RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Trump says he might veto legislation that aims to protect human rights - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Trump says he might veto legislation that aims to protect human rights Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,690
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 26 November 2019 - 03:47 AM

Trump says he might veto legislation that aims to protect human rights in Hong Kong because bill could affect China trade talks

David J. Lynch
Washington Post
11/22/19

EXCERPT:

President Trump suggested Friday that he might veto legislation designed to support pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong — despite its near-unanimous support in the House and Senate — to pave the way for a trade deal with China.

Speaking on the “Fox & Friends” morning program, the president said that he was balancing competing priorities in the U.S.-China relationship.

“We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi [Jinping],” Trump said. “He’s a friend of mine. He’s an incredible guy. ... But I’d like to see them work it out. Okay? We have to see and work it out. But I stand with Hong Kong. I stand with freedom. I stand with all of the things that we want to do, but we also are in the process of making the largest trade deal in history. And if we could do that, that would be great."

The House on Wednesday passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act by a vote of 417 to 1. The lone holdout was Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). That came one day after the Senate had approved the measure on a unanimous vote.

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,658
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 10:46 AM

The pro-democracy candidates in their November 24 election won by a landslide. Do they really need our help?
0

#3 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,989
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 11:52 AM

Let's see how this plays out it's just Trump being Trump and it always works out.
0

#4 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,013
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 12:03 PM

Yes, let's complicate trade talks with a human rights bill even though our long-standing default position has been to side with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and (up until they kicked us out and the Chinese moved right in) the Philippines.

I have a slight suspicion that this bill is not a declaration of support. Instead, it's certain members of Congress who are beholden to the Chinese themselves. Or, they simply want globalism to continue unabated because Trump's trade deals are slicing and dicing the old-new world order. Or, they simply want to stick it to Trump and could really care less about the Ukrainians Hong Kong.
0

#5 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,927
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 03:26 PM

View Postgravelrash, on 26 November 2019 - 12:03 PM, said:

Yes, let's complicate trade talks with a human rights bill even though our long-standing default position has been to side with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and (up until they kicked us out and the Chinese moved right in) the Philippines.

I have a slight suspicion that this bill is not a declaration of support. Instead, it's certain members of Congress who are beholden to the Chinese themselves. Or, they simply want globalism to continue unabated because Trump's trade deals are slicing and dicing the old-new world order. Or, they simply want to stick it to Trump and could really care less about the Ukrainians Hong Kong.

:yeahthat:
0

#6 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,690
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 05:07 PM

View PostNatural Selection, on 26 November 2019 - 10:46 AM, said:

The pro-democracy candidates in their November 24 election won by a landslide. Do they really need our help?

Winning elections isn't stopping people from being killed in the street by soldiers dressed in police uniforms or being shipped off to "reeducation" camps.
0

#7 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,840
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 26 November 2019 - 06:49 PM

View PostModerator T, on 26 November 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

Winning elections isn't stopping people from being killed in the street by soldiers dressed in police uniforms or being shipped off to "reeducation" camps.


But why is that OUR problem??? And where are the Brits on this??? THEY gave Hong Kong back to China in '99; THEY broke it, THEY bought it.

YES, We - THE USA - have made our own Foreign Policy F-ups (Panama Canal, anyone?). Okay, that one is 'ours'. But this one is theirs. Not our circus, not our monkeys. YES, people will likely die and/or have a hard time of it. But that's on Downing Street rather than Pennsylvania Avenue. The USA simply CAN'T be EVERYTHING to EVERYBODY at ALL times.
0

#8 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,013
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 06:58 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 26 November 2019 - 06:49 PM, said:

But why is that OUR problem??? And where are the Brits on this??? THEY gave Hong Kong back to China in '99; THEY broke it, THEY bought it.

YES, We - THE USA - have made our own Foreign Policy F-ups (Panama Canal, anyone?). Okay, that one is 'ours'. But this one is theirs. Not our circus, not our monkeys. YES, people will likely die and/or have a hard time of it. But that's on Downing Street rather than Pennsylvania Avenue. The USA simply CAN'T be EVERYTHING to EVERYBODY at ALL times.


Oh crap... wait for it.
0

#9 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,690
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 08:48 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 26 November 2019 - 06:49 PM, said:

But why is that OUR problem??? And where are the Brits on this??? THEY gave Hong Kong back to China in '99; THEY broke it, THEY bought it.

YES, We - THE USA - have made our own Foreign Policy F-ups (Panama Canal, anyone?). Okay, that one is 'ours'. But this one is theirs. Not our circus, not our monkeys. YES, people will likely die and/or have a hard time of it. But that's on Downing Street rather than Pennsylvania Avenue. The USA simply CAN'T be EVERYTHING to EVERYBODY at ALL times.


It isn't about it being our problem, its about whether values matter. What's more important, supporting the things we stand for elsewhere or getting cheap goods? Are those cheap goods worth the cost of funding a nation that is actively harming us through both shoddy lead filled products and fueling the opioid crisis? Are they worth funding a nation that is putting its own people into concentration camps? Putting sanctions on nations that don't share our values has been a common thing since before any of us have been alive. We did it on the Japanese and the Germans in the 30's. We did it to the Soviets and their allies for decades. Why is it suddenly wrong now?
0

#10 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 10,042
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 09:27 PM

View Postgravelrash, on 26 November 2019 - 12:03 PM, said:

Yes, let's complicate trade talks with a human rights bill even though our long-standing default position has been to side with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and (up until they kicked us out and the Chinese moved right in) the Philippines.

I have a slight suspicion that this bill is not a declaration of support. Instead, it's certain members of Congress who are beholden to the Chinese themselves. Or, they simply want globalism to continue unabated because Trump's trade deals are slicing and dicing the old-new world order. Or, they simply want to stick it to Trump and could really care less about the Ukrainians Hong Kong.

Do you really think that it would have been unanimous in the Senate and 417-1 in the House if any of this was the case?
0

#11 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,211
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 10:10 PM

Quote

Trump says he might veto legislation that aims to protect human rights in Hong Kong because bill could affect China trade talks

So reading the headline, and reading the article, the headline is misleading. It only claims he suggested he'd veto. There is not a direct quote of a question from a reporter, and an quote from Trump saying he'd veto it. Granted he said there is competing priorities, that still does not mean he'd veto the bill. This article is just complete speculation to create a false narrative that Trump is against human rights.
0

#12 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,187
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 11:05 PM

View PostItalian Biker, on 26 November 2019 - 10:10 PM, said:

So reading the headline, and reading the article, the headline is misleading. It only claims he suggested he'd veto. There is not a direct quote of a question from a reporter, and an quote from Trump saying he'd veto it. Granted he said there is competing priorities, that still does not mean he'd veto the bill. This article is just complete speculation to create a false narrative that Trump is against human rights.

I'm sure you meant "against non-white human rights", right? :whistling:
0

#13 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,288
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 26 November 2019 - 11:19 PM

View PostModerator T, on 26 November 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

It isn't about it being our problem, its about whether values matter. What's more important, supporting the things we stand for elsewhere or getting cheap goods? Are those cheap goods worth the cost of funding a nation that is actively harming us through both shoddy lead filled products and fueling the opioid crisis? Are they worth funding a nation that is putting its own people into concentration camps? Putting sanctions on nations that don't share our values has been a common thing since before any of us have been alive. We did it on the Japanese and the Germans in the 30's. We did it to the Soviets and their allies for decades. Why is it suddenly wrong now?

I don’t think Trump is comparing the values we support versus cheap goods. Instead I think it’s one set of values (people’s rights abroad) versus another set of values (defending Americans’ livelihood versus foreign cheaters).

I can understand why Trump is undecided. I think it’s a tough decision. The media will twist it of course. Don’t rush into condemning him quite yet.
0

#14 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,690
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 26 November 2019 - 11:35 PM

View Postzurg, on 26 November 2019 - 11:19 PM, said:

I don’t think Trump is comparing the values we support versus cheap goods. Instead I think it’s one set of values (people’s rights abroad) versus another set of values (defending Americans’ livelihood versus foreign cheaters).

I can understand why Trump is undecided. I think it’s a tough decision. The media will twist it of course. Don’t rush into condemning him quite yet.

I'm not condemning him. Heck I probably wouldn't condemn him if and when he vetoes this bill. Vetoing it to try and stop it is pointless as Congress will easily override him, so a veto would likely be part of a negotiating strategy. I'm replying directly to Adam's post about how this isn't our problem. I would condemn his praise of Xi if I thought he was serious, but that's just Trump being Trump. He talks that way about everyone (well everyone but John McCain). Xi is a genocidal monster who is so thin skinned that he's banned Winnie the Pooh images because people have compared his likeness to the bear.
0

#15 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,288
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 27 November 2019 - 12:00 AM

View PostModerator T, on 26 November 2019 - 11:35 PM, said:

I'm not condemning him. Heck I probably wouldn't condemn him if and when he vetoes this bill. Vetoing it to try and stop it is pointless as Congress will easily override him, so a veto would likely be part of a negotiating strategy. I'm replying directly to Adam's post about how this isn't our problem. I would condemn his praise of Xi if I thought he was serious, but that's just Trump being Trump. He talks that way about everyone (well everyone but John McCain). Xi is a genocidal monster who is so thin skinned that he's banned Winnie the Pooh images because people have compared his likeness to the bear.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I mainly wanted to point out that we won’t be getting really cheap Chinese made stuff in this deal anymore, there’s more than that at stake.
0

#16 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,867
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 01:19 AM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 26 November 2019 - 06:49 PM, said:

But why is that OUR problem??? And where are the Brits on this??? THEY gave Hong Kong back to China in '99; THEY broke it, THEY bought it.

The Brits never “gave” Hong Kong back to China. They never owned it in the first place. HK was leased to the British in 1898 for 99 years and that lease expired in July of 1997 when they returned control to China in “the Handover.”
0

#17 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,013
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 08:53 AM

View PostTimothy, on 26 November 2019 - 09:27 PM, said:

Do you really think that it would have been unanimous in the Senate and 417-1 in the House if any of this was the case?


417-1 versus 63 million. Do the math.
0

#18 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 27 November 2019 - 09:52 AM

View PostModerator T, on 26 November 2019 - 11:35 PM, said:

I'm not condemning him. Heck I probably wouldn't condemn him if and when he vetoes this bill. Vetoing it to try and stop it is pointless as Congress will easily override him, so a veto would likely be part of a negotiating strategy. I'm replying directly to Adam's post about how this isn't our problem. I would condemn his praise of Xi if I thought he was serious, but that's just Trump being Trump. He talks that way about everyone (well everyone but John McCain). Xi is a genocidal monster who is so thin skinned that he's banned Winnie the Pooh images because people have compared his likeness to the bear.

Makes perfect sense.
0

#19 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,840
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 27 November 2019 - 05:48 PM

View PostJerryL, on 27 November 2019 - 01:19 AM, said:

The Brits never “gave” Hong Kong back to China. They never owned it in the first place.


You are correct, but that's just my shorthand in the same sense as when we say that Jimmy Carter "Gave" The canal back to Panama. In reality they were BOTH leases.

View PostJerryL, on 27 November 2019 - 01:19 AM, said:

HK was leased to the British in 1898 for 99 years and that lease expired in July of 1997 when they returned control to China in “the Handover.”


I stand corrected on the year; I had Panama on the brain and it was the Panama Canal lease that expired in '99. You are correct that the HK Lease expired in '97. I should gave gotten the year right; I was living in Dubai in the mid-'90s when they were going hell-bent for leather getting preparing to be the "Next Hong Kong" in time for the handover.

For what it's worth, I believe BOTH "givebacks" were a mistake. My understanding is that the HK lease was renewable in 75-year increments.

(And why 99-years or even 75-years? Good question. I vaguely, distantly, recall that it had something to do with international commerce law on the subject wherein those were the magic numbers.)
0

#20 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,989
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 10:51 PM

See Trump being Trump
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users