Hong-Kong Protests

PanAsian said:

I pointed out how the facts in the article you posted actually do not support the conclusions the article came to. That is statistical and reading comprehension 101 level stuff. It doesn't require alternate facts or narratives. All you have been doing since is to deflect from examining that article.

Click to expand...

I didn't defect from examining this article. It is you who refused to even do a basic homework regarding Hong Kong politics, I just don't feel like doing the homework for you. In 2016 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 40.17% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 55.02% of the votes. In 2012 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 42.66% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 56.24% of the votes. In 2008 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 39.71% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 59.39% of the votes. In 2004 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 36.93% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 60.52% of the votes. In 2000 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 34.94% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 60.56% of the votes. In 1998 HK legislative elections , pro-establishment received 30.38% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 66.15% of the votes.

The author didn't go into lengthy details regarding 4-6 ratio because he expected that most Hong Kong readers and watchers know this basic fact. As I have already explained, the HK district elections were never this politicized before and the turnout for this district elections even exceeded all previous legislative elections so the 4-6 golden rule applied.

As for the other point, the author included the 27.7% of respondents who opposed violence but understood the reason of the violent protests into the pan-Dems camp. You on the other hand think differently. That is mere a difference in the interpretation of the meaning and the result of the poll. Here you claimed the facts are wrong, And I would reply the facts are sound, that you just don't like them.

Here are two new videos about how "regular people" come out to support the rioters. That HK police was surrounded and insulted by the so called regular and normal people.

localizer said:

Whenver u see a bunch of people with US flags n banners its usually FLG.

Click to expand...

At the beginning that is true. Many moderate demonstrators are against waving the US flags but the radicals have silenced any opposition to waving other countries' flags. The propaganda of the rioters has basically making it ok to wave the US flags. So it is not just the FLG anymore.


Another video of senseless beating and assaults in HK

KYli said:

At the beginning that is true. Many moderate demonstrators are against waving the US flags but the radicals have silenced any opposition to waving other countries' flags. The propaganda of the rioters has basically making it ok to wave the US flags. So it is not just the FLG anymore.


Another video of senseless beating and assaults in HK

Click to expand...

I meant there is FLG involvement which also imples CIA.

localizer said:

I meant there is FLG involvement which also imples CIA.

Click to expand...

That's true. A few months ago, at LIHKG forum there was a long discussion of waving the US flags. The radicals mentioned that the ones waving the US flags are mostly US citizens or FLG members. And those people have encouraged the radicals to wave the US flags so the US can support them.

FLG, neonazis, incels

peas in a pod

KYli said:

Great Britain is holding an election in less than two weeks. If the Tories win, then they have the mandate to continue Brexit. You can argue to death that the election outcome isn't about any particular issue. But it is, you like it or not.

Click to expand...

No, Brexit is not the only issue in the UK election. . If the Tories force Brexit based on winning the vote, they could be seriously misinterpreting the popular sentiment. Just as you may be seriously misinterpreting the recent Hong Kong vote -- it could have been about much more than support for the violent thugs.

KYli said:

Nutrient said:

KYli said:

I just want to state a fact "majority of the HK voters voted for pan-Dems parties that support violent protests".

Click to expand...

No, you were saying something more like "the majority of the voters were supporting the violent thugs". That was different from what you are saying now.

Click to expand...

There is no difference. Both former and latter statements are my opinions. I said that majority of the HK voters voted for pan-Dems parties that support violent protests. From my perspective, voting for the pan-Dems is equal to voting for the rioters. Because many people in HK and I feel that voting for pan-Dems camp will legitimate the violent protests, give tacit approval to the protests, or at the very least hint that the voters tolerate the violent protests.

Click to expand...

The change in your statements is there, and it is significant. You began by saying something like "the majority of the voters were supporting the violent thugs". That is very different from saying that "the majority of the voters were supporting the pan-dems", because while some of the pan-dems may be rioter supporters, they may also be supporting other things, and the voters might have been responding to those other issues.

As I have been saying, support for the pan-dems may not be identical to support for the cockroaches.

Today's demonstration (Sunday, Dec 1) is more evidence for thinking that the rioters are losing popular support. Some months ago, there were millions of marchers. Where are they now?

localizer said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

FLG, neonazis, incels

peas in a pod

Click to expand...

LOL. If this is true, then the cockroaches are even more desperate than I thought they were: they are importing foreign thugs to make the cockroaches seem more numerous than they really are. LOL

If the Azov Battalion does serious damage, then the cockroaches will lose support even more rapidly, as Hong Kongers would be asking themselves, "Should I allow some foreigners to ruin my town?" And the answer will be, overwhelmingly, "No!"

Nutrient said:

No, Brexit is not the only issue in the UK election.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. If the Tories force Brexit based on winning the vote, they could be seriously misinterpreting the popular sentiment. Just as you may be seriously misinterpreting the recent Hong Kong vote -- it could have been about much more than support for the violent thugs.

Click to expand...

Not the only issue doesn't equal to the election isn't about Brexit. As for the Tories, I don't think it has any choice but to force the Brexit if it won the election. After the Brexit, would UK people regret it and vote out the Tories, maybe. But what happened has already happened and you can never change it back.

It doesn't matter if I misinterpret the recent HK election or not, As both the rioters and pan-Dems camp feel that the violent protests can be continued without serious repercussion. And majority of the pro-establishment supporters at discuss HK or Yahoo feel the same.

The change in your statements is there, and it is significant. You began by saying something like "the majority of the voters were supporting the violent thugs". That is very different from saying that "the majority of the voters were supporting the pan-dems", because while some of the pan-dems may be rioter supporters, they may also be supporting other things, and the voters might have been responding to those other issues.

As I have been saying, support for the pan-dems may not be identical to support for the cockroaches.

Today's demonstration (Sunday, Dec 1) is more evidence for thinking that the rioters are losing popular support. Some months ago, there were millions of marchers. Where are they now?

Click to expand...

I said that I stand by both of my statements. And we have to agree and disagree with my former statement. If you want to continue the debate on my former statement, then I will entertain it.

My full statement clearly meant that voting for the pan-Dems camp is equal to voting for the rioters. Because it would be interpreted this way no matter what. The pan-Dems camp and the rioters have come to an understanding that no matter what the rioters did, the pan-Dems camp would stand firmly behind the rioters and would not condemn them. Hong Kong people knew this fact pretty well and the majority of them still voted for the pan-Dems camp. So my main point in that statement is that the voting result has given the rioters the legitimacy to continue the riots. From my perspective, the reasons why the majority of HK people voted for the pan-Dems camp are irrelevant. How the election is interpreted is more important.

When a few hundreds residents from the apartments above the riot came down to ask the police to leave, I don't take any consolation for the dwindling numbers. It never took much, be it fake news or propaganda to get people to come out to protest again.

Nov 20, 2019

Jura said:

Oct 16, 2019
and
China summons US diplomat, vows to retaliate if Donald Trump signs Hong Kong democracy act into law

• Beijing calls on Washington to ‘stop the act becoming law’ after it is passed by Senate, with the US president retaining the right to sign or veto it
• Support for the bill surges among senators amid a siege at a Hong Kong university campus

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Glob. Times:
US' latest HK act 'nonsensical, self-damaging'

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

now
China puts Hong Kong port calls by US military on hold after Donald Trump signs democracy act

• Beijing says it is also sanctioning US-based NGOs for supporting violence in the special administrative region
• Move comes a week after US President Donald Trump signed a law increasing scrutiny of the city

also the trade negotiations are inside so follow the link if interested

Nutrient said:

As I have been saying, support for the pan-dems may not be identical to support for the cockroaches.

Today's demonstration (Sunday, Dec 1) is more evidence for thinking that the rioters are losing popular support. Some months ago, there were millions of marchers. Where are they now?

Click to expand...

KYli said:

My full statement clearly meant that voting for the pan-Dems camp is equal to voting for the rioters. Because it would be interpreted this way no matter what. The pan-Dems camp and the rioters have come to an understanding that no matter what the rioters did, the pan-Dems camp would stand firmly behind the rioters and would not condemn them. Hong Kong people knew this fact pretty well and the majority of them still voted for the pan-Dems camp. So my main point in that statement is that the voting result has given the rioters the legitimacy to continue the riots. From my perspective, the reasons why the majority of HK people voted for the pan-Dems camp are irrelevant. How the election is interpreted is more important.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, this is the deeper issue as well. There has been no condemnation of violence from the anti-establishment side. My own belief was their sweeping victory would bring less violent and disruptive action, lest it turn the tide of opinion against them. I thought they would use their victory as a platform to push a "make the people's voice heard, democracy can work" kind of narrative. Instead they have doubled-down on the "never break rank, implicitly condone violence" strategy to intimidate the populace.

My mistake was that I thought the anti-establishment politicians had some shred of morality or belief in their ideals, which would have them shed the radical action as soon as possible. Instead, they show their true colours as politicians, and are simply engineering a naked grab for power (terrorism got them their district seats, might as well use the same strategy).

It might be true that all the people that supported the anti-establishment candidates are not supporting the rioters directly, but it definitely can be said that the anti-establishment is fully in support of the rioters.

This is why it is important to have a more skilled politician in charge of the HK government ASAP. This person must be able to exploit the divide between the supporters of violence and the peaceful faction. By promoting some kind of reasonable alternative, you can start eroding their support. In a previous post, KYli had mentioned that the anti-establishment will never accept compromise as they had been rejected before. However, with this in mind, you need to start creating something like alternative parties to create vote splitting opportunities. This sort of election engineering is very commonplace in western-style democracies, but probably not so much in HK. It is also precisely why the US government is so fearful of foreign money coming in through the Internet.