Yes, i take it your visit was recently?
No, a few visits over the span of three decades
Yes, i take it your visit was recently?
I said majority of HK people support rioters or at least take the rioters side. Why you keep trying to change my words?
The problem is not about the votes. The problem is that the HK people have spoken. And they are supporting the rioters which gave the rioters legitimacy. That would embolden and encourage the rioters to take extreme measures. Either the central government caves or they would face months or even years of unrest in HK.
You keep claiming my assertion is wrong but you can't provide any evidence to back up what you said. When your evidence is refuted, instead of engaged in a civilized debate you chose to keep repeating irrelevant statement.
Never be like the ostrich - putting your heads under the sand. Closing one's ears and eyes and screaming "lalala" won't make things go away. Accepting that a silent majority doesn't exist and that close to 60 % or more Hong Kongers are pro-rioters is a big step towards viewing and analysing the effects of the protest on China's as well as HK's future. I agree with @KYli on this.
How have I changed your words or your intent? The relevant part of one of your comments:
(Emphasis added.) I have said MANY times that the bolded part is what I challenged. Now you say I have misreported your intent. Are you denying what you wrote?
I made my case. You just refused to see it. I don't need your approval or do I care of what you think. Making groundless accusation has only made you look unreasonable and disrespectful.You are responsible for proving your assertion (that a majority of HK's people support the violence). You made the claim, so you must prove it. You have not done so. You have only proven that you are willing to work quite hard for the cockroaches.
I have little doubt that most Hong Kongers currently desire to keep the current system (1C2S) beyond 2047. That was probably what the recent election suggested.
What I object to is @KYli's assertion that this implies that most people support the violent protesters. This is a subtle distinction. But it's important, as violence tends to grow.
If the chaos grows too much, Hong Kongers will regret it. Beijing will continue to respect 1C2S nonetheless; the island will continue to be perfectly free to ruin itself if that is what its people want.
inside
Huawei blamed after ex-staff’s detention
By Chen Qingqing and Hu Yuwei Source:Global Times Published: 2019/12/2 22:38:40
:
"Li's wife told the Global Times on condition of anonymity that Li is facing ..." whatever, Glob. Times need to edit this, LOL
Monday at 7:45 PM
but now there's a sad part inside
Huawei's treatment of ex-employee sparks fury, debate
(about the other company -- I'm not going to look for details)
I have little doubt that most Hong Kongers currently desire to keep the current system (1C2S) beyond 2047. That was probably what the recent election suggested.
What I object to is @KYli's assertion that this implies that most people support the violent protesters. This is a subtle distinction. But it's important, as violence tends to grow.
If the chaos grows too much, Hong Kongers will regret it. Beijing will continue to respect 1C2S nonetheless; the island will continue to be perfectly free to ruin itself if that is what its people want.
I have little doubt that most Hong Kongers currently desire to keep the current system (1C2S) beyond 2047. That was probably what the recent election suggested.
What I object to is @KYli's assertion that this implies that most people support the violent protesters. This is a subtle distinction. But it's important, as violence tends to grow.
If the chaos grows too much, Hong Kongers will regret it. Beijing will continue to respect 1C2S nonetheless; the island will continue to be perfectly free to ruin itself if that is what its people want.
They demand the right to directly elect both the Chief Executive and all legislators which pretty much guarantee the pan-Dems camp would take control of all three branches of the government. That means the central government would have no say whatsoever. There goes your 1C2S