Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official" channel.

  1. 90
  2. 46
  3. 37
  4. 23
  5. 16
  6. 16
  7. 5
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. They are patient and skilled at not taking the aggressive militarism like the Soviet Union. There are structural problems in China, and it's likely being driven by the slowing of the GDP growth, Covid-19 pandemic, corruption, and confrontation with the US and allies. They don't want war, which they know is unwinnable; but they do NOT want to have another Century of Humiliation. They want to be treated as equal to the US, and they want the international community to treat them as an equal to the US. Rather than being hostile directly with the US, they target smaller nations with that have traditionally been aligned with the West: e.g., Australia, Canada, UK, and they are directly disrespectful to Japan, but they have changed to a more aggressive tone. The territorial claims are insane, but they aren't demanding all of the disputed territories be returned immediately, and they appear to be using strategic patients. They have even claimed Vladivostok, which I doubt Putin has any intention of returning to China. Historically, Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were all part of a single country. They have mostly reintegrated Hong Kong back, but Taiwan is a different story and the most dangerous because that would bring the US into a war if they attacked Taiwan. They have made huge strides in a short period of time, but communism never works. The new aggressive Chinese foreign policy is having the effective of diving the world similar to the Cold War between US/Nato and Soviet Union/China and US/NATO/China vs Warsaw Pact. There won't be a direct military conflict between the US, mostly because the PLA is inexperienced and not ready to try and fight another global power. We could see China attack a smaller nation that doesn't have a security agreement with the US, but it's more like that the US be the one using a proxy war or nuclear test as a demonstration and intimidation.
    1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. ​@DV8 *** That's interesting, but why would you talk with me? What do I get from exploiting dead kids for political purposes? That's other than hearing talking points that some like me trained you to parrot. You're assuming that I actually know any serious political/legal proposals to remedy mass shootings with new gun regulations. You might not realize it, but both you and the OP are free to talk on your own. This comment says something about gun sales and linked to murder rates. That doesn't even make sense, and isn't a claim any, but the OP made. Why would someone explain or defend a position they never had? It's a complete waste of time, and it's a tactic called "gaslighting." It's been happening for the past five years. We go over these stats and repeat that "correlation doesn't imply causation." When we're done going full circles and mental health, there'll be another mass shooting, and the cycle will repeat. You might think you can predict my positions on guns, but you can't because I don't have a position. My problem is with the ulterior motives and intellectual dishonesty. Why waste time and server space if you can just say, "gun-control is OFF the table?" Since you're neither a legislature or a judge, why would I make a legal argument? You can't make laws, and neither can I. The only accomplishment will be you having a platform to show how well you've memorized the Fox News script. You don't need me or anyone else. You have the floor and are free to share all of your thoughts about guns. When you're done, let me know what has legally changed.
    1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. It's fine to evaluate yourself and own personal failures, but you can't speak for half the globe and the oldest and most stable markets in history. China and other developing nations are experiencing economic growth because it was cut off from most of world trade during the Cold War, and has now re-joined the global market. Before the 19th and 20th centuries, and before industrialization and being overtaken and weakened by European and Japanese imperialism during, China and India had been the largest economies and relied on their large populations to outproduce most of the world. It's a great accomplishment to bring hundreds of millions of the population out of poverty, but communism never works. It causes corruption, waste of resources, and gives the illusion of a planned economy, free of recessions. Market corrections and recessions serve a purposes and changes behavior. The CCP functions more like a single corporation rather than a nation, and the recent hostile stance is not all because of Trump's aggression and trade war. In China, there are many economic, environmental, human rights, and structural weaknesses that are being brought to light. The question of what will happen when the growth slows substantially, is a genuine one. If the US, put Apple Inc. or Google as the global representative of the American system of government, culture, and economics, we'd appear as organized as the CCP as well. It's good to prepare for war, but a direct war with the US won't happen. China will definitely defend itself if attacked or if it's frontiers are threatened; but there is nothing to gain from going to war directly with the United States. The U.S. and Russia defense strategy is to make war unwinnable and as close to nonvalue added as possible. The U.S. and Russia could destroy the planet, and the U.S. economy alone affects the global market, so there won't a direct war. It's likely there could be proxy conflicts similar to the Cold War. Both sides could arm the enemies of each other, and would be hostile to smaller nations picking sides. It's likely that China is already using North Korea as a proxy to harass the US. I don't see a war because China is proud of what it has accomplished and would like to be treated as an equal to the US; and they want the rest of the international community to recognize that as well. The nuclear threat from the US is an effective deterrent and China is surrounded by American forces and allies. They could challenge India, since it doesn't have a security agreement with the US, but not America directly.
    1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1