Hong Kong

[Pasong Tirad]

Lol ok boomer

What? I'm 21.

Even worse.

[Bombadil]

Regardless. Xi Jinping changes the game, he's a princeling.. he's installed himself as supreme leader for life. He's a very real danger.

China is regressing in freedoms, even a Chinese legal scholar raised issues of the social credit system before being shut down by pointing out that people were being punished for donating blood when they were the wrong type of person.

Social credit is extreme indoctrination and assimilation into being 'the right kind of Chinese' in person and thought.

HK doesn't want that, and we'll burn to the ground if that's the only option.

It's up to the world to ask what future it wants and what it will accept.

[Purgatio]

What? I'm 21.

Even worse.

Huh? You're gonna have to explain that.

[Purgatio]

Regardless. Xi Jinping changes the game, he's a princeling.. he's installed himself as supreme leader for life. He's a very real danger.

China is regressing in freedoms, even a Chinese legal scholar raised issues of the social credit system before being shut down by pointing out that people were being punished for donating blood when they were the wrong type of person.

Social credit is extreme indoctrination and assimilation into being 'the right kind of Chinese' in person and thought.

HK doesn't want that, and we'll burn to the ground if that's the only option.

It's up to the world to ask what future it wants and what it will accept.

There are political dynasties in all countries, including democracies. Calling him a "princeling" may be correct but its unduly pejorative when political dynasties aren't a bad thing and they exist in every country in the world.

[Genivaria]

Regardless. Xi Jinping changes the game, he's a princeling.. he's installed himself as supreme leader for life. He's a very real danger.

China is regressing in freedoms, even a Chinese legal scholar raised issues of the social credit system before being shut down by pointing out that people were being punished for donating blood when they were the wrong type of person.

Social credit is extreme indoctrination and assimilation into being 'the right kind of Chinese' in person and thought.

HK doesn't want that, and we'll burn to the ground if that's the only option.

It's up to the world to ask what future it wants and what it will accept.

There are political dynasties in all countries, including democracies. Calling him a "princeling" may be correct but its unduly pejorative when political dynasties aren't a bad thing and they exist in every country in the world.

Your obvious Whataboutism aside, the closest thing I can think of to the undemocratic system that you're defending is the 3/5 Compromise before the US Civil War which declared that a slave what worth 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in Congress, which had the effect of giving Southern slave states a third more seats than their northern counterparts.

That is in principle what Purgatio is supporting.

[Gormwood]

Christ on a stick..

My thoughts exactly.

Christ On A Stick.

Sounds like a state fair food.

Or Jeff Dunham finding God.

[Bombadil]

Regardless. Xi Jinping changes the game, he's a princeling.. he's installed himself as supreme leader for life. He's a very real danger.

China is regressing in freedoms, even a Chinese legal scholar raised issues of the social credit system before being shut down by pointing out that people were being punished for donating blood when they were the wrong type of person.

Social credit is extreme indoctrination and assimilation into being 'the right kind of Chinese' in person and thought.

HK doesn't want that, and we'll burn to the ground if that's the only option.

It's up to the world to ask what future it wants and what it will accept.

There are political dynasties in all countries, including democracies. Calling him a "princeling" may be correct but its unduly pejorative when political dynasties aren't a bad thing and they exist in every country in the world.

..and generally they come with corruption, and the more entrenched the more entrenched the corruption.

[Genivaria]

There are political dynasties in all countries, including democracies. Calling him a "princeling" may be correct but its unduly pejorative when political dynasties aren't a bad thing and they exist in every country in the world.

..and generally they come with corruption, and the more entrenched the more entrenched the corruption.

I suddenly have the desire to play the Outer Worlds and blow up some corporate shit.

[Purgatio]

There are political dynasties in all countries, including democracies. Calling him a "princeling" may be correct but its unduly pejorative when political dynasties aren't a bad thing and they exist in every country in the world.

Your obvious Whataboutism aside, the closest thing I can think of to the undemocratic system that you're defending is the 3/5 Compromise before the US Civil War which declared that a slave what worth 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in Congress, which had the effect of giving Southern slave states a third more seats than their northern counterparts.

That is in principle what Purgatio is supporting.

You're aware that the Founding Fathers limited suffrage to those who owned land right? Precisely because Hamilton in The Federalist Papers said exactly what I am saying, that democracy is about giving people who have a stake in the country's future a voice in deciding what that future will look like. If you have less of a stake in the nation's economy and future trajectory because you own no wealth, you should still get a vote of course, but those with a stake in the country greater than their mere numbers need some representation too. Nothing wrong with that, just democracy, as the Framers themselves would have understood it btw.

[Novus America]

Are you familiar with the phrase broken record?

If it's right, it's right.

Again not convincing. You made your argument, it was rejected. Repeating it does not convince anyone who rejected it already.

And saying something is right does not make it right.

[Purgatio]

There are political dynasties in all countries, including democracies. Calling him a "princeling" may be correct but its unduly pejorative when political dynasties aren't a bad thing and they exist in every country in the world.

..and generally they come with corruption, and the more entrenched the more entrenched the corruption.

And there's corporate lobbying in the US and in the EU. You can call it corruption pejoratively if you want but what it is is ensuring economic policies don't destroy the economic by decimating commercial interests. Political dynasties are stable investments, they are ways to ensure pro-business policies endure for the future.

[Purgatio]

If it's right, it's right.

Again not convincing. You made your argument, it was rejected. Repeating it does not convince anyone who rejected it already.

And saying something is right does not make it right.

You rejected it but you didn't refute it. You just re-asserted your position, which funnily enough is what you are accusing me of doing. Saying "its undemocratic" or "one-man-one-vote is better" over and over again is equally repetitive, you know. Funnily enough, just asserting that I'm wrong does nothing to actually prove it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I wonder how long it will truly be before China drops the desguise, and takes direct rule of the city.

[Novus America]

Your obvious Whataboutism aside, the closest thing I can think of to the undemocratic system that you're defending is the 3/5 Compromise before the US Civil War which declared that a slave what worth 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in Congress, which had the effect of giving Southern slave states a third more seats than their northern counterparts.

That is in principle what Purgatio is supporting.

You're aware that the Founding Fathers limited suffrage to those who owned land right? Precisely because Hamilton in The Federalist Papers said exactly what I am saying, that democracy is about giving people who have a stake in the country's future a voice in deciding what that future will look like. If you have less of a stake in the nation's economy and future trajectory because you own no wealth, you should still get a vote of course, but those with a stake in the country greater than their mere numbers need some representation too. Nothing wrong with that, just democracy, as the Framers themselves would have understood it btw.

Actually the Constitution does not limit it only to landholders. It was decided on a state by state basis. But it was still a very different system. If you met the qualification (which was not particularly high and did not require you to be rich) you had the same exact vote. The small landholder the the same vote as the big landholder.

Also we decide not to do it anymore. The founding fathers were not perfect, and not all their ideas good.

[Speyland]

How long will the protest last?

[Purgatio]

I wonder how long it will truly be before China drops the desguise, and takes direct rule of the city.

Handover agreement stated one country two systems would end in 2047, so direct rule is coming anyway.

[Genivaria]

Your obvious Whataboutism aside, the closest thing I can think of to the undemocratic system that you're defending is the 3/5 Compromise before the US Civil War which declared that a slave what worth 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in Congress, which had the effect of giving Southern slave states a third more seats than their northern counterparts.

That is in principle what Purgatio is supporting.

You're aware that the Founding Fathers limited suffrage to those who owned land right? Precisely because Hamilton in The Federalist Papers said exactly what I am saying, that democracy is about giving people who have a stake in the country's future a voice in deciding what that future will look like. If you have less of a stake in the nation's economy and future trajectory because you own no wealth, you should still get a vote of course, but those with a stake in the country greater than their mere numbers need some representation too. Nothing wrong with that, just democracy, as the Framers themselves would have understood it btw.

No shit Sherlock, they also kept slavery legal.
You're assertion that a rich person has a higher stake in their nation than a poor person is stupid, vapid, and ignorant.

[Novus America]

Again not convincing. You made your argument, it was rejected. Repeating it does not convince anyone who rejected it already.

And saying something is right does not make it right.

You rejected it but you didn't refute it. You just re-asserted your position, which funnily enough is what you are accusing me of doing. Saying "its undemocratic" or "one-man-one-vote is better" over and over again is equally repetitive, you know. Funnily enough, just asserting that I'm wrong does nothing to actually prove it.

We did refute it, the problem is this is a values based thing, not a purely objective one.
The issue is your have very different values than we do.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You're aware that the Founding Fathers limited suffrage to those who owned land right? Precisely because Hamilton in The Federalist Papers said exactly what I am saying, that democracy is about giving people who have a stake in the country's future a voice in deciding what that future will look like. If you have less of a stake in the nation's economy and future trajectory because you own no wealth, you should still get a vote of course, but those with a stake in the country greater than their mere numbers need some representation too. Nothing wrong with that, just democracy, as the Framers themselves would have understood it btw.

Actually the Constitution does not limit it only to landholders. It was decided on a state by state basis. But it was still a very different system. If you met the qualification (which was not particularly high and did not require you to be rich) you had the same exact vote. The small landholder the the same vote as the big landholder.

And some of our founders supported more liberal voting laws. They were the Democratic-Republicans.

[Pasong Tirad]

"One man one vote is worse than assuring businesses have reserved seats in the legislature. Also corporate lobbying and political dynasties are good. Also keeping poor people poor is good."

[Purgatio]

You're aware that the Founding Fathers limited suffrage to those who owned land right? Precisely because Hamilton in The Federalist Papers said exactly what I am saying, that democracy is about giving people who have a stake in the country's future a voice in deciding what that future will look like. If you have less of a stake in the nation's economy and future trajectory because you own no wealth, you should still get a vote of course, but those with a stake in the country greater than their mere numbers need some representation too. Nothing wrong with that, just democracy, as the Framers themselves would have understood it btw.

Actually the Constitution does not limit it only to landholders. It was decided on a state by state basis. But it was still a very different system. If you met the qualification (which was not particularly high and did not require you to be rich) you had the same exact vote. The small landholder the the same vote as the big landholder.

It was a small minority of the population that had the ability to vote, 6%, or 15% of the free adult population (https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf). And just to reiterate, Hamilton in The Federalist Papers anticipated that voting rights would be restricted to landowners as it was in Old Europe and the British House of Commons, and did not see anything wrong with it because he viewed it as people holding an actual stake in the country's future having the right to decide the future direction of the country. What the LegCo has is much more popularly-democratic by comparison.

[Genivaria]

..and generally they come with corruption, and the more entrenched the more entrenched the corruption.

And there's corporate lobbying in the US and in the EU. You can call it corruption pejoratively if you want but what it is is ensuring economic policies don't destroy the economic by decimating commercial interests. Political dynasties are stable investments, they are ways to ensure pro-business policies endure for the future.

Because it is corruption, the difference is that you support putting the corrupt elements in charge.
You want the nuts to run the insane asylum.

[Purgatio]

You rejected it but you didn't refute it. You just re-asserted your position, which funnily enough is what you are accusing me of doing. Saying "its undemocratic" or "one-man-one-vote is better" over and over again is equally repetitive, you know. Funnily enough, just asserting that I'm wrong does nothing to actually prove it.

We did refute it, the problem is this is a values based thing, not a purely objective one.
The issue is your have very different values than we do.

Then that's not refuting, that's called a difference of opinion. We value and prioritize different things.

[Speyland]

"One man one vote is worse than assuring businesses have reserved seats in the legislature. Also corporate lobbying and political dynasties are good. Also keeping poor people poor is good."

Does it have to do with communism?

[Pasong Tirad]

"One man one vote is worse than assuring businesses have reserved seats in the legislature. Also corporate lobbying and political dynasties are good. Also keeping poor people poor is good."

Does it have to do with communism?

I don't know what you think communism is but that's not it.