As I wrote in an earlier thread, I would not use PayPal for any money that I couldn't afford to be without for an extended period of time given their history of arbitrarily freezing funds. See here: www.gokunming.com/[...]
On a related note, be advised that it's risky to use PayPal via a VPN, as doing so violates their terms of service and thus may result in whatever sanctions they deem appropriate.
It's possible to use PayPal via a VPN without problems for an indeterminate amount of time because they don't have a comprehensive global list of VPN IP addresses. However, they periodically update their list, so the hammer could fall at any point.
I wrote a reminder to myself that reads "TURN OFF VPN BEFORE LOGGING IN" in the same place where I keep my PayPal login information.
@veravdn: "... I just want to know if it is possible to transfer amounts larger than 500USD per day from a Chinese to a European bank account. As far as I know there is limit of 500USD per day for EXCHANGING money, but I don't know if this limit also exists for TRANSFERRING money abroad."
I believe the $500 limit applies to exchanging money, not to transferring money. It was certainly the case a year or two ago -- I haven't had occasion to reconfirm more recently, but I would tend to presume the same policy is still in effect.
Nicely done, whoever added the additional downvotes to extend the string of -1's. I followed your lead and added two more to fill in some gaps on page 6, so we're now up to seventeen -1's in a row.
Nothing like ending the day with a sense of accomplishment.
@sean1: The thing is that it's a weak field, so I don't really support anyone in particular enough to sing their praises. But Buttigieg (fake), Biden (senile) and Klobuchar (bully) are all just blatantly awful. I suppose I could live with Sanders, Warren or even Bloomberg, although they each have serious flaws.
As far as Pete's donor stats, yeah, a lot of people seem to have been bamboozled, which is disappointing to see. And I don't think the fact that he's the poorest candidate gives any reassurance that he won't cater to the interests that have ravaged the country over the past generation. Maybe the opposite.
Also, while I am not a huge fan of Sanders and therefore am reluctant to carry water for him, I don't think the UK results necessarily translate to the US. Corbyn was abysmally unpopular, due in large part to his humorlessness, links to violent extremists and allowing anti-Semitism to fester within his party. Sanders has none of those faults and polls as the most popular active political figure in the US. Plus Labour's traditional electorate was fractured by the all-important Brexit issue, and there is no comparably powerful wedge issue at stake in the US.
Buttigieg is just so transparently fake, it amazes me how many people are taken in by his faux-sincere schtick. Although I can see how Patrick Bateman might approve: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gc_bMkbOOs
An oxymoron. MAD is bi-directional, hence the "mutual". Both sides have reduced leverage over each other under MAD, because threats to use conventional force have low credibility in light of the extreme risks involved.
Turn that smile upside down, sezuwupom. Expressing positive sentiments about fast, comfortable, affordable and environmentally-sustainable new rail connections is not allowed by the comments police. Anyone who is not sufficiently glum will be ridiculed.
Grace is staffed by American doctors and, in my experience, provides the same level of expertise and standard of care that you would expect to find in a good clinic in the U.S. I highly recommend them.
Cookie Preferences
Please select which types of cookies you are willing to accept:
How to: Vote in the upcoming U.S. general elections
发布者Binface shall prevail
How to: Vote in the upcoming U.S. general elections
发布者@sean1: The thing is that it's a weak field, so I don't really support anyone in particular enough to sing their praises. But Buttigieg (fake), Biden (senile) and Klobuchar (bully) are all just blatantly awful. I suppose I could live with Sanders, Warren or even Bloomberg, although they each have serious flaws.
As far as Pete's donor stats, yeah, a lot of people seem to have been bamboozled, which is disappointing to see. And I don't think the fact that he's the poorest candidate gives any reassurance that he won't cater to the interests that have ravaged the country over the past generation. Maybe the opposite.
Also, while I am not a huge fan of Sanders and therefore am reluctant to carry water for him, I don't think the UK results necessarily translate to the US. Corbyn was abysmally unpopular, due in large part to his humorlessness, links to violent extremists and allowing anti-Semitism to fester within his party. Sanders has none of those faults and polls as the most popular active political figure in the US. Plus Labour's traditional electorate was fractured by the all-important Brexit issue, and there is no comparably powerful wedge issue at stake in the US.
How to: Vote in the upcoming U.S. general elections
发布者Buttigieg is just so transparently fake, it amazes me how many people are taken in by his faux-sincere schtick. Although I can see how Patrick Bateman might approve: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gc_bMkbOOs
As 'New China' turns 70, a look back at National Days past in Kunming
发布者@viyida wrote: "MAD (mutual assured destruction) leverage"
An oxymoron. MAD is bi-directional, hence the "mutual". Both sides have reduced leverage over each other under MAD, because threats to use conventional force have low credibility in light of the extreme risks involved.
Work commences on Lijiang-Shangri-la Railroad
发布者cloudtraprezer wrote: "宣传部宣"
Turn that smile upside down, sezuwupom. Expressing positive sentiments about fast, comfortable, affordable and environmentally-sustainable new rail connections is not allowed by the comments police. Anyone who is not sufficiently glum will be ridiculed.