no. In china, rich people gets hated all the time. They do not have many supporters. They do not have the control to the propganda yet.
CCP is not a God send race to rule China from upon. 80 million CCP are Chinese people. They have at least half billion relatives who are Chinese people too. When there is a conflict between Chinese people, there will be a conflict within CCP. no doubt. Mao's left CCP killed or imprisoned right CCP in 1960s. Deng's right CCP replaced left CCP in 1980. Some CCP and their newspaper, TV, even police forces supported student's 64 in 1989. Conflicts can happen especially for Chinese people who do not believe any laws or rules historically. Every government control anything and everything important to people. USA actually have the same if not tighter control as China. Control is not the problem as long as that control is granted by the people.
I'm surprised that all the people advocating bans and limitations on people's voluntary behavior haven't bothered to respond to my first post.
Because electing a bunch of freshman Congressman in 2010 who were the products of a grassroot movement ( and yes, the Tea Party is a grass roots org - they have the support of some wealthier individuals, but there is pretty much no way that any viable organization won't) has worked out SO well for us now, hasn't it? Look, the Mr. Smith goes to Washington ideal is just that - a fantasy. And as I've said earlier, ask yourself really carefully whether you would mind your neighbor or your best friend being a member of Congress. I wouldn't. I have no clue how anything you described could be viewed as a "democracy". A one-party state is not a democracy. Period. It may be more efficient perhaps, and may make decisions better, but that doesn't make a state a democracy. And really, everyone knows that a good king or dictator is better than a good prime minister or president. The problem is that a bad king or dictator is a lot worse than a bad president. And if someone is going to go "Bush screwed things up" - imagine what COULD have happened if Bush had everything go his way, such as privatizing Social Security.
A one party system could be considered a republic since the people are represented on the committees that dictate action. I would like to more about how the one party system really works, who appoints the committee that appoints the committee. It actually seems more likely to be a crony system since there is no referendum on merit and no way to change established fiefdoms. Without a free press how would you know? If Fox news were the only outlet of information in the US, their insanity would be unchallenged truth.
This is a major contributor but has caused issues on both sides. I feel that you very rarely see the best and the brightest go into politics anymore. Part of it is the system, but most of it is that there is more money in private business. Money > then the prestige, power, and name unless that prestige, power, and name means you get more money. This of course doesn't mean no one smart and such goes into politics anymore, it just they tend to do so after making their fortune or it is "in the genes". So removing the money from politics would simply exacerbate that problem? Now you also pointed out the issue of that being politics is tied to money clouding biases and decisions with lobbiest, congressmen making extravagant money from investments, and turning the power and name into out-of-office money making deals. You have to find some balance between the two of those issues.
I've been to many countries that have more than two parties, and they have the same issues. You have to have alliances to get anything done in a democracy/republic. There are always more than 2 opinions on every subject.
John F. Kennedy and George Wallace were in the same party, Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater too. William F. Buckley and Sarah Palin are both called conservatives. Ron Paul has the most divergent politics of anyone around and he is running as a Republican. Now, that's just multiple parties parading as two.
Are you saying you wouldn't trust your friends or neighbors to serve in Congress? I'm a bit confused. I would gladly trust my friends and neighbors to represent me in Congress. You don't think its a bit hypocritical to argue for Democracy when you wouldn't even trust your friends or neighbors to represent you? I'd say its better to have fresh minds and ideas circulating through the Congress than to have career politicians serving for decades with the same stale politics that have worked SO well for us. Of course, I don't put much stock into a person who'd rely on fallacy to attack a position without providing any reasonable alternative. Honestly, I'm not even sure if you read my first post, seeing as how you neglected to respond to any of the arguments therein.
During the process, CCP has become someone whom they were fighting against. In my eyes, the real CCP, the one that represents the Chinese farmers, has already been blew up in the 1980s. Current CCP is a party for corrupt captitalism. Same as your government, they sell future and morality for money. The increased GDP does not impress me at all and I am a Chinese.
This. If we didn't just have two major political parties, then the system would be fine. The trouble is that in the United States we have two parties that dominate the system. Leading to people being forced to vote for one party or the other.
First, no I wouldn't. I want people who would know what they're doing when they are in Congress as those are the guys who have the capability of representing me the most effectively. My friends would not - not to mention there's the slight problem of that just because I'm friends with a guy, doesn't mean we share the same political views. Politically, I'm going to work with people who share the same political views as I do, which could lead to the formation of - gasp! - a political party. Secondly, I don't recall actually arguing for democracy. I just pointed out that just because China is efficient, doesn't mean it's a democracy. I know people get annoyed with the fact, but we're not a democracy, and I am someone who's generally skeptical of efforts to make it more so and REALLY skeptical of anyone who argues that more democracy= good. Something I've wondered for a while: how exactly have the career politicians screwed things up under the current circumstances? I'd argue that the main problems that this country could be laid to a large degree at the feet of Bush and the Tea Party. Both were political neophytes, who campaigned in favor of taking back Washington from those career politicians, It's the career politicians who implemented the New Deal, who passed the Civil Rights Act, who took us off the gold standard, who implemented the EPA, who forced the Soviet Union to its destruction, and so on. But yeah, you can have fresh faces like Bachmann and Palin, fresh ideas like isolationism and re-implementing the gold standard. I have no interest in that.
