TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Sure, when you vote do you also check EXACTLY what each party will do if elected? Any way for you to make sure they do it? Why is it not a problem for Obama but it is a problem for Xi? Just because Xi rose on the bases of his merit rather than 180 million people decided black is the new white.
Why those changes for China? It's either what the people "wanted," same as what American people wanted( how many even understand economic policy to want something), or it's what CCP did. So it's either CCP or the People, the alternative can only be Santa Clause, because someone has to do something and it has to be for some reason.
I'm not accusing you in particular of anything, just that mentioning the CCP as China is in fact a mistake. Mentioning the CCP that way, implies it has some set agenda, and not just the usual staying in power which is true of anyone anywhere, set policy, set anything.
This may work better like when the Soviets and the US was at odds, but doesn't really apply to today's world, as the CCP is what the country demands. According to a paper I seen, CCP is the most diverse and the most flexible party since its creation, it has done more u turns than anyone else.
Essentially we did a Soviet 1991 without changing the name of the party, every decade or so.
I am not saying democracy is good or bad, for China or otherwise, not at this moment anyways. My point is that it could happen, and totalitarian also resulted in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, including at one point us.
Saying one would be better than the other is not applicable or helpful, as we cannot know how it will happen, what we do know is what did happen.
Is China's accomplishment enough up to this point? That's for you and me to decide, what we can't decide is if the other way would have been better, that's way too big an assumption.
My bringing up problems of democracy simply proves as such. It could happen, it may not, but it could and it has, in other parts of the world including one country eerily similar to ours.
All empires fall, for good reason.
Who decides this in America? Voters?
US is far closer to the medium than China, China is a hole compared to the US, anyone that disagrees is a sap. My point isn't China US, it's China with regards to countries that started in front of us, which incidentally is almost everyone(though I could argue that's not close to true, but in terms of GDP per capita it certainly is.)
China is a big Child, but a child none the less, China is a 7'10 child, that can pummel any adult, barring the extremely skilled and toned 7'5 adult that is the US.
China is fragile in relations to the US, ONLY to the US. US is a monster, at this point in time, you can't hold us to your standard.
Before I can answer, who is this self. It would make sense in an dynasty were one would succeed the next based on the arbitrary criteria of race or birth.
Chinese CCP is China, it is a party made up of anyone that wants to join, regardless of birth, age, color, or race or gender.
Does all 1.3 billion have to make that decision for it to be a people's choice? What if the people's choice is to leave it to the other people that chose this career.
In the US the delegates chooses the candidate, people don't, you choose the party, not Romney or Obama, but Republican or Democrat. All we did is combine the two party's delegates, and all the people voted the same way. Seeing as there are a certain number of registered party member and certain people only vote one way, it's just a few month of TV attacks and debates that decides the presidency.
We split on the fundamental difference between China and America, the majority or the minority. America needs to focus on the minority to win, as the majority are the ones that already decided. China focuses on majority.
China isn't as developed as America, if we focus on the minority, we are India, proof is that there is an India. America can focus on the minority, because the majority is well off enough.
"Outstanding !!!!!!! (as always) " ... except, perhaps, that you really do not have to justify China's model by US standards, my friend. That's, as well as the vice versa, is demeaning.
Just as we do not care about their system does not mean we do not have certain opinion on their system. We just know how to separate the two and do not judge their regime based on our own standards.
Last edited: