Just say what you mean.
Democrats are the party of the wealthy now, btw.
https://politicalsciencenow.co...
I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.
It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.
So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.
From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.
An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.
The Left assumes the Right is just the same sort of Cult of Personality that they themselves are, just on the other side.*
*(Sadly, as an old school conservative, I'm actually just as or more troubled by the what-we-formerly-called-neoCons and activist Republicans who DO act just like Dems just marching behind a different flag, cf the FCC/Kimmel thing I think is a conservative own-goal because it is asinine the US gov't is 'weighing in' on the content of some mid-talent late night show with like 120k viewers. Likewise most of Trump's bombast just gets in the way of what he's trying to do.)
They don't realize the Left and the Right FUNDAMENTALLY see the relationship to power differently, in a different framework, and with an entirely different context.
I know the global climate change strawman is pretty much everywhere. I've been fighting you morons on this for 30 years since IPCC 2. That's back when they left their sources online - eg tree ring data - so I could gophur it, throw the raw data into excel and see there was NO SUCH TREND as discussed.
"Climate is changing" well yes it's always changed
"but now it's warming" yes we're coming out of an interglacial, duh?
"no, HUMANS are causing this" they really aren't; the climb of temperature is basically identical in scope, slope, and timing to the previous 30x-40x spikes we've seen in paleoclimate reconstructions every 120k-ish years for around the last 4 million years. Temp spikes, then settles back to a rough norm.
"(increasingly shrill) THIS TIME IT'S PEOPLE you fascist!" well, now you have to explain a) how you can discern this is different from one of those, b) where the previous usual expected spike went, and c) how the earth's climate systems that responded to the previous repeat events won't do exactly the same thing.
"grr but 97% of climate scientists agree!" that's been debunked so many times I'm not bothering to do it again. How curious that people who make their living and gov't grants from declaring the sky is falling, insist that indeed, the sky is falling.
"fuck you nazi" yeah, right back at you.
The funny thing is I *absolutely* agree that human activity is very likely increasing the warming to some degree, or if not that, it's probable that a longer steady warming over centuries was suppressed by heavy particulate load from the industrial revolution; our SUCCESS at (and economic changes) clearing/reducing particulates has resulted in the system 'rebounding' likely appearing to be sudden warming.
I also agree it's stupid to shit where you eat, and we absolutely need to work on stronger efforts to clean water, clean air, and a cleaner environment wherever possible.
I just think that this whole discussion is a bullshit trend that the ecomarxists and left have barnacled onto and my failing to genuflect to their Catastrophist Creed and Holy CO2 Ghost marks me as an apostate. (shrug) I don't give a shit.
Is that ELI5 for you? I don't expect to change your mind but occasionally I like to lay it out there on the ridiculously small chance someone other than you reads it.
You dumb fuck already complained that "I was only talking about a study of northern cities" so it's a little hard to claim that you don't know precisely what data I was referring to.
Although I will agree you're pretty convincing at playing stupid.
Awful.
Worse, EVEN IF YOU CHANGE THE SETTINGS the shit will just revert at some random patch in the future (not every one, so you can't get into the habit of always fixing it...).
I'm an idiot, so I've now made the mistake out of perhaps weird optimism TWICE: trying to disable onedrive (or limit it),
Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.
China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.
Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.
Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.
Fuck off with the "AI everything".
I can't do a fucking decent Boolean query of my outlook emails.
Excel combo drop-downs still don't even recognize the mouse wheel.
There are probably 100 things with MS Office that I would suggest fixing before you fucking bolt on a not-really-Al, thanks.
Oh, and onedrive is fucking cancer.
So is teams.
So present other data, you tendentious chud.
Neither is the earth getting meaningfully warmer outside of what would expect coming out of an interglacial, but that doesn't stop you saying stupid shit, does it?
Do you people really get fifty cents per post? Surely it's more than that by now.
Never seen such a panda hugger since someone pointed out that we should have responded to J6 like China did to 6/4at Tiananmen. It lacks the polish of using the A-10s to turn them into pink mist, but calling out the tanks to turn them into pink mash worked well. Just a remincer: when you want to overthrow the government, bring guns. Lots of guns.
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.
