2016 US Presidential election thread

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by STEED

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/don...ar-1201935932/

If anyone visualises this year, I guess it is him.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tibet has already been invaded, you can't invade it any more than it has been. Taiwan has not.

with all due respect, that argument makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mr Quatro]

Really heavy competition there, uh?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/234864...the-year-2016/

IT'S TRUMP TIME Donald Trump named Time magazine’s Person of the Year beating

Nigel Farage, Beyonce, Vladimir Putin and Hillary Clinton

The iconic award is given to the person who has had the biggest impact on the world over the past year

Yet, I do think the tide is turning on people starting to accept Trump as the POTUS. Is Time magazine a good barometer?

I don't think so ... time will tell.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

with all due respect, that argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Basically, what can China do to Tibet if people meet with the Dalai Lama? Nothing, they've already invaded and occupied it.
What can China do to Taiwan though?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Basically, what can China do to Tibet if people meet with the Dalai Lama? Nothing, they've already invaded and occupied it.

How about round up and jail every activist in Tibet who wants their country to be free and who is inspired to protest by the Dalai Lama meeting with the leader of the free world.

The 6th Tibet Work Forum meeting in late August, held to determine central government policy for the region for years to come, emphasized the imperatives of security and “stability,” but authorities failed to address systematic ethnic and religious discrimination and restrictions, or the profound socioeconomic changes brought by massive re-housing and resettlement campaigns in which Tibetans were compelled to participate.

Central government authorities continue to deploy officials in villages and monasteries and have expanded surveillance mechanisms to the grassroots level, a development which appears to have contributed to more frequent arrests of local community leaders, environmental activists, villagers involved in social and cultural activities, and writers and singers whose works are considered sensitive.

In July, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche—one of Tibet’s highest-profile political prisoners—died in detention. In violation of the relevant regulations, authorities refused to release his body or investigate the circumstances of his death. Also in July, Lobsang Yeshe, a village head imprisoned for his role in a local anti-mining protest in May 2014, died in prison following reports that he had been mistreated. Another high profile prisoner, a young Lhasa NGO worker Tenzin Choedrak, died in December, two days after he was abruptly released early from detention.

Protests, particularly against mining and land acquisition, continue despite threats from local authorities. Security forces beat and arrested peaceful protestors in Chamdo in April and in Gannan in June. Following mass protests against mining in a supposedly protected part of Qinghai in 2014, mining operations were reportedly closed down, although the reasons for this remain unclear. After public outcry over corruption in the school exam system, authorities in the Tibet Autonomous Region and Qinghai introduced tighter regulations and prosecuted offenders.

Seven more Tibetans self-immolated in 2015, bringing the total since 2009 to 143.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/201...d-tibet#bbae7b

Human Rights Situation in Tibet

Human rights conditions in Tibet remain dismal. Under the Chinese occupation, the Tibetan people are denied most rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including the rights to self-determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, expression and travel.

Political Prisoners

China’s consistent use of excessive military force to stifle dissent has resulted in widespread human rights abuses including multiple cases of arbitrary arrests, political imprisonment, torture and execution. Human rights groups have documented at least 60 deaths of peaceful demonstrators since 1987.

Human rights groups have confirmed, by name, over 700 Tibetan political prisoners in Tibet, although there are likely to be hundreds more whose names are not confirmed. Many are detained without charge or trial for up to four years through administrative regulations entitled “re-education through labor”. Also, over the past year unrest has spread from urban areas into the countryside.

Credible reports of mistreatment and torture of detainees and political prisoners in Tibet are widespread, including beatings, shocks with electric batons, deprivation of sleep or food, exposure to cold and other brutalities. Human rights and humanitarian organizations are denied access to prisons and detention centers in Tibet.

http://tibetoffice.org/tibet-info/invasion-after

What can China do to Taiwan though?

what can they do? invade? because of a phone call? give me a break.

Seems to me, based on your logic, that Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama is a much bigger blunder since it will lead to immediate repression in Tibet.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

what can they do? invade? because of a phone call? give me a break.

Seems to me, based on your logic, that Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama is a much bigger blunder since it will lead to immediate repression in Tibet.

It certainly is a diplomatic faux-pas, we had the same situation when Dave met with him, and yes, it could well have lead to greater repression in Tibet, which is terrible.
And no, I don't think that a single phone call will cause an invasion, and I have not once stated in this thread that the phone call will cause an invasion. However diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, which a phone call between the US President (not President-Elect) and the leader of Taiwan could constitute as, would increase the risk of an invasion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_..._Strait_Crisis

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

man, the hypocrisy over the Taiwan phone call is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.

Communist China invaded and absorbed Tibet in the 1950s. Since then the Dalai Lama has wandered the planet to stir up support for a free Tibet. Under China's "One China" policy, no foreign leader can meet with the Dalai Lama, yet Obama has met with the Dalai Lama 4 times, including this summer, each time over the criticism of China's communist dictators.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politi...ma-dalai-lama/

How did "liberals" react? They praised Obama for standing up to a dictatorship in the name of democracy and respect for human rights;

I am amazed how far so called "liberals" will twist and turn to criticize every action Trump does. The phone call to Taiwan was not a mistake, it was a carefully planned shot across the bow to China.

Now to all the "liberals", why do you praise Obama when he violates China's "One China" policy, but criticize Trump when he does the same thing?

It's called extremism

[Oberon]

Yup, I am a politically correct gif terrorist.

Praise be to imgur!

[Bilge_Rat]

you don't seem to understand that the U.S. has formally stated that it will defend Taiwan so any invasion by China would automatically trigger WW3.

The United States position on Taiwan is reflected in "the six assurances to Taiwan", the Three Communiqués, and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).[26] The Six Assurances include: 1. The United States has not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan; 2. The United States has not agreed to hold prior consultations with the Chinese on arms sales to Taiwan; 3. The United States would not play any mediation role between Taiwan and Beijing; 4. The United States has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act; 5. The United States has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan; and 6. The United States would not exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the Chinese.[27] The "Three Communiqués" include The Shanghai Communiqué, The Normalisation Communiqué, and The August 17 Communiqué, which pledged to abrogate official US-ROC relations, remove US troops from Taiwan and gradually end the arms sale to Taiwan, but with the latter of no timeline to do so, an effort made by James Lilley, the Director of American Institute in Taiwan.

Despite friendly relations with China, United States President George W. Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."[28] He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree." [28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan...2.80.93present

The U.S. does not see China has an Ally, only as a great power it has to deal with.

Why do you think the U.S. deliberately excluded China from the TPP. The TPP was designed to carve Asian countries away from China's economic orbit.

Why do you think the U.S. ships and aircraft keep entering what China considers to be "its" territory?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/wo...navy.html?_r=0

The phone call between Trump and the Taiwanese president was negotiated for weeks. It is naive to think Trump's team did not analyse all the ramifications.

[Oberon]

The US used to see China as an ally, that's why they started the whole One China policy of theirs to begin with. In regards to the defence of Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act states:

"the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities"

The level of these services is to be decided by the President and Congress, and like NATO it could range from the entire US Navy to a single frigate. It's deliberately kept vague in order to discourage Taiwan from unilaterally declaring independence and thus provoking China into attacking them.
It's a finely tuned balancing diplomatic act which has been in place, adhered to and worked for more than thirty years. Deciding to tear this all up doesn't make sense to me, but then again there's a lot about America that's not making sense to me at the moment so I guess that's nothing new.
If America wants to go ahead and take on the Chinese, then I guess that's their perogative, they have the advantage at the moment and it would be a nice big victory for Trump if he can get China to back down. But if he doesn't then unfortunate things might happen.
Heck, everyone was running scared about the Syrian no-fly zone, I'm not sure how poking China is that much better.


EDIT: Never mind, forget it, I'll stop now.

[Bilge_Rat]

well actually I did want to make a further point.

There was a time when the U.S. and China were "allies", but that was a marriage of convenience. When Nixon went to China in 1972, both partners had very specific aims.

The U.S. wanted to: 1) improve relations with China to use as a counter to the USSR; and 2) get a freer hand in dealing with Vietnam;

China wanted to: 1) improve relations with USA to use as a counter to the USSR; and 2) obtain international recognition of its government.

Neither aim is still current, 2 is long gone and so is 1 since Russia is no longer a superpower (although it still thinks it is ).

The main "conflict" for the next 50 years will be USA vs China, both are now importers of raw materials and competing for ever diminishing resources, so yes, a conflict is probably inevitable, although it may not occur until 2050-2100.

While the West has been preoccupied by Russia's actions in Ukraine/Syria, China has been unilaterally expanding into the South China Sea, laying claim to very resource rich regions and pushing into territory claimed by Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. There are potentially enormous amounts of oil and natural gas deposits under the South China Sea and China wants to get full access to them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territ...outh_China_Sea

Throwing Taiwan overboard in 1979 made sense within the context of the USA-USSR Cold War, but that is no longer relevant. If China is going to keep making aggressive moves and ignore established rules, there is no reason for the USA to feel bound by them either. Within that context, leaving open the possibility of closer Taiwan-USA ties is an interesting opening gambit.

[Onkel Neal]

One thing is clear; Trump is not afraid of picking controversial cabinet members.

Defense Secretary: Retired Gen. James Mattis; vocal critic of the Iran nuclear deal

Commerce Secretary: Wilbur Ross; owner of Sago Mine, a West Virginia coal mine where a dozen miners lost their lives in a 2006 explosion

Health and Human Services Secretary: Tom Price; strong advocate of repealing Obamacare

Attorney General: Jeff Sessions ; staunch and long time opponent of illegal immigration (aka the Democratic Voter Seeding Program)

National Security Adviser: Michael Flynn; lifelong Democrat who is in favor of stronger ties with Russia

I can't call Trump shy and cautious.

[Aktungbby]

I'm beginning to like him; he's pissing off the Chinese and not spending money on a new Air Force One!

[Onkel Neal]

Oh, and Trump names Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA, lol

[Mr Quatro]

Let me know if and when throwing tax payers money at the climate change problem works.

We didn't cause the problem ... it will continue and even if you could prove that fossil fuels cause the problems of the poles melting you would have to make China be first at cleaning up their act before it could do any good.

What year would the problem be solved with an effort like we had for going to the moon?