waveparticle

eightzero said:

This is strange. Apple.com simply has this announced as "Apple Event" on 9/14. The newsroom page has nothing about it. I don't see any official apple source calling this anything but "Apple Event." Even the embedded twitter video doesn't actually name the event, and even uses the odd/generic hashtag #AppleEvent and not an actual title of the event like the purported "California Streaming." 

Strange.

9secondkox2 said:

Would be more exciting to see Apple pull out of China entirely and show folks how things are done. 

anantksundaram said:

Frankly, if it was up to me, I’d double down on the opposite: say, quadruple the tariffs, leave it there for the next 25 years, and use the proceeds to help pay for all the COVID damage caused. It might, collaterally, help move some production here as well (and to China’s competitor countries). 

That should be the price society imposes on each of us for our hankering after our cheap electronics and t-shirts. 

tmay said:

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

crowley said:

waveparticle said:

[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]

Can you read?  That's exactly what I said.  The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then.  The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.  

The USA supports Israel too.  And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA.  And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA.  What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?

Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.

You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. 

So I'm wrong because...?

France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting. 

I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?

Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?

You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.

So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council?  That'll be news to the UN Security Council.  And what does that have to with France?

I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN. 

Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:

waveparticle said:

You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan. 

You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.

Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto.  It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).

So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong.  Being generous.

Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US. 

Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.

The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.

Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it. 

No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China.  That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.

Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.

ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts. 

There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues.  I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;

Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

And by way of an explanation: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/procedural-vote.php

Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)

I AM fucking facts

I think he meant you're fucking fart.  But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.

That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts.  Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.

What delusional thinking?  I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC.  Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.

And NO ONE is calling for war.  No one is even talking about war apart from you.  Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.

I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.

And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either.  We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan.  But, 600,000 died.  How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan?  How many deaths will it be worth to you?

Complete lies.  I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life.  Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating.  That will be clear to anyone reading this thread.  Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding.  Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.

LOL...

So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?"  And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line!   See?  isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?

Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so.   This ain't no fairy tale.

LOL!

George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.

My super power is reality.   You should try it.

I live reality every day. The reality is that the PRC is a threat to democracy, and yet here you are, carrying water for Xi Jinping, yet again.

I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.

Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.

I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.

China isn't a threat to democracy.   Fools and charlatans are.

Hong Kong disagrees.

Britains did not give Hong Kong democracy. 

Ultimately, the UK didn't stand in the way of democracy either, but the PRC surely has, as was expected. 

• 22 November 2015 - 2015 Hong Kong District Council elections saw all elected constituencies democratically elected, with all appointed seats were abolished in this election.

So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL

Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.

U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.

But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?

Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China. 

I stand corrected.

The UK did give Hong Kong over to the PRC, expecting that the treaty would be honored thru 2047.

Guess the UK was wrong on that.

Pretty much why Taiwan doesn't trust "one country, two systems" either.