U.S. unlikely to back down on Taiwan issue

[flamer84]

Believe me, your next President will not be any better.

Hillary Clinton...and just when you thought Obama was the worst....

 

[Sam1980]

Why not may be it would have been some KANADA Nation and my family would still have opt for it, you are talking senseless. The difference between us and you is your ancestors went by poop boats in a miserable way and us invested millions as business class immigrants unlike you murderers, you are no superior to us.

@Abii I would like to know what you think about this?

 

[Oldman1]

These Taiwanese lame and spineless, why would they still insist that America will fight to death for a bunch of non-white people?

Thats a good question. It seems we lost many fighting in other countries for non-white people. Reminds me of FDR who claims or promises he will never send our sons to fight overseas. Yet it happened.

 

[flamer84]

Why not may be it would have been some KANADA Nation and my family would still have opt for it, you are talking senseless. The difference between us and you is your ancestors went by poop boats in a miserable way and us invested millions as business class immigrants unlike you murderers, you are no superior to us.

WTF ??? Are you for real??.....you would have build a better Canada anyway ? Why the hell didn't you build a better Pakistan at home "think tank"?--saved you the trouble of hoping an ocean away.......some of you really are shameless bastards and really don't deserve the life in the countries you are now.........what a class A scumbag.....


The difference is that "their " ancestors built it from scratch while you got invited in a class A country which had it all looser ! Yes..invited to see how civilisation looks like...sry but your douchbaggery deserves it!

 

[gambit]

Yours is official:

China have over 30 millions literally living in caves.

You do not pick. Electoral colleges do. And the winner of the two-candidate race is whoever has received more donations from the wealthy. It is two-party fascism.

The system is structured such that no third candidate would hold a slightest chance.

Please take basic political science. But I will start for you with keyword search 'first past the post'.

In the FPTP system, two parties contenders are natural, meaning there is no law that prevents the rise of a third party. It is just the natural selection process that in the event of a third party, if enough people are attracted to this new faction, one of the older parties will be pushed out BY THE PEOPLE leaving it so the FPTP system returns to balance again. This is basic political science.

As for the electoral college, do not bring it up as a point of criticism unless you know why it was created in the first place.

 

[boomslang]

Hillary Clinton...and just when you thought Obama was the worst....

I think I'd have taken Billary over the community organizer.

 

[Luftwaffe]

WTF ??? Are you for real??.....blah blah

The difference is that "their " ancestors built it from scratch while you got invited in a class A country which had it all looser ! Yes..invited to see how civilisation looks like...sry but your douchbaggery deserves it!

I am not interested in replying about what you are trying to say read in context...but hear me murderers are murderers, thousand upon thousands eridicated go ask Native-Aboriginal-Red Indians are you going to say that never happened?

No I invested i got what I wanted no free lunch unlike poop boat immigrants from europe.

Last read some native-aboriginal history and understand their genocide-mass murder than praise your masters good luck.

 

[flamer84]

I think I'd have taken Billary over the community organizer.

You'll have to take it anyway man.....She's the next ONE....unfortunately.

I am not interested in replying about what you are trying to say but hear me murders ar murders, thousand upon thousands eridicated go ask Native-Aboriginal-Red Indians are you going to say that never happened?

Sure thing chief,but you're sitting your immigrant *** on that land "of genocide" picking,on all reality of what others have build and decided to share with you out of their good grace.In short,you're a hypocrite of the highest rank.


The best part was that "their ancestors and their lousy boats"....those men build civilisations son...civilisations that MADE THIS PLANET TODAY! So yeah,allow me to threat you as a clown.

 

[gambit]

I am not interested in replying about what you are trying to say but hear me murders ar murders, thousand upon thousands eridicated go ask Native-Aboriginal-Red Indians are you going to say that never happened?

Bringing up history is not going to help your point. But if you want to go that route, want to discuss the Muslims' role in slavery ?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Hillary Clinton...and just when you thought Obama was the worst....

In case, didn't you know that China and EU have a common goal when it comes to the dollar?

 

[Luftwaffe]

You'll have to take it anyway man.....She's the next ONE....unfortunately.


Sure thing chief,but you're sitting your immigrant *** on that land "of genocide" picking,on all reality of what others have build and decided to share with you out of their good grace.In short,you're a hypocrite of the highest rank.


The best part was that "their ancestors and their lousy boats"....those men build civilisations son...civilisations that MADE THIS PLANET TODAY! So yeah,allow me to threat you as a clown.

Nice of you to remind, than why not tell it to your amrikan friend instead of telling me about living on genocide land, neither did we kill them we are modern immigrants nor are we arrogant take a look at you poop boat friend and his dirt mind than come back.

Building Civilization is fine but killing a race is not you continuously neglect the aspect that i keep reminding you what they have done you are skipping it that shows your are biased. Go read history than come back open a thread talk to us lets stick to thread topic shall we.

 

[flamer84]

In case, didn't you know that China and EU have a common goal when it comes to the dollar?

I know it.Ok,seems i'll have to explain this...i'm not cheering for the US but:

1.The discussion went to Canada.

2.Rationality has to take its order here.This absurd logic while you and the "think tank" might be Canadian citizens,spitting on this country's history....calling it names...seriously ? And you wonder why some regard you with suspicion.Look at @gambit ,and i actually see so many Chinese calling him a non American just because he isn't white.....no dudes you have it wrong......you didn't understand what an American/Canadian in this day and age is !!! Altough residing in a country that offered multiple times better opportunities than your own one you've still remained Chinese/Pakistani and brought the "shit" with you.@gambit is the American,you're the relicves of an old fashioned mentality and ungratefull pricks on top of it.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I know it.Ok,seems i'll have to explain this...i'm not cheering for the US but:

1.The discussion went to Canada.

2.Rationality has to take its order here.This absurd logic while you and the "think tank" might be Canadian citizens,spitting on this country's history....calling it names...seriously ? And you wonder why some regard you with suspicion.Look at @gambit ,and i actually see so many Chinese calling him a non American just because he isn't white.....no dudes you have it wrong......you didn't understand what an American/Canadian in this day and age is !!! Altough residing in a country that offered multiple times better opportunities than your own one you've still remained Chinese/Pakistani and brought the "shit" with you.@gambit is the American,you're the relicves of an old fashioned mentality and ungratefull pricks on top of it.

You never heard me saying bad about Canada, don't you?

At least China won't say anything like "**** EU" at your back.

 

[TaiShang]

China have over 30 millions literally living in caves.

And you have millions living like street trash. Stinking and spreading fleas.

China is a developing country. No one ignores the fact that it went through hardships, including civil wars and occupation in its recent history. It is amazing hunger and homelessness has to happen one of the most developed nations on earth. (Not that we would seek pleasure over others' misery.)

A record 1.1 million students attending public schools in the United States are homeless in 2013. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the number of homeless students has increased by 10 percent in 2013, from 1,065,794 in 2012, to 1,168,354. Forty-three states have reported increases from last year, with 10 states reporting increases of 20 percent or more. The number of homeless children has grown 24 percent over the past three years.

The actual numbers of homeless students are no doubt higher than those reported, because many parents are afraid to report their condition, fearing that child welfare agencies will take their children from them.

The Hunger and Homelessness Survey released by the US Conference of Mayors states that of 25 cities surveyed, 21 have seen an increase in homelessness this year and the remaining three said it remained at the same level. Cities of all sizes, regions and wealth levels were surveyed, including Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Salt Lake City.

The report found that 46.2 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, were living in poverty, and the number of homeless people on a single night in January 2012 was 633,782.

Please take basic political science. But I will start for you with keyword search 'first past the post'.

In the FPTP system, two parties contenders are natural, meaning there is no law that prevents the rise of a third party. It is just the natural selection process that in the event of a third party, if enough people are attracted to this new faction, one of the older parties will be pushed out BY THE PEOPLE leaving it so the FPTP system returns to balance again. This is basic political science.

As for the electoral college, do not bring it up as a point of criticism unless you know why it was created in the first place.

I indeed took many PoliSci classes. I TAed 100American National Government many times.

But got to rush to class now; so, I will only refer you to a website/book excerpt (Can't give link since I do not have the privilege yet. You can Baidu it):

Stop picking on others and worry about your two-party corporate-fascist regime with phony (and questionable) computer/software-based elections under the duopoly of two (election software/machine) corporations.
Third Parties in America
by Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, Edward H. Lazarus
Princeton University Press, 1984

(p16)CONSTRAINTS ON THIRD PARTIES

To UNDERSTAND the significance of a third party vote, one must first recognize how difficult an act it is to undertake. A host of barriers, disadvantages, and strategies block the path of would-be third party supporters. So formidable are these hurdles that third party voting occurs only under the most extreme conditions... third parties will never be on equal footing with the two major parties and help explain why a third party vote signifies something very different from a vote for either the Democrats or Republicans.
The two major parties, in Schattschneider's words, "monopolize power" (1942, p. 68). They are able to do so via three routes. First, barriers-powerful constitutional, legal, and administrative provisions-bias the electoral system against minor party challenges and discourage candidates and voters from abandoning the major parties. Third party movements are further handicapped because they have fewer resources, suffer from poorer press coverage, usually run weaker, less qualified candidates, and do not share the legitimacy of the major parties. Citizens do not accord minor party candidates the same status as the Democratic and Republican nominees; they see third party challengers as standing outside the American two-party system. These handicaps, by and large a side effect of the way the electoral system is set up, raise the cost of third party voting. A third party vote, therefore, does not merely signify the selection of one of three equally attractive options; it is an extraordinary act that requires the voter to reject explicitly the major parties.

Constitutional Biases
The single-member-district plurality system governing most American elections discourages the emergence, growth, and survival of third parties. Under this arrangement, parties compete for an individual office-say, a Senate seat-and the candidate who obtains the most votes wins. The only way for a party to receive any immediate rewards (other than psychic ones) is for it to gain a plurality of the votes. Unlike a proportional representation system where 20 percent of the votes usually yields some seats in the legislature, in a single-member-district plurality system a party can receive 20 percent of the votes in every state and yet not win a single seat. Because citizens know third parties have very little chance of winning, they prefer not to waste their votes on them. Small parties become discouraged and either drop out or join with another party. At the same time, the system encourages the two major parties to try to absorb minor parties or prevent them from flourishing in the first place.

The presidential selection system is a peculiar variant of the single-member-district plurality method and hence poses similar problems for third parties. The Electoral College tallies the number of times each candidate wins one of the fifty-one single-member-district plurality contests held in the fifty states and the District of Columbia, weighting each outcome by the state's electoral votes. A candidate who comes in second or third in a particular state does not win a single electoral vote regardless of his percentage of the popular vote. Short of winning the election, the only way a minor party can hope to gain any power is to secure enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives.

Ballot Access Restrictions
The Democrats and Republicans have constructed a maze of cumbersome regulations and procedures that make it difficult for minor parties and independent candidates to gain a spot on the general election ballot. Whereas major party candidates automatically appear on the ballot, third parties must petition state election officials to be listed. A candidate whose name does not appear is obviously disadvantaged: voters are not cued when they enter the polling booth; it is difficult and at times embarrassing for a voter to cast a write-in ballot.

Ballot access was not a problem for third parties in the nineteenth century, because there were no ballots as we now know them. Prior to about 1890, the political parties, not the states, prepared and distributed election ballots (or "tickets," as they were called), listing only their own candidates. Party workers peddled their ballots, usually of a distinct color and shape, at polling stations on election day. The voter would choose one of the tickets and drop it in the ballot box-an act not commonly performed in secret. Poll watchers, of course, could easily identify how the citizen voted. The voter, unless he scratched names off the party slate and substituted new ones, or combined portions of two or more ballots, was forced to support a party's entire ticket.
This all changed when states adopted the Australian ballot. Under the new system, each state now prepared an "official" ballot listing all the party slates, and voters could mark it secretly. It was both more difficult for parties to intimidate citizens and easier for voters to split their tickets (Rusk 1970).

However, this shift to the Australian method generated an obvious question: which parties should be listed on the official ballot? To keep the list of candidates relatively short, states had to restrict some candidates' access to the new ballot. Laws soon emerged making it difficult for non-major parties to appear. Half the ballots cast in 1892 were governed by these access laws; by 1900 nearly 90 percent of the votes cast were subject to such ...

Because the states determine their own ballot access laws, minor party candidates wishing to place their names before the voters must overcome fifty-one different sets of bureaucratic hurdles. This is an arduous task for third party contenders, even well-financed ones. Petitions must be circulated within a specific time period that varies from state to state. They can be distributed only between early June and early August in California, for instance, and between August 1 and September 1 in Indiana. Filing deadlines also vary by state, and many occur relatively early in the election cycle-before the major parties have held their conventions. Five deadlines had already passed by the time John Anderson announced his candidacy on April 24, 1980 (Ohio, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine, and Kentucky). The remaining deadlines were scattered between May and late September. This lack of a uniform petition period or filing deadline means that a third party or independent candidate cannot mount a nationwide effort; instead, he must hold fifty-one different drives at different times during the campaign.

Campaign Finance Laws
The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) is the most recent instance of the major parties adopting a "reform" that freezes out third party challengers. Under the law, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) provides the major party presidential nominees a lump sum ($29.4 million in 1980) for their campaigns. On top of this, the Democratic and Republican National Committees can raise and spend as much as they need to pay for legal and accounting expenses incurred in complying with the act. State and local party committees can raise and spend an unlimited amount on voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives, and other volunteer activities. "Independent" committees can also spend freely on behalf of the major parties.

Third parties, on the other hand, are eligible to receive public funds only after the November election, and then only if they appear on the ballot in at least ten states and obtain at least 5 percent of the national popular vote. The exact amount a candidate receives increases with his total vote (assuming the initial ten state provision is met). Given these requirements, only 10 of the 148 minor party candidates (7 percent) that have emerged in more than one state since 1840 would have qualified for retroactive public financing. Although third party candidates are denied the benefits of the pre-election subsidy, they must still comply with the FECA rules on disclosure of campaign contributions and are bound by the ceilings of $1,000 per election from individuals and $5,000 from political action committees.

Other handicaps:

Campaign resources
Media Coverage
Unknown Candidates
De-legitimizing by the two parties

 

[flamer84]

Nice of you to remind, than why not tell it to your amrikan friend instead of telling me about living on genocide land, neither did we kill them we are modern immigrants nor are we arrogant take a look at you poop boat friend and his dirt mind than come back.

Building Civilization is fine but killing a race is not you continuously neglect the aspect that i keep reminding you what they have done you are skipping it that shows your are biased. Go read history than come back open a thread talk to us lets stick to thread topic shall we.

Sure hypocrite...So,you know that on that land an entire race was genocided but you say to yourself..."well the whites did it a long time ago but now they've built a super duper country so i'll just live here,but being a modern immigrant i'll enjoy what they've built and in the same time moan and harp about how they've did it ".