More dumbed down? re Hong Kong Act of Congress

[remake it + 288]

31 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@frankfurter you are over reacting as @Otis11 already said this is more or less standard tool used by United States to apply pressure on many countries (exclusively authocratic countries, not free ones).

China has no need to exert pressure on Hong Kong, and has left a significant element of repression of riots to Hong Kong forces, to the point that recent footage showing Chinese troops had them in shorts/T-shirts "voluntarily" cleaning up the streets... great visuals.

[Guest]

How odd. When a westerner posts a photo it's just a snapshot / photoshopped / propaganda / funded by USA and UK. When you do it we should watch in awe at a photo?

''Voluntarily'' cleaning under orders of Xi? Presumably nothing happens without his say so, certainly not with respect to the army, so to say they're ''voluntarily'' there is a little odd. Dare I say a plain lie. 

Yeah, they've ''repressed'' those riots loads... LOL. We must be seeing different footage everyday? Even if any of what you said ever was true, they took 5 MONTHS to clean up? They are true heroes. 

I'm sure if the world's press wasn't there they would just be cleaning up too ... 

Cheers. Reboot time methinks.

Great visuals indeed ...

    

Can find thousands of these if you like? Ahhh... mine are fake, yours are real. Now I remember.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Guest

[Zhong Lu + 845]

It would make sense for Xi to order Chinese soldiers to clean up after the protesters.  Win public support before the crackdown.  Tactically it's a good move.  Emphasizes government narrative that the Chinese soldiers are for order, and the protesters are for disorder.  Good propaganda ops for news consumption for the rest of China, too.  

Edited November 21, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Guest]

No they are volunteers mate.

The army said to themselves ''hmm bit messy over there, let's help out''. It was purely their decision, nothing to do with Xi. Duh.

How was your day?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

They have been volunteered to be volunteers.

Otherwise good.  Back into UGAZ.  You? 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

It would make sense for Xi to order Chinese soldiers to clean up after the protesters.  Win public support before the crackdown.  Tactically it's a good move.  Emphasizes government narrative that the Chinese soldiers are for order, and the protesters are for disorder.  Good propaganda ops for news consumption for the rest of China, too.  

It is more probable that the expected graphic was to be a massive show of force... of military force... from China's ginormous standing army, so maybe the questions should be why this was not the case, and may not need to be the case.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The government wants good publicity.  Bullying HK is not good publicity.  

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

They have been volunteered to be volunteers.

😅😅

15 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Otherwise good.  Back into UGAZ.  You? 

You love your UGAZ - I thought it had habit of being brutal? Yeah great day mate, rode gold down then up a bit. Waiting for oil to calm down. Plus made a little in USD/JPY.

7 minutes ago, remake it said:

the expected graphic was to be a massive show of force... of military force... from China's ginormous standing army

Yeah they need to advertise that a bit more coz they keep it pretty quiet.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Guest

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Brutal equals both brutally good or brutally bad depending on which side you happened to fall on.  

[Guest]

True but you always talk about it by saying it'll kick you in the balls.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

That's how you avoid getting kicked in the balls.  

[frankfurter + 562]

@Otus11

Frankly, your response supports my basic points about Americans. Respectfully, you should read the official texts very carefully.

You are entirely wrong about HK universal suffrage, and many other points. 

For the Bill in question, Section 3, is quoted:
"(4) to support the establishment of a genuine democratic option to freely and fairly nominate and elect the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and the establishment by 2020 of open and direct democratic elections for all members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council;"

Fact: The Basic Law of Hong Kong permits citizens to vote for the Legislative Council, NOT for the Chief Executive. The CE is appointed by RPChina. Thus, "universal" suffrage is not in effect. Thus, The Bill is an attempt to change the Basic Law, unilaterally by a foreign power.

Section 5, quoted:
"(5) an assessment of whether the Government of Hong Kong has adequately enforced sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations;"

Fact: The USA is attempting to render HK a vassal of the USA, by holding HK legally responsible for enforcing USA policies vis a vis sanctions against other states.

Fact: PRChina will never change the law regarding the CE, and will never allow HK to become a policy-supporting vassal of the USA. Thus, the Bill is a direct confrontation, and thus a precursor to a declaration of war.

The two sections noted above are more than sufficient to prove the true intent of the Bill, written in black and white.

Now, since you mention veto, let's consider the USA Constitution:
The U.S. Constitution grants the President of the United States the sole power to veto [say No] to bills passed by both houses of Congress. A vetoed bill can still become law if Congress overrides the president’s action by obtaining a super-majority vote of two-thirds of the members of both the House (290 votes) and the Senate (67 votes). 

Why you or anyone would argue the power of Congress is a mystery to me. 

IF this Bill becomes the law of the land, every POTUS will be bound by law to intervene in HK. Given HK is an inalienable part of PRChina, such intervention is a blatant violation of sovereignty, which is an act of war.

If YOU wish to put your country on a war footing against a nuclear power, that may be your right as a USA citizen. But it is NOT your right as a world citizen to risk a nuclear war.

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by frankfurter

[frankfurter + 562]

to all of you who challenge my right to express dumbed-down, consider the video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXWTQobaMaQ

 

[Guest]

Oh well case closed - you present one Jay Leno clip as evidence of 327M people LOL. Brilliant logic.

And what a surprise - that gets a trophy from Mr. ''present your case''  🤣🤣  - he seems happy with that as some kind of argument. 

I would argue that ''dumbed down'' is swallowing whatever your government controlled media / history tells you, to a point that even the idea of questioning it goes out the window. 

I rest my case.  #reboot

Edited November 21, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

@DayTrader and @ Otis11

Haha the bot managed to suck you guys back into an argument by its handler starting this thread.

Cmon guys you're smarter than that!🤣

[Boat + 1,323]

So the president is going to get a report on how   Hong Kong citizens are treated. He can at his discretion decide to sanction leaders that have in his view did not treat Hong Kong citizens fairly. 
These types of sanctions are the new rage in Washington with Congress leveraging sanctions when they think the prez is being to soft. The biggest case was some Russian oligarch that had huge aluminum assets. 

PS. If China has 10 years to become the worlds leader it better boost defense spending by about 700 billion per year. They are a bit behind.

 

[Marcin + 519]

39 minutes ago, Boat said:

PS. If China has 10 years to become the worlds leader it better boost defense spending by about 700 billion per year. They are a bit behind.

Officially China spends 1.2% of GDP for many years, Western estimates are higher at 1.7-1.8% of GDP. They spend too much on infrastructure at 8% GDP, seems like priority. But as Chinese GDP in PPP is about 30% larger than US this 1.7% GDP is enough, it is 200 billion $ nominal and 400 billion $ at PPP (better measure of spending as most of spending is domestic, small imports).

[PE Scott + 563]

9 hours ago, frankfurter said:

to all of you who challenge my right to express dumbed-down, consider the video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXWTQobaMaQ

 

You do realise that was intended as entertainment, right? You realise that all those questions were things that the vast majority of americans would know? 

I won't argue that the U.S. doesn't have their share of idiots, but it's a gross misrepresentation to say they're all idiots.

To be fair though, its these same young scholars that are in support of the GND and socialism. So there is definately some truth to at least a portion of Americans being as dumb as you insinuate. Still, I think the majority of smarter people will overwhelm the lemmings, for now.

I think most american people are smart enough and possess enough empathy to want to avoid war. There will always be a noisy minority in any argument, however.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

You do realise that was intended as entertainment, right? You realise that all those questions were things that the vast majority of americans would know? 

I won't argue that the U.S. doesn't have their share of idiots, but it's a gross misrepresentation to say they're all idiots

This is a comment from someone who thought it was ok to conduct experiments on data, and another who could not differentiate decimals from fractions in determining results, so much entertainment exists in these forums.

[frankfurter + 562]

6 hours ago, PE Scott said:

You do realise that was intended as entertainment, right? You realise that all those questions were things that the vast majority of americans would know? 

I won't argue that the U.S. doesn't have their share of idiots, but it's a gross misrepresentation to say they're all idiots.

To be fair though, its these same young scholars that are in support of the GND and socialism. So there is definately some truth to at least a portion of Americans being as dumb as you insinuate. Still, I think the majority of smarter people will overwhelm the lemmings, for now.

I think most american people are smart enough and possess enough empathy to want to avoid war. There will always be a noisy minority in any argument, however.

touche. well stated. at least someone here sees the humour. [or should I write humor?]. 

[frankfurter + 562]

8 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Oh well case closed - you present one Jay Leno clip as evidence of 327M people LOL. Brilliant logic.

And what a surprise - that gets a trophy from Mr. ''present your case''  🤣🤣  - he seems happy with that as some kind of argument. 

I would argue that ''dumbed down'' is swallowing whatever your government controlled media / history tells you, to a point that even the idea of questioning it goes out the window. 

I rest my case.  #reboot

a pity you cannot see the humour.  one clip? no. Leno made very many more, of which but a few are posted to youtube. maybe they are censored?  

btw, I like your definition and agree. oddly though, when I present facts to disprove what you and others have swallowed, I am vilified as a bot, troll, and a host of other expletives du jour.

 

 

 

[remake it + 288]

 

21 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

touche. well stated. at least someone here sees the humour. [or should I write humor?]

Only when it cuts to the bone        #humerus.

 

 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

[or should I write humor?]. 

No, you got it right first time. 

27 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

when I present facts

What facts? And I can't stand Jay Leno anyway - I think I can listen to his voice for maybe 10 seconds then I'm done LOL, but I wouldn't consider him ''humour'' by a long shot. You like my definition and agree with what? Sorry been a long day, I'm confused. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

On 11/20/2019 at 3:46 PM, remake it said:

"Shall" means it is a legal requirement, while the "property and visa-blocking sanctions" you mention are actually legislated as distinct from imposed by general means.

Yes, that's a requirement on the President, not on any foreign body. And that's only if they're determined that there is gross human rights violations. How do I know that? "on foreign persons responsible for gross human rights violations in Hong Kong." Other important factor - he's the one who determines whether or not those same violations are occuring. So while this may say he has to impose the sactions if 'Gross violations' exist, he can just say that they're not severe enough to be 'gross'. It changes nothing. It's posturing and a show of support. (Which I fully support, btw. I would actually support this support being stronger and more tangible.)

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Yes, that's a requirement on the President, not on any foreign body. And that's only if they're determined that there is gross human rights violations.

Except you said his only requirement was as follows

On 11/21/2019 at 5:36 AM, Otis11 said:

In fact, the only requirement is for the President - he must evaluate and report to Congress annually on the status of Hong Kong's autonomy and whether continued designation of Hong Kong as a 'Special Economic Zone' is justified and in the best interest of the Hong Kongese People.

 

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Other important factor - he's the one who determines whether or not those same violations are occuring.

No, he's the one who determines if he should act on advice that gross human rights violations are occurring, and that action can be applied to individuals or entities which are foreign.