesn't want that, Taiwan doesn't wan that, and any sane US president doesn't want that.

 

[TrackerNeil]

7 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Also, bottom of the a very short barrel. It's not like there are "binders" full of black Republicans out there.

I like how this is a shot at both Trump and Romney. That's some economical shade-throwing, there.

[Jaxom 1974]

Apropos of nothing, I amused that Trumpers I know who are also Ohio State and Michigan fans are turning on each other on social media, using the same "debate" tactics they use against liberals on one another.  It's actually funny. 

[Cubarey]

because China is happier with the prima facie absurd claim that the legitimate government of China is in Taiwan than it is with the idea of an independent Taiwan.

 

That's because they have an ethnic minority problem in the West of China. Rather have the absurdity of Taiwan claiming to be the legitimate government of all China then a Tibetan Independence movement declaring its independence or other ethnic Chinese minorities doing the same. It's a hell of a lot easier to keep a Nationalist Taiwan in check then to do the same if it's multiple minorites determind to claim their own independence.

[Mexal]

Anyone post this? Here is a way Democrats could confirm Merrick Garland. They won't cause they don't have the balls but it's possible.

 

Quote

David Waldman (KagroX on Twitter) has outlined how they can confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd for the few minutes that they will be the majority in the Senate. Waldman is a long-standing expert on Senate procedure and political plays. He was one of the first to call for passage of the ACA via reconciliation in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected.

Here it is, in a nutshell.

On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland.

The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes.

It's bold. Garland would be confirmed by 34 Democrats and no Republicans. It will certainly enrage Republicans, but they're already enraged and full of hubris about how they're going to screw Democrats anyway, so what do they really have to lose?

Not much. It takes courage. It takes a resolve to do what's right for this country, to reclaim the Supreme Court nomination Republicans think they stole from us. It takes backbone.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. We're not talking about "comity" anymore. We're talking about conviction and confirmation.

 

 

[Cubarey]

"Taiwan also claims Mongolia, parts of Russia, half of Tajikistan and all of the South China Sea. "

 

Well the Mainland and Taiwanese at l;east agree over China's claim over the South China Sea.

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Anyone post this? Here is a way Democrats could confirm Merrick Garland. They won't cause they don't have the balls but it's possible.

 

 

 

Why are we doing this to ourselves?

[ThinkerX]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And now, another episode of: Shit Republicans Believe:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant

 

My Facebook started to fill up last night with posts and blurbs on this.  Quite a few Conservative posters were adamant the 'armed investigator' was actually part of a 'false flag' operation.  Some (grammar difficult to decipher) apparently still believe the pizza joint is a front. 

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Anyone post this? Here is a way Democrats could confirm Merrick Garland. They won't cause they don't have the balls but it's possible.

They won't because this would be all-out war and it is one that the Democrats would surely lose. For example, there is nothing in the Constitution that says there have to be 9 justices on the Supreme Court. The Republicans could retaliate in one of two ways (both of which assume the end of the filibuster as a given). First, implement FDR's idea and pack the court: expand the number of justices to 15 and have Trump fill the 6 vacancies. Second, reduce the number of justices to 6 (it has been done before), but this time, specify that instead of the size decreasing due to attrition, the Justices with the least seniority (i.e. Garland, Kagan, Sotomayor) are eliminated effective immediately. A bit later, increase the size back to 9 and have Trump fill the 3 vacancies.

The second way may run into Constitutional issues (as it effectively fires judges who are supposed to serve "during good behavior"), but the court-packing is foolproof -- Congress has increased the size of the court multiple times and there's no reason they can't do it again. Of course, none of this is going to happen since the Democrats are not going to start a fight they cannot win.

[The Brandon Stark]

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Feels like he already has.

How is that a problem? Preferring to take a call from the elected leader of Taiwan over the communist leader of China. Come on now.