You're viewing a single thread.
My problem with this message is that it's being sent by the same people whose legislators would never decrease defence spending and would spend the bare minimum on infrastructure. In fact, just recently, the House Republicans managed to pass H.R. 4365 with 216 R and 2 D, a 826 Bn USD Defence Budget, which is an increase of 26 Bn since the previous year and 100 Bn more than the year before that.
Yall don't give a fuck about infrastructure or deficit unless somebody else is president.
I think you've got the wrong Reds lol
I really don't, the people who spread this sort of message and take a stand against the USA supporting Ukraine defence and sovereignty are majority Republicans. Theres even top comments on this post talking about "the libs" in a derogatory manner.
You really do.
Republicans want to stop funding Ukraine cause they want war with China. We want them to stop funding Ukraine because it would be the quickest way to end the conflict peacefully.
Republicans are libs too. Libs are anyone who support capitalism and it's ideals.
Lmao Republican voters don't give a f*** about China. They just think Russia is their friend, which makes the largest foreign threat in their eyes China as a fallback.
You must have missed the constant "China bad" propaganda literally playing on every American news network
I do miss a lot of that stuff, literally and not figuratively. I spend a lot of time in forums and comments sections as well as looking at more global news sources that allow me to take things in a little faster than a slow CNN or Fox News video essay would.
China's done a lot of good things, for sure, but this discussion isn't really about China, is it? It's about how the USA spends it's budget, which is a clear cut partisan issue that isn't fairly represented.
That's a weird comment? I think Xi Jinping is doing a great job as president. Oh wait, you're thinking of Miguel Bermúdez, my bad, that was silly of me.
This is a weird comment, I think Miguel Bermúdez is doing a great job as president.
Oh ha ha did the post not specifically mention the USA? Did it not talk about the USA spending specifically on supporting Ukraine defence and sovereignty, an issue divided by partisanship? I wonder what temporary president I would be talking about, is it the literal dictator for life Xi Xinping? HMMMM such a mystery I clearly made a mistake lololol. /sarcasm
Let's dissect this. In your original comment, you ascribed an origin to OP, and implied a motivation for them. This is the crux of me making fun of you. OP is extremely unlikely to be from the USA, or make a distinction between the two wings of the bureaucracy making up the regime in power in the USA. Xi Jinping has held his current position for 11 years, Miguel Bermúdez for 4 years. Neither are dictators, because they are leaders of democracies. Hope this was informative.
A leader for life whose party is the singular party in government, sounds like a dictator bro.
It would. Who are you talking about? Xi Jinping? Xi Jinping is not leader for life, he's leader as long as he's re-elected. He's also not the leader of the government, China has a Prime Minister, you doofus. His party is also not the singular party that makes up the government. http://www.cppcc.gov.cn/zxww/2023/01/18/ARTI1674005617470226.shtml
And something you left out is that the party he's from is literally the communist party of China, which means his party's special interest group is the people of China. Which is what democracy is. But a party representing and subservient to the people is a foreign concept to people who live in dictatorial countries and have to choose which powerful aristocrat to align themselves with.
Xi Jinping won reelection with 100% of the vote. 2,952 out of 2,977 congressional votes were present and voted for him which is a 100.00% margin.
Xi Jinping and his singular party removed the term limit for Xi Jinping, meaning as long as his party is in control then he will always be president. For Life.
You're trying to massage the idea that a leader for life, who can never be removed because no other party can have a seat in their congress, is a functioning democracy? Really? What a hill to die on.
The party can always remove any leader including Xi Jinping if he is no longer performing his role according to the party and the people's expectations. Also, there are numerous (at least eight) other parties represented in the National People's Congress of China other than the CPC. On top of that there is a larger proportion of independents than in the US congress. But this is beside the point because it would still be a democratic system even if there was only one party allowed.
He won with 100%. 2,952 votes present and for.
A dissident in the Chinese congress gets removed with immediate effect.
He is dictator for life.
Tell me you have no idea how China's political system works without telling me you have no idea how China's political system works.
Also, are you going to admit you were wrong when you claimed, quote
"no other party can have a seat in their congress"
or are you just going to sweep that lie or embarrassing admission of ignorance under the rug?
Why are you moving the goalposts? If Xi Jinping has to be periodically confirmed in his position by the representatives of the Chinese people then he is not "dictator for life" then is he? The fact that you cannot imagine a political consensus like that existing over a genuinely successful and popular leader is simply a testament to the dysfunction of your own liberal western political systems.
Furthermore, please show us evidence for this claim:
"A dissident in the Chinese congress gets removed with immediate effect."
Where in China's laws does it say this and when has this ever happened?
LMAO, nice quote who is it from? Even children make better arguments than to make up a statement and claim it's a quote of the other person.
I think the burden of proof would be on you in this case.
Literally you two comments ago:
"You're trying to massage the idea that a leader for life, who can never be removed because no other party can have a seat in their congress, is a functioning democracy? Really? What a hill to die on."
Will you admit you were wrong or will you deny your own words?