“Baby level understanding” is not an objection. You have to say something more specific Dessalines.
I’m mostly half-serious.
“Baby level understanding” is not an objection. You have to say something more specific Dessalines.
The Communist Party is based in the Leninist principle of “democratic centralism”. This means “debate within the party, unity in action”. It is meant to make the party more powerful by allowing dissent and debates within the party, but when it comes to taking action, all members are expected to follow the consensus even if they disagreed with it.
Since China’s Congress is primarily members of the Communist Party, this means that the decision of the president ultimately originates in the Communist Party itself. After they reach a consensus, the whole party will vote for that consensus in the Congress. While there technically are smaller parties in China’s Congress, they act more as advisors, since it is not practically possible for them to overturn the vote, since the CPC always votes in unity.
Formally, China’s president is elected by the Congress. But the decision of who to elect largely comes back to the CPC itself before they come to a consensus. So the final decision largely originates in the Politburo and the Central Committee.
The president in China is harder to shift on a dime than like in the US. The president is not elected by a nation-wide vote but by the Congress itself. To change who the Congress elects, you have to change the opinions of the largest party in that Congress, you have to change the opinions of the CPC
Xi is not technically a dictator in the same way that Putin is not technically a dictator. He is in control of a governing body that could replace him on paper, but never will. And he has dictatorial powers without real checks/balances. And, to return to my original point, it may appear that this system is fine if it produces a good result, but the power of the government should come from the will of the people.
I’m not sure if it’s intentional, but you’re missing the point
By this logic, a monarchy that keeps the aristocracy in line is better than the US democracy. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
I’m simultaneously rooting for the predator while rooting for the prey to get away
Reasonable people can disagree about the rules, the point is the mods are inconsistent.
(But seriously, do you really want to say one is worse than the other?)
In my experience, the mods on lemmy.ml are particularly biased. Like it’s okay to joke about American school shootings but not about abortions biased. But after a while I just stopped posting there. (I barely post to lemmy at all now, but that’s another story.)
If I know the internet, this picture was commissioned by somebody with a fetish
Just because a problem is worse somewhere else, doesn’t make the problem trivial here.
An eight hour retrospective on Morrowind? Sign me the fuck up
Preaching to the choir. The people who need to see this never will.
Maybe you could say this if the election was close. But the Gaza-Isreal voters are a drop in the bucket.
The funny thing is, if you don’t fit into the culture (or even just disagree with moderation) people tell you to go start your own. Which is like telling you to go sit in a corner by yourself.
The culture is not conducive here; Lemmings have no chill.
There’s always been terrible things going on, but now the internet allows us to inundate ourselves with news daily.
Shit like this makes people go back to reddit. At least there’s more content and getting banned from one million user subreddit doesn’t stop you from going to another big sub. Here, if you get banned in one or two of the big instances you have to become a lurker. I take pride in being able to disagree with the dominant opinion in a reasonable way, but these .ml mods are unreasonable.