'Do Not Split': A Hong Kong protest film [video]

I'd argue the reason the framing is cynical is because the two party system wasn't intentionally crafted as some sort of 'nothing changes' power structure, but is the outcome from the current incentives of our democratic system. The two parties bit is arguably a flaw the founders tried unsuccessfully to prevent (because it can lead to instability).

Your comment also implies that little changes as the parties switch power back and forth, but this isn't true. Policy is a large ship and things take time and arguing to change (which is what you want for stability, and the inevitable outcome in a democracy). But policy does change and decade over decade - things can change a lot as people struggle to improve the society.

You can read Washington's explicit warnings of political parties in his farewell address (which presciently aligns a lot with the rise of Trump): https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page...

Relevant bit:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

This is not a fact. Do you have a citation?

edit: it's also a pretty vague statement that could be satisfied by finding any two people who "can't differentiate" between HK and the CCP. You didn't say "the majority of Western HN commenters".

Boogaloo Boys do not consist of 80 million US citizens. They're a fringe group trying to be a militia. HK citizens were violent because their voices were not heard, they're not a militia, nor are they fighting to oppress and upend democracy, they're fighting for the exact opposite.