Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again whitewashing. You didn't claim "overwhelming", you didn't claim "UN". You said that no one recognized ROC as a independent country, you claimed that ROC had no embassies. You were wrong. Period.
Dude just admit you were wrong and then move on. Is that really so difficult? Once you admit your error, we can continue the discussion. But you have ruined your credibility on anything and everything concerning China.
Dream on...
You sound like a bot. When a human says things like 'nobody cares' or 'nobody likes that', it doesn't mean that nobody cares or likes that, either. It means that nobody that matters cares or likes that.
Wiki, really? Forget Wiki when it comes to politics....
Ironic that you are questioning Wiki for accuracy when you yourself have a trend of factual misinformation in this thread. Admit you were wrong and then we can discuss further.
You sound like a bot. When a human says things like 'nobody cares' or 'nobody likes that', it doesn't mean that nobody cares or likes that, either. It means that nobody that matters cares or likes that.
What is the world are you even talking about?
But back to the point - admit you are wrong and we can discuss further.
It has inherited them. Maintained? It takes two sides to solve a border conflict. As long as India is not willing to settle its conflict with China, there is nothing China can do.
When you say "settle its conflict with China", I assume you mean giving in to CCPs demands?
And there are lots of things China could do, for instance, moving its military away from the border.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Which territories does the PRC claim that the RC had not already claimed? I saw a map that showed both countries' claims, and they overlapped. In fact, Taiwan is the territory with most territorial claims worldwide.
You are changing the topic, we were talking about border conflicts not claims.
There was lots of border conflicts that did not exist under RC administration of the mainland, for instance South China Sea.
And while Taiwan claims the same area as Qing, it does not do anything about it, which is what really matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Sure, I have heard of reforms, but those are implemented by the HK political system, not by Beijing.
You are changing the topic. I said that reducing the electorate share from 50% to 22% show that HK is not doing well like you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And the national security law is just one law of many. The vast majority of laws in HK are local ones. It is called NATIONAL security for a reasons, It is not a local HK issue, but a national issue, and thus of course Beijing's business. The implementation of a national security law in HK has been part of HKs basic law from the very start a quarter of a century ago. But HK has failed to do so for quite some time. So Beijing had to step in. If Kansas City kept violating laws and obligations concerning national security for decades, Washington would sooner or later step in.
Kansas City is ruled by Washington, so you are just defeating your own argument that HK is not ruled by the CCP.
And lots of local laws are actually made in Beijing.
Ironic that you are questioning Wiki for accuracy when you yourself have a trend of factual misinformation in this thread. Admit you were wrong and then we can discuss further.
Nope, China is a democracy, regardless of what Wiki says. What has given Wiki away as a propaganda outlet is the analysis of moderator activity on various political pages.
When you say "settle its conflict with China", I assume you mean giving in to CCPs demands?
And there are lots of things China could do, for instance, moving its military away from the border.
You are changing the topic, we were talking about border conflicts not claims.
There was lots of border conflicts that did not exist under RC administration of the mainland, for instance South China Sea.
And while Taiwan claims the same area as Qing, it does not do anything about it, which is what really matters.
You are changing the topic. I said that reducing the electorate share from 50% to 22% show that HK is not doing well like you claim.
Kansas City is ruled by Washington, so you are just defeating your own argument that HK is not ruled by the CCP.
Why would China withdraw its troops from the border when India does not? China doesn't trust India and for a good reason, India already started a war decades ago. It's funny, India has a Western democratic mask, but behind that it actually is a rogue state. With China it is the other way round.
What do you mean by border in the first place? The LAC?
Again, a conflict takes at least two sides. China did not wake up one fine day and decide to militarize a few of those SCS islands. It was a response to Obama's Pivot to Asia and war games aimed at blocking China's access to the Pacific.
How does the electorate share say anything about whether or not HK is doing well?! HK is not an abstract idea, it is a city with millions of people. And when those people are doing well, HK is doing well. And HK people are doing well again, after a few years of turmoil.
Kansas City is not ruled by Washington at all, but by a city council or whatever it is called in the US. Yet there are a few aspects where federal authority might kick in. Such as national security.
Wiki, really? Forget Wiki when it comes to politics. It is fine with science etc., but Wiki has been shown to be infiltrated by very right-wing people. They even have a page on the Uyghur Genocide, although there is none according to the UN and even the US.
China is a democracy, just very different from the Western type. There are a lot of different types of democracy, but the West has hijacked that word and equals it with the Western type only, which is a serious mistake, well, actually a deliberate distortion.
The word democracy has a meaning, derived from Greek. The word does not include multiple political parties or general elections. That is all just typical of the Western type of it, yet optional.
And China luckily does not have those things, which is why it has a consistent government and a society that is not split into ideological sections, unlike in the West.
The communist party is so huge that it already is a kind of parliament in itself because it is home to people with different views.
The scholar in the video explained it a bit, although I have read much more exhaustive descriptions of how the system works in detail.
And no, democracy and communism are not a contradiction at all. The West keeps repeating that lie ad nausea because it is angry that China goes its own way and very well so. The Chinese people confirm their system works fine in one international survey after another.
You know, the West has such distorted views of reality. Not only does is it utterly intolerant towards anyone that rejects the Western ways, it also lacks the capability to look at itself critically. Else the West would see that the Western type of democracy actually sucks and is no example for anyone to follow. Living here in Portugal, it is just a sad theater play.
This is what you wrote
Paragraph 1: Wiki is bad
Paragraph 2: The west has hijacked democracy.
Paragraph 3: Democracy does not need to have multiple parties.
Paragraph 4: The communist party is big and diverse. (off-topic and completely false)
Paragraph 5: The scholar in the video
Paragraph 6: Democracy and communism are not a contradiction. China is doing well.
Paragraph 7: Off topic hate against the west.
Even if we accept your premise that democracy can mean something else, which I agree with, you did not spend any part of this long post explaining how China is a democracy.
There are many ways I could explain how China is not a democracy, but the clearest indication is that there are no ways the people of China can replace a leader without getting support from the elite or by a revolution.
Why would China withdraw its troops from the border when India does not?
Because that is the responsible thing to do if you want to avoid military conflict.
And even though you will refuse to believe it, I don't think there will be lots of Indian troops there either, as India would be more concerned about Pakistan.
Quote:
How does the electorate share say anything about whether or not HK is doing well?! HK is not an abstract idea, it is a city with millions of people. And when those people are doing well, HK is doing well. And HK people are doing well again, after a few years of turmoil.
Why would they be reducing the electorate's share of votes, if HK is doing great? They clearly know that HK-ers hate them and will vote them out.
Quote:
Kansas City is not ruled by Washington at all, but by a city council or whatever it is called in the US. Yet there are a few aspects where federal authority might kick in. Such as national security.
Any decision made by the Kansas City city council can be overruled by Washington. And lots of laws do come directly from Washington. For instance ACA.
And just like the US, Beijing rules HK and is not hesitating to implement its decrees directly or indirectly.
This is what you wrote
Paragraph 1: Wiki is bad
Paragraph 2: The west has hijacked democracy.
Paragraph 3: Democracy does not need to have multiple parties.
Paragraph 4: The communist party is big and diverse. (off-topic and completely false)
Paragraph 5: The scholar in the video
Paragraph 6: Democracy and communism are not a contradiction. China is doing well.
Paragraph 7: Off topic hate against the west.
Even if we accept your premise that democracy can mean something else, which I agree with, you did not spend any part of this long post explaining how China is a democracy.
There are many ways I could explain how China is not a democracy, but the clearest indication is that there are no ways the people of China can replace a leader without getting support from the elite or by a revolution.
4: It is not false. In fact there are often heated discussions between CPC members as they try to find the right path. Just like with any organization: different people - different opinions. The CPC is like a huge pool of ideas, as the guy in the video also explained. The CPC is NOT a party in the Western sense. I would actually recommend China to drop the word 'party' altogether. Because party comes from part, and linguistically a party only makes sense when there are at least two of them.
China is democratic insofar as people have their say one way or another. They have various channels for people to contribute. Their feedback is the basis for laws and regulations.
I don't hate the West (although there are more than enough reasons to do so), but I am realistic and not a fan of the Western type of democracy.
What do you mean by "the people"? Here in Portugal "the people" can't get rid of the prime minister or president, either. Also, you imply that "the people" are some unified block that all want the same thing. But that is not the case at all as you can see in the US. Half the population loves Trump and hates Biden, the other half the other way round.
Nor is the president in the US elected by the people, but by a tiny elite, the electoral college, which is free to elect any candidate they wish, regardless of the election results.
In China the president and many other officials are selected based on merit. A president like Trump is impossible in China.
China is democratic insofar as people have their say one way or another. They have various channels for people to contribute. Their feedback is the basis for laws and regulations.
Having elites that listen to the people is not democracy.
Democracy describes the system, not the leaders.
Quote:
What do you mean by "the people"? Here in Portugal "the people" can't get rid of the prime minister or president, either.
Clearly wrong, all that is required is to get enough people to vote for another president. It might not be immediate, but unlike China there is a way.
Quote:
The president is elected in a two-round system: if no candidate reaches 50% of the votes during the first round, the two candidates with the most votes face each other in a second round held two weeks later.
Also, you imply that "the people" are some unified block that all want the same thing. But that is not the case at all as you can see in the US. Half the population loves Trump and hates Biden, the other half the other way round.
Off topic.
Quote:
Nor is the president in the US elected by the people, but by a tiny elite, the electoral college, which is free to elect any candidate they wish, regardless of the election results.
Please check the election result and compare it with electoral college and come back to us.
Quote:
In China the president and many other officials are selected based on merit.
Being selected by merit is not democracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
