That only proves how delusional the DPP is and how untrustworthy a dual-political party democracy can be. I had once said this before: dealing with a dual party democracy is like dealing with someone who has multiple personality disorder. How can the DPP deny that it exists? It was a meeting, a joint statement was made, written down, and signed. There is a 1992 consensus; denying it because they want to worm out of it is like trying to worm out of a commitment to become vegetarian by saying vegetables no longer exist.Which part of the history that I summarized is mendacious? All I see is an inability to face up to the historical facts so you had to resort to ad-hominem attacks instead.
The only piece of history that you brought up, was the alleged 1992 consensus. Unfortunately for your argument, the DPP has continuously since 1992 denied the existence of such a consensus, and has reiterated that position as early as this year:
That you believe how a few semi-official representatives were actually representing the whole of ROC in a shadowy meeting and achieved a "consensus", while at the same time the president of ROC Lee Teng-Hui made a firm rebuttal of any consensus being reached, is demonstrating a complete lack of refined and precise understanding of how democracies operate.
There is no question whether it exists; the issue is which side should rule China, although both sides agreed that the mainland and Taiwan are both parts of China.
The 1992 Consensus was the outcome of a November 1992 meeting in
"Both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only one China. However, the two sides of the Strait have different opinions as to the meaning of 'one China.' To