ktchong

Some observations and thought about the situation in Hong Kong: 1. Here is a reminder: Hong Kong did NOT have democracy or general election when it was under British rule for 155 years. For 155 years, British did NOT allow Hong Kong people to have democracy or elect their own leader. The UK simply appointed undemocratic, unelected “Governors” to lord over Hong Kong, and the Governors filled all the top political positions in Hong Kong. 2. When Hong Kong people were under British rule, they DID want democracy and elections. Hong Kong people had protested and demanded democracy/elections/independence/self-rule numerous times under British rule, particularly during the 1960s. However, British ruthlessly cracked down and crushed the Hong Kong protests with bloodshed. So, British/the UK/the West/white people did not give “freedom” and “democracy” to Hong Kong when it was under their rule, but now they want freedom and democracy for Hong Kong when it is no longer under their rule. 3. Hong Kong people finally got the general election they had wanted… in 2004. A reminder of the timeline: Hong Kong was handed back from British to China in 1997, so Hong Kong was already under Chinese rule in 2004. So, British did NOT give democracy to Hong Kong. It was actually CHINA that allowed Hong Kong to have a general election for the very first time in 2004. 4. As for the current protests/riots/whatever in Hong Kong: it is difficult to understand why China still has not cracked down on the protests/riots. So Here is my conjecture. The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has done the political calculus and decided, ultimately, the protests/riots in Hong Kong do NOT pose a threat to the stability of China and the power of the CCP . 5. For the protests/riots in Hong Kong to grow into a real threat to the CCP, the protests/riots will have to spread into China, and then cause massive uprisings all over the mainland. That means the Hong Kong protestors would have to gain some popular support from other Chinese people in the mainland. Otherwise, the protests will continue to be contained/localized inside Hong Kong, and they will not challenge or threaten the CCP in the mainland. 6. As for why the Hong Kong protestors have been unable to gain popular from other Chinese people: those protestors have already invited hatred and hostility from other Chinese, both inside and outside China, (with the exception of Taiwanese, maybe.) Here is the reason: The Hong Kong protesters keep saying, “we are not Chinese”, “we do not want to be Chinese,” and then they were waving American and British flags, singing US anthem. Other Chinese look at those words and behaviors as traitorous and treasonous. They are traitorous and treasonous not just to the CCP – but to the Chinese culture, the Chinese identity, the Chinese nation, and the Chinese race. 7. So, the overwhelming majority of other Chinese already see those Hong Kong protestors as “race traitors” and “treasonous dogs” (i.e., “汉奸" and "走狗” in Chinese, which is the worst.) That means Hong Kong protestors will NOT be getting any sympathy nor popular support from other Chinese in mainland, (or Chinese overseas for that matter.) So their efforts and protests will NOT grow or spread into China and the mainland. Which is why the CCP ultimately does not feel threatened by the Hong Kong protests. As long as the protests do not spread into the China mainland, the CCP can just wait until the protests fizzle out, or until the short-attention-span Western media move on to other things after six months or a year. 8. As for what the CCP can or should do to the protest: they do not have to do anything. China just has to NOT concede anything or give in to ANY of the demands of the Hong Kong people. China just has to stick to the strict parameters for what they will NOT give to Hong Kong: those kids can protest as much as they want; China simply will NOT give or move an inch. As long as the situation does not spread beyond Hong Kong and into the mainland, China can just “wait it out”. Unfortunately for those kids in Hong Kong, they basically have no leverage when they have already lost the popular support of other Chinese (who could have put pressure on the CCP,) so their protests will continued to be contained/localized inside Hong Kong with no possibility of spreading into other parts of China. 9. So how are the protests in Hong Kong different from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests? The 1989 protests were already INSIDE China mainland. The protests had some popular support inside China, and they could have spread from Beijing to another city, and then from one place to another, and get out of control. Which was why the CCP put it down. 10. The Hong Kong protests are not gonna spread to other Chinese when other Chinese already see those Hong Kong protestors as 汉奸 and 走狗, i.e., “race traitors” and “treasonous dogs”. Without popular support from the Chinese people at large, the Hong Kong protesters really do not have much of a leverage.

~*~ ThOuGhTs AnD pRaYeRs! ~*~

If you want to know why the media has been relentlessly smearing Tulsi Gabbard: she has made enemies of those two particular powerful and well-connected individuals.

And absolutely no one is surprised.

In another news, Freudian slip...

No actual person at Twitter suspended Moscow Mitch's account. It was a pre-defined algorithm that automated the process of suspending account. Twitter set up some conditions and rules that identify abusive behaviors online, and put those conditions and rules into an algorithm and automated process. Some of those conditions and rules could be making bigoted, racist or sexist comments. If a user met those conditions and committed those pre-defined abusive behaviors - and it did not matter if he was "left" or "right", then the algorithm would automatically suspend his account. That was what happened to Moscow Mitch. The only reason why there seems to be a "bias towards conservative" is because it has been conservatives who are frequently meeting those conditions, breaking those rules, and committed those abusive behaviors. If you do not want Twitter being "biased" against you, then stop being an arse on Twitter.

WRONG. Shapiro was not the point. Even if you did not want to bother with watching the video, I am sure you can see the other faces from the pictures. The point was it was not just Trump who putting the blame of mass shootings on video games. As I said, " it's the REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOX NEWS, and RIGHT-WING PUNDITS AND TALKING HEADS" that are blaming video games right now.

Since it's almost exclusively WHITE MALES who commit mass shootings, maybe we should just ban WHITE MALES from playing video games? Asian males spend plenty of time playing video games, but you don't see Asian men go out and shoot up people for it. Yeah, let's do that. Let's just ban white males from playing video games.

So I am calling out the moderator BS for that: it is NOT just Trump who said video games are to blame for mass shootings. It's the REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOX NEWS, and RIGHT-WING PUNDITS AND TALKING HEADS. Here are some video proofs, and I can serve you more if you want.

Let say you have to solve the problem, and you have to pick one one.

Saudi Arabia Admits They Spread Wahhabism Around the World at US Request and Lost Control of It (Wahhabism is the extremist/fundamentalist/radical sect of Islam that fuels almost all of the world's Islamic terrorism today. The original source is The Washington Post)

So, either this weekend or early next week, my wife and I will be making another round of donations to the five four progressive candidates. The five progressives in the race are: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang, I have yet to discussed this with my wife, but I have decided I will NOT be donating any more money to Andrew Yang's campaign. In both of his debates, Yang had disappointed. He is a weak debater. Based on what I've seen, I have concluded that he will NOT be able to go head-to-head against Trump in a debate. Trump will eat Yang alive. I think all the progressives EXCEPT Yang will be capable of going head-to-head against - and beat - Trump in a debate. (i.e., Bernie and Warren were particularly savage in the debate last night.) Unfortunately, I can no longer support Yang even though I support his ideas and policies. I think he will NOT be able to beat Trump in a war of words. I want someone who will be able to beat Trump in the election AND in a debate, and Yang simply does not have the rhetoric skill to accomplish that. So he is out.

Check you source. The Washington Free Beacon is an extreme far right source - and a front for Taiwanese lobbyist: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/ https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Washington_Free_Beacon https://www.thenation.com/article/conservative-free-beacon-fronts-taiwan-lobby/

My guess is Bernie, Warren and THE POWER OF LOVE "won" the night because they gave the most aggressive performances, most memorable moments, and the most quotable lines of the night. These are the clips and quotes that keep popping up in newly uploaded videos on YouTube, so I think Bernie, Warren and Williamson are considered as the "winners" of night due to them: "I do know because I wrote the damn bill!" Bernie snapped at some Republican lite who kept saying Bernie did not know what Medicare-for-All would cover. "Let's be clear about it. We are the Democrats. We are not about to take away healthcare from anyone. That's what the Republicans are trying to do." Elizabeth Warren responding to the candidate running in the wrong party on how Medicare-for-All would take away healthcare from Americans. "I don't understand why anyone goes through all the troubles of running for the President of the United States just to talk about what we can't do and shouldn't fight for." Elizabeth Warren "I've heard some people tonight, and I wonder why you are Democrats, you seem to think there is something wrong with using the instrument of government to help people." Marianne Williamson "If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.” And #DarkPsychicForce has been trending on Twitter. "Why are you spilling Republican talking points?" All three of Bernie, Warren and Williamson said some variations of that.

I did not watch the debate tonight, as I had to do something with my family. However, I googled the debate and glanced through the headlines. Based on the headlines I've seen, it seems like Bernie Sanders (#2) and Elizabeth Warren (#1) were widely considered as the top two "winners" of the debate, while Marianne Williamson was the most googled/search candidate during and after the debate. So it was a great night for progressives. Let's hope Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang will deliver another night of win for progressives tomorrow. Tulsi especially will need a boost or she won't qualify for the third debate.

So everyone online has been talking about Dave Rubin's interview of Marianne Williamson from last week. The faux liberal alt-right/Randian cultist Rubin invited Marianne to his show, and apparently he thought he could just walk all over the "silly hippie"... Oh boy he had no idea. I finally watched the interview. Let just say that, after the interview, the humiliated Rubin had to put out another video to make excuses for "how the hell did I let a hippie destroy me on my own show?!?" Frankly, the ways Williamson intellectually disarmed and disassembled the alt-right shill on his own show completely took me by surprise - and revealed the lady's intelligence and wit. That I did not expect from her. Here: link to the interview

Much has been said about Biden's origin as a Dixiecrat, his role in passing the 1990s crime bill that has decimated Black American communities, and his creepy attitude towards women and young girls. But no one - not on mainstream media and not on the Internet - has yet mentioned his one biggest sin that is gonna upset a lot, a lot, of Democrats and liberals. So here is a reminder. Before 1991, the makeup of the US Supreme Court used to be 5-4 majority liberal.. and then the ultra-conservative Clarence Thomas replaced the liberal Justice and civil right legend Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court, and flipped that one crucial seat from liberal to conservative, which irreparably flipped the balance of the Supreme Court in favor of conservatives. And who was the Senate majority leader at the time who blocked women's testimonials against Clarence Thomas, allowed Thomas to be confirmed, and ultimately gave away the liberal majority on the Supreme Court to conservatives? CREEPY UNCLE JOE BIDEN. Losing that Supreme Court majority was the biggest long-term damage Biden has inflicted on Democrats and liberals. Before Clarence Thomas, liberals had the majority on the Supreme Court, which made landmark rulings on abortion, civil rights, integration, and so many progressive rulings. Then, the conservative-majority Supreme Court - created by Biden - made the partisan court ruling to stop the Florida recount in 2000 and allow George W Bush to be the president, which ultimately led to the Iraq War and never-ending foreign wars; ruled in favor of Citizen United against FEC and open the floodgate of money in politics and super-pacs; ruled in favor of chipping away civil right protections. I am amazed that no one has yet mentioned the damages Creepy to the Supreme Court and our Justice system. That alone should disqualify Creepy Joe from running. Seriously the media and people need to talk about it. I do not think Democrats and liberals will ever forgive Biden for giving away the liberal majority in the Supreme Court. I am amazed that that very important and unforgivable sin of Biden has not been on anyone else's radar yet.