@Gatekeeper The Falungong and Hongkong rioters will probably still ask for Trump to save them.
manqiangrexue, do not get sucked into having to defend China on "breaking" an international agreement.
China did not and have not broken her promise relative to One Country Two System as spelled out by the Basic Law of Hong Kong which is agreed to by UK and China. That is Western MSM narrative to justify their continuous lies about what is going on in Hong Kong to justify their interference of an internal policy of China.
As I have explained several times in this thread, China applies the Article 18 and Annex III in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, a right given to her as part of the agreement with UK, to implement what were required for Hong Kong to implement per Article 23, but which Hong Kong failed to do so for 23 years.
Businesses swallow 'bitter medicine' of Hong Kong security law.
Executives are willing to accept contentious legislation in exchange for halt to unrest
Financial Times London
Beijing’s message to Hong Kong: ‘We waited for you guys long enough
FInancial Times London
@Gatekeeper The Falungong and Hongkong rioters will probably still ask for Trump to save them.
I'm gonna wait for May and June labor participation numbers before judging these things.
How many of my comments can you post here where I've supported the US and UK governments? Oddly enough, I will at some point support something they do, but it's hardly a daily occurance - although good luck finding lots of comments where I've praised Trump.
No, I haven't. There are good and bad Hong Kong police, just like in the US. Although trust in the police in Hong Kong hit rock-bottom at the end of last year, so it's probably fair to say that they are being heavy-handed.
The protests have gone on for so long because so many people have been involved. The HK police can't lock up hundreds of thousands/millions of people. If a territory like Hong Kong has near-constant protests for such a long time it shows a complete failure of leadership and an absence of good governance.
If you want to argue it's primarily the fault of the Hong Kong government, Carrie Lam and the pro-CCP parties that have a majority of seats in the legislative, I'm willing to accept that. There is much to be said that Beijing has been mislead by special interest groups that want to maintain the status-quo and are resistant to things like abolishing the functional constituencies (because that's where most of their power resides).
However, the CCP is still partly responsible. It has intervened, such as in "interpreting" what a valid oath for a HK legislator is rather than leaving it to the Hong Kong courts, it's also publicly backed Carrie Lam to the hilt, when Beijing could have demanded her resignation for incompetence. Her head on a plate last year would have significantly increased the chances of most of the protesters going home.
Arguably it was pretty good under British rule. The economy did really well, the city's growth seemed to have no end and there was high confidence in the police. People fled from mainland China to Hong Kong, rather than the other way around. We also gave Hong Kong rule of law. Just because there weren't elections for the governor didn't mean there wasn't a high degree of freedom in Hong Kong. (As an aside, if the governor had been elected Hong Kong wouldn't have been a colony, rather it would have been an independent city-state.)
Also, whether or not the protesters actually think colonial Hong Kong was better has nothing to do whether they have any valid grievances.
I'm not saying the treaty was a kind gesture, I'm saying it was a treaty. Something that both parties are supposed to agree to. If China had got Hong Kong back via a show of force it wouldn't have signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all.
Also I think you're insulting the memories of the CCP politicians like Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang who created the Sino-British Joint Declaration in the first place. There was some pushing and shoving over it, but it was all diplomatic and done in good faith.
You need to calm down. No one has said any political system is morally superior. The issue is what the CCP promised for 50 years. If China's promises don't mean anything because they can be reversed on a whim, well fine, but don't complain if people start saying China isn't trustworthy.
I was looking at all the incident that spur the black lives matter movement, many of which had killings caught on camera. Yet none of the perpetrators was ever convicted of the crime they had committed. Most of them were not even indicted for the killing.
It is extremely rare for any police abuse to lead to indictment, let alone conviction. The only exception I can recall was a conviction of an ethnic Chinese NYPD rookie cop who accidentally shot a victim in the dark stairway during an official police operation. But this was more an accident and was not even a racially motivated killing.
- Acquitted for the shooting of Trayvon Martin (17 years old)
Darren Wilson - did not indict for Shooting of Michael Brown
Daniel Pantaleo - did not indict for Shooting of Eric Garner
Timothy Loehmann - did not indict for Shooting of Tamir Rice (12-years old)
Does the US not respect black human lives, let alone black human rights?
Politicians would always voice their outrage each time and promise to reform the law enforcement agencies. But all odd these has been lip services without any tangible action and result. Hence, the tragedy keeps repeating itself.
I suggest the US to respect the human rights of the Black people within the US first.
Similarly, war crimes committed by US military personnel have pretty much gone unpunished.
US does not have much standing in lecturing anyone about human rights since they have failed miserably in their deeds.
How many of my comments can you post here where I've supported the US and UK governments? Oddly enough, I will at some point support something they do, but it's hardly a daily occurance - although good luck finding lots of comments where I've praised Trump.
No, I haven't. There are good and bad Hong Kong police, just like in the US. Although trust in the police in Hong Kong hit rock-bottom at the end of last year, so it's probably fair to say that they are being heavy-handed.
The protests have gone on for so long because so many people have been involved. The HK police can't lock up hundreds of thousands/millions of people. If a territory like Hong Kong has near-constant protests for such a long time it shows a complete failure of leadership and an absence of good governance.
If you want to argue it's primarily the fault of the Hong Kong government, Carrie Lam and the pro-CCP parties that have a majority of seats in the legislative, I'm willing to accept that. There is much to be said that Beijing has been mislead by special interest groups that want to maintain the status-quo and are resistant to things like abolishing the functional constituencies (because that's where most of their power resides).
However, the CCP is still partly responsible. It has intervened, such as in "interpreting" what a valid oath for a HK legislator is rather than leaving it to the Hong Kong courts, it's also publicly backed Carrie Lam to the hilt, when Beijing could have demanded her resignation for incompetence. Her head on a plate last year would have significantly increased the chances of most of the protesters going home.
Arguably it was pretty good under British rule. The economy did really well, the city's growth seemed to have no end and there was high confidence in the police. People fled from mainland China to Hong Kong, rather than the other way around. We also gave Hong Kong rule of law. Just because there weren't elections for the governor didn't mean there wasn't a high degree of freedom in Hong Kong. (As an aside, if the governor had been elected Hong Kong wouldn't have been a colony, rather it would have been an independent city-state.)
Also, whether or not the protesters actually think colonial Hong Kong was better has nothing to do whether they have any valid grievances.
I'm not saying the treaty was a kind gesture, I'm saying it was a treaty. Something that both parties are supposed to agree to. If China had got Hong Kong back via a show of force it wouldn't have signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all.
Also I think you're insulting the memories of the CCP politicians like Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang who created the Sino-British Joint Declaration in the first place. There was some pushing and shoving over it, but it was all diplomatic and done in good faith.
You need to calm down. No one has said any political system is morally superior. The issue is what the CCP promised for 50 years. If China's promises don't mean anything because they can be reversed on a whim, well fine, but don't complain if people start saying China isn't trustworthy.
How many of my comments can you post here where I've supported the US and UK governments? Oddly enough, I will at some point support something they do, but it's hardly a daily occurance - although good luck finding lots of comments where I've praised Trump.
No, I haven't. There are good and bad Hong Kong police, just like in the US. Although trust in the police in Hong Kong hit rock-bottom at the end of last year, so it's probably fair to say that they are being heavy-handed.
The protests have gone on for so long because so many people have been involved. The HK police can't lock up hundreds of thousands/millions of people. If a territory like Hong Kong has near-constant protests for such a long time it shows a complete failure of leadership and an absence of good governance.
If you want to argue it's primarily the fault of the Hong Kong government, Carrie Lam and the pro-CCP parties that have a majority of seats in the legislative, I'm willing to accept that. There is much to be said that Beijing has been mislead by special interest groups that want to maintain the status-quo and are resistant to things like abolishing the functional constituencies (because that's where most of their power resides).
However, the CCP is still partly responsible. It has intervened, such as in "interpreting" what a valid oath for a HK legislator is rather than leaving it to the Hong Kong courts, it's also publicly backed Carrie Lam to the hilt, when Beijing could have demanded her resignation for incompetence. Her head on a plate last year would have significantly increased the chances of most of the protesters going home.
Arguably it was pretty good under British rule. The economy did really well, the city's growth seemed to have no end and there was high confidence in the police. People fled from mainland China to Hong Kong, rather than the other way around. We also gave Hong Kong rule of law. Just because there weren't elections for the governor didn't mean there wasn't a high degree of freedom in Hong Kong. (As an aside, if the governor had been elected Hong Kong wouldn't have been a colony, rather it would have been an independent city-state.)
Also, whether or not the protesters actually think colonial Hong Kong was better has nothing to do whether they have any valid grievances.
I'm not saying the treaty was a kind gesture, I'm saying it was a treaty. Something that both parties are supposed to agree to. If China had got Hong Kong back via a show of force it wouldn't have signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all.
Also I think you're insulting the memories of the CCP politicians like Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang who created the Sino-British Joint Declaration in the first place. There was some pushing and shoving over it, but it was all diplomatic and done in good faith.
You need to calm down. No one has said any political system is morally superior. The issue is what the CCP promised for 50 years. If China's promises don't mean anything because they can be reversed on a whim, well fine, but don't complain if people start saying China isn't trustworthy.