Every type of governance has pros and cons and no one is perfect, that's normal, now we only see US governance is more problematic than China's, enjoy your funny Trump rule and next time you might put a stand comedian in white house like Ukraine did.
Xi rules. Trump manages. Big difference.
Ha, China follows team leadership, every top leader has to prove their worth through decades of hardworking and achievements, US election is just a popular contest, waste of money and time, very often clowns like Trump get elected, I admit I have no say in the Chinese governnment, do you really think you have any influence in US governmment? If you do, you're just being brainwashed beyond any help.
We have a clown. You have a crook. And please, do not insult everyone's intelligence by saying Xi is not a crook. Every Chinese leader before him was a crook.
Very good.
More than you.
The fact that our presidential candidates must campaign among the people, from Wall Street executives to Walmart shoppers means I have influence. No matter how small, I still have it.
As long as you also think Trump is a clown, that'll be good, at least it's a improvemnet for you. Next time choose a stand comedian, people love to see comedies.
Haha, how would you like to influence your government?
That's how you find idiots and clowns like Bush and Trump I guess.
you probably misread or misunderstand my words. I was not taking any position. I simply pointed out that you guys might talk pass each other because of different understandings on what 'right' is.Here we go again...
'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'
Do YOU support the idea that we should have different political weight for different people? Mr. AViet, like most critics of Western style democracy on this forum, is heavy on rhetoric but light on details.
Do I want the prof in my house? Yes. But not the drug addict. Am no different than anyone else.
But HOW are we to differentiate out the prof and the drug addict in the eyes of the government? That is fair question to your, or whoever, criticism of my method.
The implication here is that by allowing the prof and the drug addict the same weight politically, that is leading to the destruction of Western style democracy. But if you criticize but offer no alternative, that is call 'whining'.
Right now, your China's method of governance is problematic and you know it. Never mind 'positive' or 'negative' right. Never mind what kind of 'freedom' you have or do not have. YOU are politically lower weight than the children of the lowest Party member. In theory, maybe not, but in practice, you are. Those who make the rules can shield themselves and anyone from those rules. Those who have the power to grant 'rights' and 'freedoms' have the power to take them away whenever convenient.
In the Western model, it is 'God', whatever opinion of 'God' you may have is for a different debate, that grants 'rights' and 'freedoms'. In China, it is the government that grants 'rights' and 'freedoms', and right now, you have a 'social credit' system that is beginning to politically differentiate Chinese from each other. Do YOU approve of that model of governance? Fair question.
Mao took over China by war, a military leader, he founded PRC, he was not chosen by the current PRC selection system. All leaders after him were the result of the merits based Chinese selection system, they all manage China hundreds of times better than US idiots and clowns popularity based presidents who very often had no experience in running anything. I will take Chinese selection system any day over farce clown show of US elections.
The whole point of Mao was a military leader and he took over by force, he was an exception that was not the result of the Chinese current selection system based on past management experience and achievements. Washington was also not elected by general a election but he won a war against UK, you can't say his way to the office is the norm of US politics today.
What executive experience did Mao have when he violently took over China? And what of the many disasters that China suffered under Mao? But of course, in PDF, nothing bad had ever happened to China. No wonder China was such a technology powerhouse during the Cold War decades.
Better than a murderer and a crook.
By voting. Look it up.
Both men would run circles around all of the PDF Chinese. Trump is unsophisticated, but not stupid. That is where you are confused. Bush was deliberately acting inept so people would underestimate him.
Keep in mind your China's leadership adopted Lysenko-ism, an agricultural and scientific nonsense on the scale of flat Earth.
Read it again and Mao was dead for half a century already but your mind was still stuck in his time.What executive experience did Mao have when he violently took over China? And what of the many disasters that China suffered under Mao? But of course, in PDF, nothing bad had ever happened to China. No wonder China was such a technology powerhouse during the Cold War decades.
China's leadership is based on thousands of years old Confucian meritocracy, read more of the Chinese history if you like to learn more.
It's a farce if you think you can change anything by voting. US republicans and democrats are basically the same, winner takes all policy prevent all small parties from having any chances, and in case of junior Bush and Trump, most Americans voted for theie opponents but they still got elected. US presidents usually have strong back ground or rich like Bush dynasty and billionaire Trump, Chinese leaders all have to started from a lower level, most of them village level manangement jobs and work their way up based on their achievements. US system stubbornly refuses to change with time just like you, while China system is very flexible and can keep rolling with the punches.
Friend , the anericans can throw out trump in 2020 should they choose. Can you guys do so. You are right that Mao is dead. But you cannot prevent the next Mao. Xi has just taken permanent chair. People who dont like it have no choice
We can prevent that from happening in the first place before the damage had been made.
