Eric Loh

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Everyone that voted for him knew all the bad things about him unless they lived in a cave without tv or radio and never read newspapers. Yet they still voted for him.

Nothing that's come out of these proceedings is worse than the stuff before the election.

It's not going to change any supporter's mind.

That's why it's a waste of time and money, unless something really bad comes out and he does get convicted in the senate.

So far nothing that bad enough has emerged, IMO.

However, if the Dems could get a decent candidate they might have a chance, but so far a candidate capable of unseating him is lacking, IMO, which is why they are trying to impeach him. It's the only way he doesn't get re elected, IMO.

Trump fooled them once, shame on them. Fooled them twice, shame on America. The 4 years of lies, deceits and corruption will catch up with him in 2020. 

14 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So is  Guantanamo  Bay Detention  Center closed already?

Or the children out of their cages along the border?

12 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

In my opinion it started when foreigners (mainlanders), went unchecked as they bought property and increased the prices so high that the youth of today have zero chance to buy property for themselves. The government’s greed to fill their coffers “for a rainy day” (even though they have 3 trillion in reserves) also caused property prices to escalate. The government gets an incredible amount from land sales to developers - so had no incentive to reign in prices. Well... it’s raining now.

Hong Kong prosperity was due to its laissez-faire policies whereby the government interference in the economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for maintenance of peace and property rights. In a way, many Asian countries were quite jealous of Hong Kong development in spite of not having any natural resources. Some will argue that the British colonial master allowed and encourage this laissez-faire policies that brought prosperity to Hong Kong and the disparities that are the bane of youth today. 

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

40s & 50s, so born into British HK & grew up there. But I'ld be surprised if both older & younger didn't generally have the same views.

 

The point is that when the 'same' people grow up on different sides of an 'artificial' border (most borders are artificial - think Serbs & Croats, think East & West Germans), over time they become different people & have different IDENTITY, which is very difficult to change back again.

A century of British rule has significantly altered the values of the HK people. One article that I linked below put the dislike for mainlanders at 53% and only 11% otherwise. 
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3027639/protests-expose-gulf-between-hong-kong-and-mainland-china-could 

Youths today are different. During colonial rule, the population too has no part in the representative participation of the government and no group protest. What changed? Will never know now that the radical element of the protest have taken over. The same sentiment will likewise change too. US is fanning the embers which is quite paradoxical when their politics too is tribal. 

3 hours ago, animalmagic said:

I guess that was the hope of 'one country two systems' and 50 years of no change.

Not sure that China will declare victory and leave them alone though.

This is symbolic but will not move the political dial. District Councillors are local representatives. The legislative council is the bicameral legislature and only 5 district councilors will represent. Like the skewed Thailand constitution, half of the legislative council are elected or rather selected from pro Beijing interest groups. 

Another Acting Navy Secretary I presume. 

56 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

I was in HK last year, with close HK friends (middle class - not wealthy not poor) whom I meet in BKK frequently.

 

They do NOT like the 'mainlanders'. And, as far as I can tell, that is not just a political thing, but cultural and 'ethnic' too.

Don’t doubt your feedback from your engagement with the locals. What age group are your friends. This is purely for my own perspective and not meant to be provocative. 

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

If Biden’s done nothing wrong, a full investigation could do nothing but help him, yes? 

A full investigation or any investigation of political opponents pushed by Trump and for his personal agenda is a farce and fake as his conspiracy theories. 

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, China still has to buy its friends, just like the big dawgs it wants to run with.

Sometimes alliances are formed by other reasons besides monetary leverages. Take for instance, South Korea recently signed a security agreement with China after Trump demanded hefty increase in payment for their troops which angered SK. This alliance seem to be for reasons of offsetting power imbalances and fend off possible threats. 

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes. You're right about that. I was puzzled when I went to the page he linked to since I couldn't find any support for that assertion.

On the other hand, I did a cursory search at the contributions of the major advanced economies and the USA was the only nation that didn't contribute any troops to the UN. Although Japan beat the USA by just 4.

I have to admit that that extract was a paragraph in the article and I didn’t do any fact check. I therefore stand to be corrected. However my main point was to reply to a post that said China has no allies and the attached article brought out how China engaged the world in both economic and politics. Thanks to those who took the effort to correct me. 

3 hours ago, Bassosa said:

China apparently doesn't need allies. The country is basically alienating itself from the rest of the world. What's the thought process behind that I wonder? Or is it just incompetence?

Perhaps the following link will help you to understand more of how China is engaging the world. You will be surprised by lots of information that will contradict your view that China doesn’t need allies. By the way. China contribute the most personnel in UN peacekeeping forces around the world. 
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-military-diplomacy/

6 hours ago, webfact said:

 

The four women, as well as the restaurant owner who hired them, were each fined 2,000 baht on grounds of indecency.

Let’s do the math. Got paid 3,000 Baht and lost 2,000 Baht. Still better than minimum wage. The girls will be back. 

34 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

I have read the entire judgement. You are right, the maritime boundary was not determined for each country. However, it was determined that China's claims were "without lawful effect" basically illegal. For everyone's convenience here is the relevant portion of the judgement:

 

Regarding the "Nine-Dash Line" and China's claim in the maritime areas of the South China Sea^[43]

• The [UNCLOS] Convention defines the scope of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits imposed therein.^[44]
• China's claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the 'nine-dash line' are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China's maritime entitlements under the Convention. The Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein

 

You can see the "Nine-Dash Line" back in post #21 in this thread.

 

 

Agree. As long as the ownership and maritime borders are not adjudicated, the disputed islands will be a source of unnerving tension for Asia. These islands are disputed by Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam & Indonesia. US intrusion just add to the tension and so is China building military bases. 

43 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

That is total BS. Look at Permanent Court of Arbitration Philippines v. China case number 2013–19, also known as the South China Sea Arbitration.

 

There was a decision on 12 July 2016 against China and in favor of The Philippines.

 

 

Have you actually read the whole ruling? Just pay more attention to the part that mentioned that ownership and maritime boundary were not adjudicated. 

14 minutes ago, rabas said:

Not quite as provocative as building illegal islands in the middle of busy international waterways, claiming them as your territory and covering them with military bases advanced radars and offensive weapon systems.

 

It’s building in disputed islands not illegal islands. That aside, I agree with you that it’s a provocative act by China. 

22 minutes ago, zydeco said:

They're not disputed. They're illegal.

No international legal ruling on the ownership of the islands or the maritime boundaries. That’s why it is still disputed. 

I wouldn’t say that the Navy sailing near the disputed islands in international waters is wrong but it is provocative. Can’t deny that. 

3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." - Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

This is what the Pelosi and Schiff have done.

Maybe that’s what happen in Kentucky and Louisiana gubernatorial lost for the Reps.