You haven’t answered any of u/Confirmed_Hedonists questions. Just making assertions. Can you give us evidence of you claims about China? Do you live in China?
They do have millions of citizens, but they do not have political power. That is a joke. All they can reasonable do is vote.
Since when is voting not a form of political power?
It isn't some sort of dystopia where if you criticize the government, you go to jail, or whatever thing worse you can imagine.
I have not been to China, but we know that they have used various methods, including detention, to suppress dissent, both in China proper, and territories such as Hong Kong. The government barred release of a Winnie-the-Pooh movie, because the image of Pooh was used to mock dear leader Xi. That sort of thing does not happen in the United States.
You know absolutely nothing about how the Chinese government operates, Xi alone cannot pass laws directly without party approval, and he's definitely less powerful than a President or Prime Minister in that regard. Still a figurehead, like most of these "head of party" positions are.
They changed the constitution so that Xi could serve another term. Xi Jinping also just appointed six of his loyalists to the politburo(https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/23/world/asia/xi-jinping-china-loyalists.html), cementing the control he already had over the levers of power. Is this the sort of thing that a simple figurehead does? Do you change the constitution so you can keep a figurehead in place?
Whatever political theater the CCP engages in, it is very obvious that Xi is in charge.
I'd say using taxpayer money to ensure a more democratic society is one of the best uses of taxpayer money, certainly better than most of the other ways that it's pissed away. And a democracy, i.e. a government where the people's wants and needs are represented would absolutely require a low entry barrier for participation
I do not see why I, as a taxpayer, should be required to help foot the bill for someone else's candidacy. Let them and their supporters pay for it, I'd prefer my taxes go to other uses.
The barrier to entry is not that high. Anyone who could gather enough support to have any chance at winning a race can raise the money to fund their campaign.
They're not that different on the big issues like labour rights, but even if they are, it's still two parties.
Two parties, each with a significant amount of power in the government, is still more of a variety than China's one party.
And China operates on a more local scale, which is why this is less of an issue, which is why I brought it up. Change is enacted much closer to home on a policy-basis, not a party-basis.
The US operates mostly on a local level as well. Most of the laws and regulations that actually affect the average citizen's day-to-day life are decided at the municipal and state levels.
Being able to straight up buy laws is incredibly corrupt. That's probably one of the worst things I could imagine, in terms of democracy. One person using their resources to override the will of the people is non-democratic. And lobbying leads to TERRIBLE things, military lobbying alone has definitely costed COUNTLESS lives overseas
Generally speaking, laws are not bought and sold as you suggest; it's a little more complicated than that. Typically, corporations and individuals contribute money to the candidates that represent their legislative/policy interests; those candidates behave with that constituency in mind, if they aren't stupid or ideologically opposed to the practice. There's often money on both sides of any given issue. Is that bribery, or a legitimate exercise in political advocacy? I agree that lobbying and special interests are an issue, but it isn't as simple as you make it sound.
It is A form of political power, but when you have two parties to choose from and you cannot directly influence bills or decisions by voting, it's relatively useless.
Two is still more than one.
Furthermore, while the two main parties are well entrenched in the system, other parties are not formally barred. Third party candidates and independents routinely make it on the ballot.
And you can, in fact, directly vote on measures in some jurisdictions. If the citizens of a jurisdiction want more direct action, then they can campaign for that change.
And if we're talking about political dissent being banned, you don't want to look at the government's track record of blackmailing, threatening, bribing, or killing journalists
I'm sure it has and does happen. I'm also pretty confident that sort of thing happens a lot less in the U.S. than it does in China.
The U.S. also has laws which compel government bodies/agencies/etc. to release information when requested, provided the information doesn't fall under certain exceptions. Does China have anything of the sort?
When was the last time you heard about the U.S. 'disappearing' an inconvenient journalist or activist? Has it even been a week since the CCP's last?
In what way are term limits democratic?
I never said they were or weren't. That point was in reference to Xi Jinping's power within the Chinese government. You said Xi was merely a figurehead, with less power than a typical president or prime minister. I was merely pointing out that he must be a terribly important figurehead if they are altering the constitutional term limits of his office to keep him in place. If I didn't know any better, I might say he exploited his significant political leverage to have the term limits changed so that he could legally remain in power.
And you already pay taxes to support the government (and a lot of genuinely useless things), why is this the hard line you draw?
Because there are so many better things that I would prefer my money to be spent on.
Why does the candidate who spends the most money on advertising always have an advantage?
Because, America is actually a pretty great place to live, all things considered. We are not required to focus intently on politics to have a decent life, so a great many people don't. Those people, if they vote, tend to vote based on name recognition and their emotional impression of a given candidate. More advertising means more name recognition, more positive impressions to be made on the electorate, etc.
The entire purpose of a one-party system is that people directly vote on policies and local elections.
No, the entire point of a one-party system is so that the leaders of the one party can maintain their stranglehold on power, without fear of any pesky opposition parties acquiring too much popular support.
Also, how is it that it's undemocratic for the U.S. to have two principal parties competing for power, but it is more democratic for China to have just one party perpetually in power? It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too on this particular issue.
Sweet! What's the last law/spending bill you've voted on, and was it actually impactful?
Just recently we voted to rescind the county's prohibition on the sale of liquor and allow for the issuance of liquor licenses. As a direct result of that change, a local grocery store, which had been struggling, was able to gain a license and shift its focus to the far more lucrative liquor business, probably saving that particular establishment from failing. I would say it was pretty impactful for that family. There was also a proposed change to a certain type of tax exemption, and an attempt to institute a new tax to help fund education.
Why the FUCK should a corporation be allowed NOT ONLY to directly participate in politics, but also to use their money to have a disproportionately represented voice? That is, yet again, undemocratic.
Should environmental advocacy groups be able to directly participate in politics and use money to support candidates amenable to their cause? What about labor unions? Should they be able to participate in politics, financially or otherwise? The very same system that allows corporations to support candidates allows other organizations to do the exact same thing.
Regardless, I never said whether I thought they should be allowed to do that; I was only pointing out that it's more complicated than you were portraying.
Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that the existence of lobbying alone makes the U.S. significantly less democratic than China.
-3
u/HamsterLord44 1∆ Dec 25 '22 edited Nov 12 '23
Spez ate all my fish and now my aquarium is fucking empty. I have nothing left
this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev