Jura The idiot
General
so did you just drop your point from
18 minutes ago
of "Bolded for you, the candidate is not elected by the people."
?
Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
18 minutes ago
of "Bolded for you, the candidate is not elected by the people."
?
The anti-establishment just won an election with high turnout. What more evidence do you need? How so, more people are fed up with the violent protests which is true but it is still not enough to turn the tide. The violent protests didn't break the 6 vs 4 golden rule in HK election.
I don't know why you keep using the word "normal". The anti-establishment supporters are made up of 2 types of people, the moderates and the radicals(no normal people). After the 2014 umbrella revolution failed, a group of people formed "Hong Kong Indigenous" to oppose both the pan-democracy camp and The Hong Kong Federation of Students. Hong Kong Indigenous is known for its Hong Kong independent stances and militant tendency of protesting(以武制暴). Its spiritual leader is Edward Leung(in prison at the moment). We called them the radicals.
"The pan-democracy camp and The Hong Kong Federation of Students" are so called leftists from the eye of the radicals. We called them moderates. There are only tens of thousands of so called radicals. But there are over a million of moderates.
When the police declared the PolyU incident as riot, it means that any participants would get up to 10 years in prison for participating in the riot. "Mok kok" is a no show because "moderates" are a bunch of cowards that they don't want to go to jail. As for the radicals, there are not that many to begin with and they are not as brave as they think they are.
To answer your question, the violent protests are a means to an end. For the radicals, it is HK independent. For the moderates, it is elections, powers, controls, influence, and supports. The failure of the umbrella revolution and peaceful protests have resulted in existential crisis for the movement. Both the radicals and the moderates felt that violent protest is a necessity. The radicals are the ones who willing to take actions but the moderates are too afraid to do so. The moderates and its supporters are not going to abandon the radicals because they need the radicals and they need the violent protests.
The pro-establishment parties need to win over people who either didn't register to vote or didn't vote. These people are most likely indifference but can be persuaded. The pro-establishment parties also need more competent leaders. Many police supporters don't even have a platform to fight back because the pro-establishment parties haven't organized anything. The pro-establishment needs to demonstrate that they can mobilize thousands of people at any moment. That is what it takes to beat the anti-establishment. When only a few hundreds show up to protest against RTHK or many other counter-protests. It looks weak.
Last edited:
Just what is your point??
It make no difference whatever it is. The very fact China can turn whoever down is a matter of law enshrine in the constitution written down. And agreed upon by everyone concerned at the time.
Also, like any country, if an elected leader refuses to take oath to the allegiances of that (which almost certain from any pan-democrat nominee) country. ANY country can and will refuse to accept that nominee to be there leader.
If for example in the UK. If an MP refuses to take oath to be loyal to the queen.
And that is the same the world over. So why single China out!
Umm... Because China is czechoslovakia?
My reply to bold text is same as this guy!
It's a dog and pony show for the home and western audience who will lapped this up with added extra spice by the MSM.
It's a ply by Trump trying to ramp up pressure in signing this long awaited trade deal. I mean, come on, they tried everything else, from kidnapping to sanctions. But nothing worked.
And all the time, Trump keep on telling us:
"China need this deal more than us". Etc. The more he says it, the less convincing he looks. Yes, it plays well to his core supporters and some people in the USA. But to those of us here who does process critical thinking, (I mean most of us here have had to fend for ourselves at some point in our life, unlike the mis-guided idealists students)! despite what our airworthy guy with a inferiority complex thinks)! It just doesn't pass the smile test!
Right now Trump is begging China to make a deal, and this is the last throw of the dice. He made the threat and he to carry out. But it's a one shot thing, and what is sad is it does nothing except hurting the interest of Hong Kong! It's like treating the patient by trying to kill it.
Well, sir. It's like this, the goods news is you headaches's gone, but the bad news is you're very dead!
Last edited:
Great video from one of my fav ladies. Liu Xin visiting Hong Kong!
CGTN anchor Liu Xin explores Hong Kong after chao…:
CGTN anchor Liu Xin explores Hong Kong after chao…:
In addition, Majority foreign owned financial institutions had difficulty obtaining business license to operate in China. But thanks partially to HK protest, Our application for a majority foreign owned financial institution was expeditiously approved. We are aggressively building up our China-related business operation and bringing our investors directly to China from HK.
The pro-establishment camps are also hampered by the incompetent actual establishment, aka the HK government including at the leadership level. The rioting could and should have been dealt with much more decisively much earlier on and police strategy and tactics should focus on rallying the friendly/neutral public, arrest and imprisonment rather than dispersal. The government also needs to cater less to big money special interests and serve the average HKer better on bread and butter issues, as well as make sure that any special interests that are well treated heed the government's call especially in times of crisis rather than the other way around.
You're taking US propaganda at face value and assuming that the US actually cares about HK when it is merely a convenient proxy/hybrid war battleground against China. I would like to hold the US to its own higher standards too and cease and desist on this type of corrupt and immoral behavior partially driven by bigotry and racism. This must be done in domestic US politics where its demographic is increasingly diverse and much of its population is fighting domestic corruption/immorality/bigotry/racism. Much of US hostility directed overseas is export/projection of its own domestic troubles that are also tied to wealth/opportunity inequalities, HK is in fact a more extreme embodiment of the same issues. In facing US hostility and the situation in HK it would be wise for China, Chinese, and overseas Chinese to realize and act upon the fact that economics/wealth isn't everything and definitely comes with strings attached.
No, I am not dropping anything.
At the beginning, I wasn't sure you understood the difference between Beijing blocking CE candidate nominations vs. blocking the actual elected CE.
However, since you said:
You obviously do understand the distinction.
In my opinion, if Beijing was to block an actual elected CE, this would be a big headache, which is why I think that is a very important distinction to make.
Since candidates are not elected by people (similar to Canada or Britain, where Party leaders, which ultimately determines PM, are not elected by the 'Commons'), blocking candidacy is not uncommon.