Hong Kong Protests

[bga1]

2 /16 = 0.125

dumbass

nm

 

[bga1]

Not sure on your math there beeg. 2% drop, divided by 16, = 12.5% a rise to 16 from 14 would be 14+%

Whatever. It depends whether you want to figure up or down for the percentage. I originally said "more than a 10% drop" to avoid the stupid argument over whether the devaluation from .16 to .14 was 12.5% or 14% because I wasn't sure which was right. SPG said check your math so I showed him one way of figuring it. Bottom line, it was more than a 10% drop either way.

 

[GopherJake]

Look, if you are making .16 per hour, which is about what you are worth, and your pay gets cut to .14 per hour, you have just taken a 14 percent cut in pay. 16/14= 1.14

Don’t quit your day job.

48 more to go, S2.

 

[bga1]

Don’t quit your day job.

48 more to go, S2.

Get a job. .125 is not the percentage. You can figure it up or down it depends on how you look at it. 16/14= 1.14 or a 14% difference or you can take 14/16= .875 so the change is 12.5 percent. Is this a big deal to you?

 

[GopherJake]

47 to go

 

[Section2]

Why Hong Kong? What about all the people China keeps as slaves, all the dissidents they disappear, imprison, kill & all the people killed to harvest their organs? All the girls they kill? Why not insist on a display of support for them?

There's no saving Hong Kong. It's China's. All the good wishes in the world won't make an ounce of difference. The only question is how many protesters will the Communists have to kill, to squash these protests? It's sad, but Hong Kong has never been under to protection of the US, the US didn't broker the deal to hand it back to China & I see no possible upside to making a statement in support of them, or condemning China on this issue.

Cool. So we side with the totalitarian communist government and hope it works out well for them.

Hong Kong is the last stand. That’s why Hong Kong. It’s the most pure form of capitalism on the planet. It’s a constant reminder to the socialists that capitalism is a superior economic model. A tiny island with no resources is a global economic super power purely because of capitalism. And resource rich socialist countries like Venezuela are starving and eating out of dumpsters.

I’m not asking for military intervention. We should support Hong Kong. Boycott China. Put pressure on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Section2]

Whatever. It depends whether you want to figure up or down for the percentage. I originally said "more than a 10% drop" to avoid the stupid argument over whether the devaluation from .16 to .14 was 12.5% or 14% because I wasn't sure which was right. SPG said check your math so I showed him one way of figuring it. Bottom line, it was more than a 10% drop either way.

Not a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherJake]

Not a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, of course not. But still wrong.

 

[GoodasGold]

Get a job. .125 is not the percentage. You can figure it up or down it depends on how you look at it. 16/14= 1.14 or a 14% difference or you can take 14/16= .875 so the change is 12.5 percent. Is this a big deal to you?

...and this is why you could never work in the financial services industry.

 

[justthefacts]

Worth noting that Hong Kong protests have been going on since March, with violence beginning in June. Obama was criticized for his slow response on Iran, despite addressing it within 3 days and condemning the Iranian government's response within 11 days.

On a side note, the Hong Kong bill passed the House well before it passed the Senate, further disproving the idea that the impeachment hearings are somehow an impediment to doing other things.

 

[KillerGopherFan]

On a side note, the Hong Kong bill passed the House well before it passed the Senate, further disproving the idea that the impeachment hearings are somehow an impediment to doing other things.

Of course the Dem majority House passed the Hong King bill. Any bill that creates an lose-lose issue for Trump will get priority in the Dem House. Republicans aren’t going to vote against it b/c it will be used as a campaign hammer if they did.

Trump now has the choice, sign the bill and derail a potential trade agreement that will jump the economy and spare farmers and others or reject the bill and be criticized for not standing with Hong Kong freedom protesters.

Why does the USA have to be the only country to stand up to China in its treatment of the protesters? How about the other major Chinese trading partners?

This doesn’t prove the House can do impeachment and other things at the same time. This proves that the House can and will do everything it can to damage Trump, even to the detriment of the US’s economy and sectors of the economy. The Dems are willing to see our economy damaged if it will damage Trump’s 2020 re-election.

Trump could support the concept rhetorically, but let the Congress override his veto. I don’t know how that would play, but it might allow progress on the China trade bill to proceed while still penalizing China for violating Hong Kongers rights.

 

[justthefacts]

Trump fans demand more moral character from basketball coaches than they do the President of the United States

 

[KillerGopherFan]

Trump fans demand more moral character from basketball coaches than they do the President of the United States

This has absolutely nothing to do with moral character. The Dem and GOP congressmen voting for this bill isn’t about moral character. They aren’t giving up a thing to stand up to China.

If it was just a matter of Trump giving up money to stand up to China, I have no doubt he’d do that in a second. He gave up tons of money to become President.

Trump has to be concerned about the US economy, especially sectors of the economy like farming. That’s not a personal benefit, that’s a US benefit.

I have no doubt that the only reason this bill was brought up and received a vote in the House was to put Trump in a difficult situation. Pelosi would never put a Dem president in this situation.

This is politics, nothing more.

Trump may choose to sign the bill, but it will definitely come with a major cost to the US. If Trump can do both, sign the bill and still get a Phase I China trade deal, he’ll have proven his abilities as a great negotiator b/c that’s going to be difficult.

Pelosi won’t take a vote on USMCA b/c she doesn’t want to give Trump a win and boost the US economy b/c it will undermine the Dem nominee’s chance to win.

 

[justthefacts]

The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and 417-1 in the House.

 

[KillerGopherFan]

The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and 417-1 in the House.

Yeah, I know. That’s why I said Dem and GOP congressmen/women. It took absolutely no courage to vote for it. But it wouldn’t have come up for a vote if a Dem president was facing off with China in a trade battle. But then again, no Dem president would challenge China in trade.

 

[justthefacts]

Yeah, I know. That’s why I said Dem and GOP congressmen/women. It took absolutely no courage to vote for it. But it wouldn’t have come up for a vote if a Dem president was facing off with China in a trade battle. But then again, no Dem president would challenge China in trade.

A) There are dozens of bills that the House has backed that the Senate hasn't taken up. You're saying McConnell would have buried this one if a Democrat was President?

B) The Senate actually passed their own, independent version of the bill, forcing the House to revote. The Senate's hand was by no means forced.

 

[KillerGopherFan]

A) There are dozens of bills that the House has backed that the Senate hasn't taken up. You're saying McConnell would have buried this one if a Democrat was President?

B) The Senate actually passed their own, independent version of the bill, forcing the House to revote. The Senate's hand was by no means forced.

A) no, that’s not what I’m saying.
B) McConnell is more interested in HK than in China trade. Frankly, I’m am too personally. But politically, with the 2020 election in mind, China trade is more important to the economy, the American people, and Trump’s re-election.

 

[justthefacts]

A) no, that’s not what I’m saying.
B) McConnell is more interested in HK than in China trade. Frankly, I’m am too personally. But politically, with the 2020 election in mind, China trade is more important to the economy, the American people, and Trump’s re-election.

A) You said, "But it wouldn’t have come up for a vote if a Dem president was facing off with China in a trade battle." And McConnell brought it up for a vote independently, so....

 

[Deleted_User]

Omega is the most angry poster here. I would ignore. Have never had a substantive discussion with him/her.

Substantive? You?

 

[Section2]

Substantive? You?

Can’t say I’ve had one with you either.

 

[Deleted_User]

Can’t say I’ve had one with you either.

Now, that isn't true. And, I can quote you...

 

[justthefacts]

This is high stakes poker. The public has no idea what the plan is and shouldn’t.

My guess is that Trump doesn’t want to wreck future trade negotiations and is keeping his involvement to a minimum with this situation. But he will use that as leverage.

The protesters are giving China fits, as could be expected, since China is trying to speed up their control over Hong Kong, which wasn’t agreed to in the British handover.

As weak as Trump’s rhetoric sounds on the topic, I think the US will play the good guy enough to make sure China doesn’t go military on the protesters.

But where the heck is the criticism from the UN and international community about China’s attempt to exceed their influence over HK? Maybe there is and I just haven't heard it. I would think the UK would be raising heck.

 

[justthefacts]

This is high stakes poker. The public has no idea what the plan is and shouldn’t.

My guess is that Trump doesn’t want to wreck future trade negotiations and is keeping his involvement to a minimum with this situation. But he will use that as leverage.

The protesters are giving China fits, as could be expected, since China is trying to speed up their control over Hong Kong, which wasn’t agreed to in the British handover.

As weak as Trump’s rhetoric sounds on the topic, I think the US will play the good guy enough to make sure China doesn’t go military on the protesters.

But where the heck is the criticism from the UN and international community about China’s attempt to exceed their influence over HK? Maybe there is and I just haven't heard it. I would think the UK would be raising heck.

The next time someone lists "tough on China" as his reason for supporting Trump, make sure you laugh directly in his face. Conservatives get really upset when Steve Kerr isn't tough on China, but don't really care when their elected officials aren't.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The next time someone lists "tough on China" as his reason for supporting Trump, make sure you laugh directly in his face. Conservatives get really upset when Steve Kerr isn't tough on China, but don't really care when their elected officials aren't.

Do you think we need to be tougher on China?

 

[justthefacts]

Do you think we need to be tougher on China?

Via sanctions, yes. Via support and partnerships with other countries in APAC, yes.

FWIW, I was actually critical of Steve Kerr as well:

Loading…

www.forums.gopherhole.com

 

[KillerGopherFan]

The next time someone lists "tough on China" as his reason for supporting Trump, make sure you laugh directly in his face. Conservatives get really upset when Steve Kerr isn't tough on China, but don't really care when their elected officials aren't.

Yeah, nothing has changed since last August. ? I will tell you this, China’s worst nightmare is Trump being re-elected and their hope is that Joe B wins.

 

[justthefacts]

Yeah, nothing has changed since last August. ? I will tell you this, China’s worst nightmare is Trump being re-elected and their hope is that Joe B wins.

How is that statement consistent with the fact Trump made Cramer torpedo a bill to sanction China?

I also don't get the point about August. If anything Trump has MORE reason to be tough on China.

 

[KillerGopherFan]

How is that statement consistent with the fact Trump made Cramer torpedo a bill to sanction China?

There is a lot going on with the US and China right now. China caused the virus, lied about it, we negotiated phase I of a trade deal, the virus spread throughout the world, we’re dealing with the virus and a significant race relations issue, and there’s an upcoming US election. Not to mention that we are in the midst of cracking down on China‘s criminal conduct against the US.

Timing is important.

But Joe says China is no competition, and you’re good with that.

 

[justthefacts]

There is a lot going on with the US and China right now. China caused the virus, lied about it, we negotiated phase I of a trade deal, the virus spread throughout the world, we’re dealing with the virus and a significant race relations issue, and there’s an upcoming US election.

Timing is important.

But Joe says China is no competition, and you’re good with that.

Your willingness to defend anything Trump does, regardless of whether it contradicts with your previous defenses of him, is truly a sight to behold.

Let's break down your list:

1. "China caused the virus" - More reason to sanction them (although they didn't "cause" it)
2. "Lied about it" - More reason to sanction them
3. "We negotiated phase 1 of a trade deal" - More reason to sanction them with that behind us
4. "The virus spread throughout the world" - More reason to sanction them
5. "Dealing with the virus and a significant race relations issue" - What does that have to do with anything?
6. "There's an upcoming US election" - More reason to sanction them, but boy is this telling

I wrote this about Trump and Syria, but it applies here just as much:

 

[KillerGopherFan]

Your willingness to defend anything Trump does, regardless of whether it contradicts with your previous defenses of him, is truly a sight to behold.

Let's break down your list:

1. "China caused the virus" - More reason to sanction them (although they didn't "cause" it)
2. "Lied about it" - More reason to sanction them
3. "We negotiated phase 1 of a trade deal" - More reason to sanction them with that behind us
4. "The virus spread throughout the world" - More reason to sanction them
5. "Dealing with the virus and a significant race relations issue" - What does that have to do with anything?
6. "There's an upcoming US election" - More reason to sanction them, but boy is this telling

I don’t ”defend anything Trump does”. Just much of the criticism that the Dems and your like do here.

Do you deny that foreign relations are complex? That it’s not as simple as saying we’re going to ignore current events and forge ahead.

What are your ideas for challenging China? What are Biden’s for that matter?

What I know is that we’re far more active in challenging China than we ever were when Obama was President, and it’s not close.