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.
Best do some homework and read up. Certainly is dictator for life. He had the CCP constitution changed.
So much for democracy in CCP China.
Dictator for life.
The constitution was changed to rid term limits. It doesn't give him a right to rule for life. He still has to stand for election every set amount of years.
in my opinion, the decision for who got the top job should not be voted by everyone.
I don't have much comment about Russia because I don't know their history, nor their government really.
but here in the US, we have endless election cycles of ROP or Dems that undo the work of each other when they take turns in office and no progress can be made.
That's a recent phenomenon, and yes, it's obnoxious and very counter-productive.
In the USA anyway.
Truman was a shoe salesman.
Eisenhower was a army general.
Kennedy came from a wealty family.
Johnson was a school teacher.
Nixon was a flunky.
Ford was, well Ford.
Carter was a peanut farmer.
Reagan was a movie star.
Bush 1 was the CIA director.
Clinton was, well Clinton.
Bush 2 was a basebal owner.
Obama was a social worker.
Trump was a bankrupt landlord.
Clinton and Reagan had both been Governor of the state they were from. Clinton was governor of Arkansas for nearly 12 years. Reagan was governor of California for 8. And his was a highly controversial governorship.
no, they are polititians. Jiang started his work as underground CCP in shanghai during the both wars.
the other two has taken many positions before getting into the commitee. I don't know about businessmen, but lawyers and diplomats are fair game. You didn't know that Xi sort of served as a deploymat during his time in the US?
Well yeah of course they're politicians. How does one become a head of state in any country without being a politician? You're certainly not going to get hired to become head of state. I'm talking about their backgrounds and how that leads to a different sense and understanding of how to tackle problems. You can still have an engineering background and be a successful diplomat and state official but your understanding is going to be different than someone whose background is in law, the humanities, or business. Don't you ever notice that Xi often seeks the optimal solution rather than the fairest solution. That's what you do as an engineer, you always aim to find the solution that works best to rectify the situation, not the solution that satisfies all parties, which is what American presidents, governors, mayors, and town managers have long been doing. If you live in the US, look around you. How many engineers become politicians or government officials, especially compared to individuals with other backgrounds?
Best do some homework and read up. Certainly is dictator for life. He had the CCP constitution changed.
So much for democracy in CCP China.
Dictator for life.
That's the problem with you China haters, you are ill-informed and base your prejudice on that lack of knowledge.
In this case you are wrong on two accounts:
- the change of the constitution merely removed the TERM LIMIT; the president and vice president need to be reelected at the end of each term, now it is like in Germany, before it was like in the US
- it was not Xi that made the changes to the constitution, but the people's congress, kind of China's parliament (where there are even representatives associated with Taiwan, namely the Kuomintang and the Taiwan self-government party)
Even propaganda outlet Wikipedia says the truth in this respect:
Quote:
Removal of term limits
In March 2018, the party-controlled National People's Congress passed a set of constitutional amendments including removal of term limits for the president and vice president, the creation of a National Supervisory Commission, as well as enhancing the central role of the Communist Party. On 17 March 2018, the Chinese legislature reappointed Xi as president, now without term limits; Wang Qishan was appointed vice president. The following day, Li Keqiang was reappointed premier and longtime allies of Xi, Xu Qiliang and Zhang Youxia, were voted in as vice-chairmen of the state military commission. Foreign minister Wang Yi was promoted to state councillor and General Wei Fenghe was named defence minister.
According to the Financial Times, Xi expressed his views of constitutional amendment at meetings with Chinese officials and foreign dignitaries. Xi explained the decision in terms of needing to align two more powerful posts—General Secretary of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC)—which have no term limits. However, Xi did not say whether he intended to serve as party general secretary, CMC chairman and state president, for three or more terms.
Been hearing about China in the news lately. China's human rights issues have been talked about. This got me remembering how people were assuming how if China became more capitalist this would then lead to more democracy. This must be why so many American business people got into doing business in China even with their human rights issues. Do these U.S. businesses need to rethink things?
Don't delude yourself.
America, and by extension Americans/capitalists (the ones that are truly running the country), don't care about human rights (for the most part).
They went into China because unions were gaining strength in the 60s-70s and labor costs were cutting into profit margins. They sought after a huge, disciplined labor force to produce their goods for cheap and later on, tap into a huge market to sell their widgets.
By the looks of it, they got their wish.
The top 1% tremendously increased their wealth with huge profit margins from cheap labor, and the middle class in China that has grown considerably can now afford many of the goods.
If human rights were a concern, they would've stopped all the illegal immigrant labor working for slave wages at home in the US, not to mention all the slave labor in the largest prison system in the world.
And on democracy, they don't care about that either. Look no further than the dozens of democratically elected leaders they overthrew or assassinated.
America is a monopolistic corporation. They only care about profit at any cost, and that includes blowing up brown people on the other side of the world.
That's the problem with you China haters, you are ill-informed and base your prejudice on that lack of knowledge.
In this case you are wrong on two accounts:
- the change of the constitution merely removed the TERM LIMIT; the president and vice president need to be reelected at the end of each term
Semantics, dear Comrade.
A twist of the language. The end result is the SAME.
Fidel Castro was "elected". Dictator for life. Oh, wait. It was only 49 years and he retired at age 81. Then his younger brother was "elected".
Xi has eliminated all of his oppositon under the guise of "corruption". So the one party "election" is a moot point.
A twist of the language. The end result is the SAME.
Fidel Castro was "elected". Dictator for life. Oh, wait. It was only 49 years and he retired at age 81. Then his younger brother was "elected".
Xi has eliminated all of his oppositon under the guise of "corruption". So the one party "election" is a moot point.
You are naive if you think that people in the US elect their president. He or she is selected by a small group of people called the electoral college, which can ignore the election results. They could have chosen Trump again.
The same goes for many other countries, where the people don't elect the leader.
Cuba has a rather different system compared with modern China.
Funny how the West tries to see negative things in everything China does. The war on corruption is pretty effective. The CIA recently complained in a report that China's war on corruption is so thorough that it has become virtually impossible to buy "assets" in and thus spy on China
I don't subscribe to the Western type of democracy, I am not obsessed with the idea of an opposition. An opposition is not some sort of natural law. There is no opposition in Saudi-Arabia and such countries, either, but nobody in the West seems to mind. Compared to Saudi-Arabia China is super democratic. Why? Because the talk of values etc. is just empty talk. Nobody in the West cares about those things, Americans are by far the biggest human rights offenders on the planet.
Well yeah of course they're politicians. How does one become a head of state in any country without being a politician? You're certainly not going to get hired to become head of state. I'm talking about their backgrounds and how that leads to a different sense and understanding of how to tackle problems. You can still have an engineering background and be a successful diplomat and state official but your understanding is going to be different than someone whose background is in law, the humanities, or business. Don't you ever notice that Xi often seeks the optimal solution rather than the fairest solution. That's what you do as an engineer, you always aim to find the solution that works best to rectify the situation, not the solution that satisfies all parties, which is what American presidents, governors, mayors, and town managers have long been doing. If you live in the US, look around you. How many engineers become politicians or government officials, especially compared to individuals with other backgrounds?
our last president just did exactly that. that's the dangerous of democracy. it's a popular contest
Germany had at that time 25x the population of Norway and had direct access to Norway. And even then, Norway resisted for two months, kept doing anti-German activity and kept society functional.
China was dealing with an enemy that had to travel thousands of miles by ship and had a significant smaller population. China should have been able to defend itself.
And the Viking area was 1000 years ago, 900 years before Norway implemented full democracy. The fact that you think that is a good example, just tell me that you have lost your mind.
Also, China is ruled by the elites not the people.
Is Korea inside China?
And how would the atomic bomb help China in the Korean War? The UN forces didn't expect that China would get involved so they would have repelled North Korea's attack and pushed into North Korea anyway.
where did I say that it did? the atomic bomb came way after. The consequence of the korean war is that it slowed china down as they didn't get much breather after the civil war. it also helped the KMT to survive in taiwan. What's funny is that soviet and the US never fought, but china and the US did.
and please stop go into the population lead to power. If that's the case, you germanic tribes would not colonizing half of the world in the last 300 years. These land would still belong to the once massively populated native americans/australians
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.
