Thatcher didn't choose to hand over Hong Kong - she chose to abide by the terms of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory signed in 1898. And unless Britain was ready to go to war with the PRC, it was the only choice she had.

So what? Just because Trump is awful, but does one good thing which may even be short lived, that one good thing is better than if it had not occurred. And, assuming it is short lived, it was still good that it occurred.

To argue otherwise is simply pouting that Trump has done something "positive."

The thought that just for a minute on the other side of the planet that flag still stands for freedom brings a tear to my eye.

@3 It's weird how quickly people forget that the Soviet Union existed in 1984.

I find it interesting, though, that you don't believe the terms of a lease are binding, and that the borrower should be allowed to keep what they've borrowed at the end of the term if they don't feel like returning it. That's not an uncommon belief on the far left, but you almost never hear it from a conservative.

@8 Lenders die all the time, don't they? I almost never hear a conservative claim this ought to cancel any part of the debt. What an interesting world you're suggesting, where bonds are simply voided whenever a bondholder dies. Just think of the incentives that would create!

Your Star Trek argument sounds a lot more honest. And a lot more revealing, if not particularly surprising.

@10 Open to interpretation, but certainly not by the borrower, I should think. Otherwise the borrower will naturally want to do exactly what you initially suggested-- assign the claim to himself, thereby obtaining what was borrowed, and at a fraction of the full price.

The question isn't what sort of political system might be good for Hong Kong, nor what sort of system the British might have installed if they'd seized the city (extra credit: without using the word "apartheid").

The question is whether the British should have just changed the rules of how leases work when it was convenient for them.

I suspect what's really bugging you here is that the Brits got bamboozled, absolutely trounced at their own game, and now you're grousing that the rules your team made up weren't fair. There's an ugly, underlying assumption that the Chinese are brand new at the game of global business, and deserve to be suckered by a slick player like England. The truth, however, is that the Chinese were running shipping conglomorates and negotiating international port leases a thousand years before Europe got into the colonizing game. They learned to take a long view, something The West is only getting worse at, of late.

@12 The creditor. Obviously. Which is how it has always worked, everywhere. Transfer of the marker and the underlying asset, be it via inheritance, treaty, or at gunpoint, is the concern of the creditors, never of the borrowers.

There are people running around out there who claim there's no duly constituted legal authority over their mortgages anymore because Lehman Brothers failed or a bit of paperwork is missing a signature or they're not subjects but Freemen on the Land, or all three, and that they should therefore get to decide who their houses belong to now. And they're right, according to the argument you're making here. Who are you, after all, to tell these fine folks what the bar for a "duly constituted legal authority" might be?

All you're saying, Ken, is that you're mad that your team got rumbled, and that the refs should only throw flags when they're in your favor, and your guys should have just wrung the prize away by force because you don't think the people who won the game deserve it.

Trump couldn’t care less about Hong Kong. He’s much more comfortable working with authoritarians (as a businessman, he’s in his element with other authoritarians).

No, Trump went along with this act for one reason and one reason only: it passed by near unanimous margins through Congress. His opposition would have clearly resulted in the override of his veto on an issue that voters across the political spectrum support.

Are you all bummed they're not walking around with Bernie posters?

In October Trump was calling the protests in Hong Kong riots.
He made numerous comments supporting Xi and the Communist Party.

Trump will throw the protesters in Hong Kong under the bus the moment he thinks it will give him any sort of advantage.

@17: That's okay. At least "they're on the bus" now. We'll see what happens.

The dark irony is that DJT would readily jail HK people, separate them from their families, and incite inter-group racist violence against them on the streets.

He wishes he could use the police like Xi is doing!!

President Trump will not abandoned democracy, even if it means going to war with China.

China needs the USD, the US doesn't need the Chinese Yuan.

The question is that if China and the US to to war, over democracy, where will you stand, with President Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping?