China Censors Social Media Responses To Proposal To Abolish Presidential Terms (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Negative social media reactions in China toward the government's interest in abolishing presidential term limits have sparked a crackdown on memes since Sunday evening. China's constitution currently restricts the president and vice-president to 10 years of leadership, meaning that President Xi Jinping would have been out of power by 2023. The Party's Central Committee proposed removing a phrase in the constitution that stated the two leaders would "serve no more than two consecutive terms," according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency. Authorities will vote on the proposal in March. Many took to social media platforms like WeChat and Weibo with Winnie the Pooh memes, as the animated bear resembles President Xi Jinping to some degree. Winnie the Pooh has been associated with Xi for years and this week, he donned a crown and sat on a throne, enjoying his honey pot. These memes and social media posts were then taken down, hours after the Committee's announcement, signaling that the public's reaction was more unfavorable than authorities predicted. An assortment of phrases have been filtered out by new censors, including "constitution amendment," "re-elected," "proclaim oneself as emperor," and "two term limit." The lag time between the censorship and the initial proposal indicates authorities expected the public to react less critically.

Comments

Slashdot Censors Proposals to Ban First Posts

[Anonymous Coward]

the outrage, m'ladies (tips fedora)

Re: Slashdot Censors Proposals to Ban First Posts

[Anonymous Coward]

((gives you a backrub without consent))

Re:Slashdot Censors Proposals to Ban First Posts

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(tips fedora)

You're supposed to tip the waitress. No, not like that!

Anyway, if first posts are banned, only hackers will have first posts.

On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think will happen at the end of Trump's second term?

(If you don't believe he will have a second term, you're a beautiful optimist. :] But hey, maybe they will find somebody even worse to replace him. :)

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

He won't have a second term. And the second half of his first term is going to be a shitshow after the Dems take Congress back in the fall. The Republicans haven't won a special election since that shit gibbon took office.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're overlooking one key factor: Russia will make sure that doesn't happen. The 2018 elections will be a hilarious sham.

Re:On that note:

[ravenshrike]

The dems might have had a marginal chance on that if they hadn't decided to go all in on gun control. But the did, and in doing so fucked themselves.

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he will. The dems need to learn their place of suffer the consequences of stepping out of line.

I'd actually have all that voted Hillary put to death, slowly.

Re: On that note:

[Type44Q]

You want to torture the undead?? It'd probably be like a spa treatment for her...

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think about that? Hm, let me think: Why don't fuck off you stupid asshole troll and take your uninteresting off-topic drivel elsewhere?

Re:On that note:

[butzwonker]

Please don't feed the trolls! These off-topic AC posts are obviously designed to derange other debates with fruitless US politics. There will be plenty of time in the future to discuss these kind of topics in threads about them.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except that guy that like...body slammed a reporter, won anyway, and only ended up with about a week of community service for the assault.

Lesson: All GOP candidates should take out at least 1 reporter during their campaign period.

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats: "You only think it's rigged because you are losing!"

Also Democrats: "It's rigged!"

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

She is a ghoulish lich, raping the souls of the living..

Re:On that note:

[JBMcB]

What do you think will happen at the end of Trump's second term?

That's what Republicans said about Bill Clinton. That's what Democrats said about George W. Bush. That's what Republicans said about Barack Obama.

I guess it's a "scary" question if you are too young to remember all the other times people have asked it.

Re:On that note:

[AmiMoJo]

Really?

http://news.gallup.com/poll/16...

Polls suggest they are on the side of the majority on gun control.

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

All her supporters.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

You did learn that polls aren't to be believed after the 2016 election, right? Especially when it's about an unpopular view within the media that people are worried about being stigmatized for.

Re:On that note:

[j-beda]

You did learn that polls aren't to be believed after the 2016 election, right? Especially when it's about an unpopular view within the media that people are worried about being stigmatized for.

The polls were pretty accurate in 2016. Much of the analysis and narrative around the polls turned out to be incorrect, but the polls themselves were not bad. There is little evidence that the polls had significant issues with people unwilling to state their true preferences.

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

soz m8, you're part of the problem.

Re:On that note:

[Opportunist]

Him going for a second term? Could you point to anyone who wants that?

Trump? He didn't even want a first term. He wanted a scandal to promote the media outlet he planned to spawn from the hype around it.
Republicans? The GOP wants to get rid of Trump more than the Dems could even want to, the problem is they can't simply say that they want to get rid of the annoying orange.

So who would want to see him a second time? Let alone a third one.

Re:On that note:

[sycodon]

The majority of people blame Government for the FL shooting.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's some interesting revisionist history you have there. I remember the polls putting Clinton as winning by a wide margin. Could you remind me who won?

A fun little article if you think I'm wrong, feel free to post your evidence to counter mine if you'd like.

https://www.npr.org/2016/1https://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502014643/4-possible-reasons-the-polls-got-it-so-wrong-this-year1/14/502014643/4-possible-reasons-the-polls-got-it-so-wrong-this-year

And I didn't hyperlink it for a reason, I don't like hidden links for fear of phishing/drive by malware/etc.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people blame Government for the FL shooting.

And in turn, the republicant government, their chief, and NRA blame FBI?

Re:On that note:

[phantomfive]

Just reading from your link,

"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sales of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are?"
47% - more strict
52% - less strict (or kept as they are)

Also, this one bodes ill for democrats:

Which party do you think can do a better job reflecting your views about gun control?
44% Republican party
38% Democratic party

There might be a way for Democrats to find an edge over Republicans there, but I don't see it. It doesn't help that areas that favor gun control are already safely democratic (so using this issue won't help them win any new seats).

Re:On that note:

[ProfBooty]

Also if you look at the polls, they said pretty crazy stuff like Hispanics were voting for the libertarian party at a 15% rate and Blacks were voting at a 9% rate.

They undersampled and oversampled some demographics.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Me.

I will vote for him in 2020.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, enjoy the excellent job he has done in bringing to light the crazies on both sides.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Him going for a second term? Could you point to anyone who wants that?

Mr. Bubbleboy, if his opponent is your standard issue Progressive, then I'd say half the population - perhaps even slightly more than half next time.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for sure..they'll take out another $100,000 in ads and that'll magically keep Trump in office. You two are hysterical.

Re:On that note:

[hesiod]

I don't think Russia necessarily wants Republicans, they want chaos: to make us look weak. If Trump is president with a GOP House & Dem Senate there would be a lot of bitching and blaming, but very little actually getting done. That would make the US government look ineffective and petty.

Re: On that note:

[Type44Q]

Could you point to anyone who wants that?

Depends entirely on the state of the economy and whether or not he slows or stops the 'race to the bottom' that is trade deficits, immigration/work visas, etc.

Re:On that note:

[hesiod]

Just reading from your link,

"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sales of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are?"
47% - more strict
52% - less strict (or kept as they are)

That's a very misleading representation of the data on that page. You were not using the most recent poll in the list, and lumping together 13% "less strict" with %38 "kept as now", which are not the same thing. The most recent was 60% "more" and only 5% "keep same".

Re:On that note:

[phantomfive]

That's a very misleading representation of the data on that page.

Not really. I look at that poll data and say, "This isn't an issue democrats can win on." Events of the past two decades seem to support that (ie, gun control issues haven't won). If you look at that poll data and think, "wow, democrats can really win some seats in congress with the gun control issue" I'd like to hear your reasoning, but I'm not very hopeful.

Re: On that note:

[Opportunist]

But what do you need Trump for to get that?

I never would've guessed that playing golf can solve all the problems in the world. Silly gramma thought it's chicken soup that can.

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

They sampled by population count, not weighted to electoral vote count.

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote, but from just two districts in LA and one in NYC. Had polls weighted a person's per-capita electoral value, Trump was obviously winning in a landslide.

They didn't, because they knew that's what was going to be revealed, and they were more interested in the fiction than the fact.

Re:On that note:

[omnichad]

They didn't need to do anything for our government to look ineffective and petty.

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Hillary last time, but unless Bernie is the 2020 candidate I'm voting for Trump this time.

He has surprisingly done a lot of what he said, and not done any of the insane shit people like you or the media said he would.

The market didn't crash, he didn't pick a crazy Supreme Court Justice, there aren't gas chambers set up on every street corner, he has supported Israel far more than Obama or Bush, he really did get companies to bring money and work back to America, etc.

You obviously hate him, but you're letting a personal dislike cloud your perspective of the value of his presidency.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

Appeal to majority is a form of appeal to authority.

Re:On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many factual inaccuracies in this post that I have no idea how anyone marked it Interesting. I guess perhaps because "This supports my opinion, so I will mod it up" doesn't exist?

Re: On that note:

[Anonymous Coward]

They are currently doubling down on gun control and illegal aliens. If you were trying hard to make congress red, it would be hard to think of a better strategy for your opponents to follow.

Re:On that note:

[cascadingstylesheet]

Him going for a second term? Could you point to anyone who wants that?

Er ... the people who voted him in for a first term?

Trump? He didn't even want a first term. He wanted a scandal to promote the media outlet he planned to spawn from the hype around it. Republicans? The GOP wants to get rid of Trump more than the Dems could even want to, the problem is they can't simply say that they want to get rid of the annoying orange.

So who would want to see him a second time? Let alone a third one.

And yet ... it moves. -Galileo

Re: On that note:

[Reverend Green]

Vladimir Putin left a deuce in my shoe!

Re: On that note:

[Reverend Green]

The more the running dogs of the Establishment hate and slander Trump, the more the masses of working people love him.

The Repuglican and Demonrat parties were long able to pursue blatantly anti-worker public policies. Monopoly control of broadcast media by the financial interests that own both Establishment parties enabled them to steer the narrative of public discussion. Now that they've lost that monopoly on mass media they have likewise lost control of the narrative.

Re:On that note:

[j-beda]

That's some interesting revisionist history you have there. I remember the polls putting Clinton as winning by a wide margin. Could you remind me who won?

A fun little article if you think I'm wrong, feel free to post your evidence to counter mine if you'd like.

The link you posted ( https://www.npr.org/2016/11/14... ) does not seem to match your statement. In fact point #1 is basically what I was saying. It states as point #1 that the polls (at least the Real Clear Politics' final polling average) in 2016 were closer to the vote results than they were in 2012, when they were off by about 3.2%, well within the stated uncertainty ranges. The polls were indicating nothing like a "landslide", and just like "Brexit", a single "polling error" away from deciding between choice "A" or choice "B".

Then, after basically saying, "the polls were within their measurement capabilities", the author of the article goes on to look at reasons why the polls might have been wrong. But they were not "wrong"! They were correct within the published accuracy of their measurement! Might there be ways to increase their accuracy? Sure, but it is impossible to eliminate all uncertainties, even if you somehow were able to actually poll every voter in the country and get their true feelings about how they would vote - some of them will change their minds, and some of them will die before the polls even open. The polls were "better" in 2016 than 2012. Hopefully they will be better still in 2018.

In any case, maybe I just wasn't reading widely enough before the elections and maybe there was a widespread narrative that Clinton was winning by a wide margin - I was mostly looking at poll aggregators. So maybe I had less of a feeling that the last few months before the election had Clinton with an insurmountable lead. I went into election night thinking that Trump had about a 20% chance of winning, as reflected by the polling and various models derived from that. It made the morning news that he had won a surprise, but not something amazingly unexpected. I think the betting markets had similar odds.

Here is a postmortem from late January, with slightly better data than the mid-November NPR article linked above:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."

Re: On that note:

[j-beda]

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote, but from just two districts in LA and one in NYC. Had polls weighted a person's per-capita electoral value, Trump was obviously winning in a landslide.

What does that mean "but from just two districts in LA and one in NYC"? Clinton won the popular vote by about 2.9 million votes, sure. I am willing to entertain that there are two districts in LA and one in NYC that had an imbalance of 2.9 million votes in Clinton's favor - but so what? To deny that Clinton won the popular vote nation-wide because one or a few regions had particular voting patterns is similar to questioning the validity of Trump's electoral college win by saying something like "Yes, Donald won the electoral college, but from just one state (Texas)."

Nobody who has any knowledge of the electoral voting system thought that the popular vote total has any direct bearing on the winner of the election. However, national popular vote polls do give useful input to models of how individual states' electoral college seats are likely to be assigned. As fivethirtyeight.com pointed out - there was a lot of spotty journalism out there in regards to recognizing the complexity of the electoral college and how to interpret polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Re: On that note:

[Opportunist]

The joke here is that there is hardly anyone in the free world that is more "Establishment" than Trump. How it's possible that someone who is a billionaire with zero regard for his workers could be seen as the advocate for the "little man" is really beyond me.

Personally, I find it highly amusing.

Re: On that note:

[Reverend Green]

You're more Establishment than Trump, politically at least.

It is indeed an interesting flavor of our times - and a powerful testament to the corruption of our political system and the villainy of our elite culture - that a silverspoon capitalist like President Trump has become tribune of the people.

Re: On that note:

[Opportunist]

If anything, it's a declaration of bankruptcy of our political system. How much do you have to hate a system to think that something like Trump is the better choice?

If I told you 20 years ago that Donald Trump becomes the president of the USA (remember, it was a joke in the Simpsons back then and it was a good one, nobody thought that would be possible), and if I then told you that he won because he's actually the lesser evil, I guess you would have asked me whether he was running against Cthulhu.

And all I could have done in reply was nodding.

The upside of censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

is that in China there would no more creimer posts. I'm thinking of moving to China!

Re: The upside of censorship

[Reverend Green]

In China, creimertards are lined up and shot at dawn every Monday and Thursday.

Water is wet

[DigiShaman]

...and sharks shit in the ocean. It's a totalitarian regime. How is any of this newsworthy?

Re:Water is wet

[Gilgaron]

It's still an interesting change, if they declared him Emperor with an heir and everything it would still be totalitarian yet notable.

Re:Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

American Leftists (including the local Slashdot Leftists) admire the Chinese Communist System.

Economic growth and Despotism all in one package.

They'd like to censor things like the Chinese do.
They'd like to make social policy, like the Chinese do.
They'd like to oppress Religion, like the Chinese do.
Many of the Envirowackos would buy into the One Child policy in a heartbeat.
And of course the whole idea of the government controlling the economy just makes their panties wet.

Re:Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

Just listen to "NIN - Happiness in Slavery", then it all makes sense.

Communism never died in America. It was supplanted during the Reagan. To this day, leftist seethe with rage over that. The power, the control they could have had, and through the Universities, create an "educated" Politburo of sorts; a caste based society.

Just wait till Democrats get into power. Russia might finally lob a nuke in the ocean or worse. Then, that's when the cities fall, people die of starvation, and something of a US style Bolshevik Revolution takes place. Well, except for those that bitterly cling to God and their guns. LOL. Yeah, funny how that all works out huh? Not this time bitches! Try it. Communism is a failure, and will always be a failure.

Re: Water is wet

[WindBourne]

Fuck, the GOP admire the Chinese system. Trump and most GOP are working hard to stop the investigation into their treason. Likewise, they gerrymander as much as possible and fight.against fair election. Most do not recall, but when W/GOP forced computer election machines, many said we needed a clean paper trail to vet the machines. It was the GOP who fought it and actually tried to push a law that would prohibited the paper trail. Thank God that our intelligence world is loyal to the constitution, though they have had slips.

Re: Water is wet

[DigiShaman]

Listen WindBourne, you fucktard! It's the Democrats, and their FBI CIA deepstate operation that's attempting a coup d'etat! That's Civil War level shit right here. Fucking bring it!

Re: Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God that our intelligence world is loyal to the constitution, though they have had slips.

Thank god the Chinese love freedom and democracy, though they have had slips.

Re: Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got an interesting memory of history that doesn't match my recollection at all. I mean, isn't it the GOP who has been fighting for years for voter ID laws that would create a paper trail? Isn't it the Dems that seem to want no paper trail? And as for gerrymandering, I'd not mention that one for fear of pot meeting kettle.

Re:Water is wet

[syn3rg]

"It's good to be the king..."

Re: Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

You have shit parents and they should feel ashamed. Now go pop your zits like a good teenager...

Re:Water is wet

[rtb61]

Oh contraire https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki..., that they have to censor social media, is proof they are changing from an autocracy to a democracy. That public approval was sought for the change and that the change was challenge, are both signs that democracy is definitely making a move in China.

However the current political climate vis a vie threats and shenanigans via the US deep state threatened by growing China economic power, means that those behind the current leader of China feel more secure with that leader because of how well the leader is handling the US problem. So they want to keep them going whilst that crisis is on and the US governmnet by it's stupid and ignorant actions is blocking the development of democracy in China.

Consider that the government of China sought public approval and was threatened when they did no get it, as signs of growing Chinese democracy, make a mistake now and it could blow right up in your face, if you get my meaning.

Re: Water is wet

[WindBourne]

The voter ID laws does nothing to create a paper trail. All it does is require an ID at the polling booth and to sign up. Oddly, the easiest way to cheat, is grabbing a mail-in ballot and fill it in, then mail it. Yet the GOP fights doing pix IDs on those.

Re: Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you get caught, the mail crimes are much harsher. Enjoy your time in prison :)

emperor

[Leninix]

I welcome our new chinese "Winnie the poo" emperor overlord.

Re: emperor

[Type44Q]

Could the 'Pooh meme' be a subtle gay reference? 'Bears' (and other furry animals) are apparently now part of gay nomenclature...

Re: emperor

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Don't give victim status to Xi. He will then become the most powerful entity in the multiverse. Not good!

Abolish terms??

[CrimsonAvenger]

Abolish term limits.

That last word is important.

Though if you meant they were going to do away with Presidential elections, TFA's title would be correct....

Re:Abolish terms??

[gtall]

China has presidential elections? So, like, anyone could run for president there, right?

Re:Abolish terms??

[CrimsonAvenger]

Of course they do! There's always one candidate on the ballot, and you only get to vote if you're a ranking Party member. But it's an election, eh?

Re:Abolish terms??

[Leninix]

It's not real election, you could only choise from communist party selected official.

Re:Abolish terms??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they bother with elections? It is a useless exercise even in America where there is at least two parties.

Re:Abolish terms??

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're going for an alternative reading of the "one man, one vote"?

Re:Abolish terms??

[JaredOfEuropa]

You could still make your displeasure with the candidate known, by not voting or by turning in a blank ballot.

That's better than the Dutch system for picking mayors. Yup, they are not elected but appointed; usually it's some over the hill politician with a decent record, whose party's "turn" it is for the city in question. They tried mayoral elections twice, in both cases the people were allowed to choose between two pre-picked candidates from the same damn political party. Then they shelved the idea of elected mayors, as "there clearly was no interest from voters". Well, duh.

Re:Abolish terms??

[Anonymous Coward]

You conveniently forget to mention a Dutch mayor has very little power.
The daily running of the city or commune is done by elected officials, he is there to represent the whole population, not just the party (parties) that occupy the city's council and board.

--
Teun

Re:Abolish terms??

[JaredOfEuropa]

They have plenty of power and influence, and in a lot of cases holds political roles as well. See here. And the fact that they are appointed rather than elected only enhances their freedom to navigate the political waters at will.

Chinese Laws for Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what the chinese do.

Chinese law for Chinamen.

They are free, free to elect Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong as many times as they want, so long as they elect him. They are free to cast a ballot, any day . any time, as long as the ballot reads I elect Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong.

China could use a good civil war. That would solve China's biggest problem, being there are too many chinese in china. A goog population reduction is in order.

Re: Chinese Laws for Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Dude, chinamen is not the preferred nomenclature.

Re: Chinese Laws for Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

George Carlin on soft language.
George Orwell on language.

Control the language, and you control the people.

mod 0p

[Anonymous Coward]

StaTes that there RAM) for about 20

We shouldn't be dealing with china at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, these are the same communist 'groups' that killed 10's of millions of their own kind(not to mention Tiananmen Square, Tibet, south china sea). Sure they embraced capitalism to get wealthy and become a world power; but the strings of power still rest with those totalitarians. When they want ;'anyone gone' they are gone.

It says a lot about our own leaders, in how they interact with mother china.

term limits are more than just a limit

[nimbius]

they are an international banner of confidence in your ruling party and the structure of your government. See, they act as a sort of tacit checks-and-balances against entrench-able things like perpetual rent-seeking, cronyism, and the types of long-running blood feuds that plague monarchical institutions like Saudi Arabia. Your best case scenario is that the policy your party seeks to advance is carried through without the dependency of a figurehead. Candidly, Nixon hated blacks and jews, but public policy for medicare and construction funding didnt become contingent upon an antisemites judgement of 3/5ths of a man.
 
Once you abolish the term limit, you quietly acknowledge that any policy now has an implicit dependency on a single person. You have created a choke point in the governance of your nation.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[swb]

There's obviously a lot to criticize in Chinese government and politics, but the CCP's 2 term limit was actually a reasonable way of signaling that while the party wasn't willing to give up their monopoly on control they also recognized the risks and danger of cult-of-personality and dynasty and was actually interested in a rational leadership selection process.

"We're totalitarians, but its a system designed to prevent any one person from becoming dictator for life".

The fact that they are scrapping it is interesting. I'm torn between this being a naked power grab by Xi because he wants to be dictator for life, or of this is some kind of recognition that China has many problems of an existential risk nature and that they need Xi.

But it's not clear if this is because those threats (like corruption) are real or if Xi has just convinced them they are real and he's the only guy who can deal with them.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Ryanrule]

Well he jailed most of his enemies and competition in that last “corruption” purge.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[JaredOfEuropa]

No country needs any one man. Or if they do, allow me to refer them to the sound business advice given by my former boss: "If your company ever becomes dependent on one person... fire him".

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Ihlosi]

of this is some kind of recognition that China has many problems of an existential risk nature and that they need Xi.

Sorry, but a country - especially a People's Republic - that is reliant on one single person being a certain political office without alternative, is heading for trouble.

What about the egalitarian thing? Everyone being replaceable? Clear chain of succession?

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not clear if this is because those threats (like corruption) are real or if Xi has just convinced them they are real and he's the only guy who can deal with them.

Doesn't it remind you of General Mao situation? China probably needed him (and only him) to get them back on to their feet (unite). The problem is that once a man has total power, the man's heart is changed...

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[swb]

Well, I think the reality is that Xi isn't just one man, but more likely the leader of a CCP faction. Just like a corporate CEO is a figurehead, but really is actually an entire team of people surrounding him because one person simply doesn't have the bandwidth to run a large corporation single-handed.

My only guess -- because really, they're all guesses because nobody *really* knows, is that Xi and his faction actually believe that China has a set of existential risks to the nation, state and party. I'd wager the corruption issue in China may be way worse than even the few sensational stories that reach the Western media.

The Chinese economy has grown enormously in the last 20 years and has significantly corrupted a lot of party leaders in addition to enriching a lot of non-party people who turn bribe and further party corruption. This has all kinds of problems for China, including potentially macroeconomic-scale risks to the continued functioning of the economy. Chinese debt problems have been widely reported, including the Government takeover of Anbang recently.

Anyway, it may be that the CCP (or at least the less-than-totally-corrupted part) realizes this and also realizes there's no way to reverse these trends without allowing a strong leader of the CCP a free hand and unlimited time to root out corruption and fix the many problems they face. The CCP may fear the house of cards collapsing due to current issues more than they fear some destabilizing political transition in the future, either a normal planned transition after 2 terms or what would happen after Xi died and a power vacuum was formed.

I have no idea if Xi really is what he says he is in terms of being anti-corruption or not. Maybe he's just the leader of one corrupt faction trying to keep in control of all corruption. I guess it boils down to the fact that it's probably not knowable, due to lack of knowable information and the cultural translation problems of trying to understand Chinese politics in Western terms.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so convinced that Xi wants to be dictator for life. Rather that all his proteges or future successors were about 5 years too young. I see Xi holding the presidential seat for three terms, and then relinquishing it.

But yes, I think there are many problems in China right now. What needs to be done to clean up the economy is to clean up a lot of entrenched powers, who got rich using now very inefficient methods. E.g. zombie type SOEs.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing is that the president is actually just a figurehead title. In reality the president isn't the most powerful office in China, general secretary of the CCP is the most powerful office, and it isn't that the president is also the gen. sec.

Secondly although China often censors words, etc. they actually do listen to what's going on in social media to understand what society is feeling, perhaps even data mining certain trends. So they may have been sending out feelers, to see how people would accept or not accept the end of term limits.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Brett Buck]

I'm torn between this being a naked power grab by Xi because he wants to be dictator for life, or of this is some kind of recognition that China has many problems of an existential risk nature and that they need Xi.

        You are "torn" over the topic of permitting (intent aside) the formation of a dictator-for-life in the most populous country on Earth, who also has a substantial nuclear arsenal and the largest land army? Where do you stand on the topic of Germany annexing the Sudatenland? Seems kind of bad, but don't want to take sides?

          This a county where, the last time they had a dictator for life, they proceeded to purge and starve millions to tens of millions of people to death - in the last 40-50 years. That's why they currently have term limits.

        There should be no equivocation, this newest cult of personality is an unabashed Bad Thing, and if it goes through, you can easily predict another disaster.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[cascadingstylesheet]

they are an international banner of confidence in your ruling party and the structure of your government. See, they act as a sort of tacit checks-and-balances against entrench-able things like perpetual rent-seeking, cronyism, and the types of long-running blood feuds that plague monarchical institutions like Saudi Arabia. Your best case scenario is that the policy your party seeks to advance is carried through without the dependency of a figurehead. Candidly, Nixon hated blacks and jews, but public policy for medicare and construction funding didnt become contingent upon an antisemites judgement of 3/5ths of a man. Once you abolish the term limit, you quietly acknowledge that any policy now has an implicit dependency on a single person. You have created a choke point in the governance of your nation.

Dude, China is communist. Nobody votes for them.

Even with "term limits", the communist party just selects the next guy anyway. It doesn't matter.

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Communist party votes for the next guy. Do you think the Communist party is just composed of one guy?

Re:term limits are more than just a limit

[swb]

It's a long way from being torn on what Xi's motivations are and being undecided on whether totalitarian governments are a bad thing.

Totalitarian governments are a bad thing, I think China would have been MUCH better off overhauling their political system decades ago, but it's an open question whether anyone in China could have actually done that, even Deng, without facing revolt from the party or the military.

That being said, China is what China is and despite their problems they probably have made a lot of great strides in reforming Chinese society even if it hasn't involved any political reform. Liberalization of the economy HAS done a lot to not only materially improve life for the Chinese and whether the CCP like it or not it has also decentralized power in a lot of ways that aren't immediately recognizable as political.

In many ways, the greatest trick the West played on China was encouraging it to liberalize its economy. Liberalized economies undermine totalitarian governments long term.

It's getting worse

[Anonymous Coward]

They are arresting more people who speak out.

Xi is a fucking facist.

Consider his age

[Hasaf]

Yes, there are some nightmare authoritarian possibilities; but , it is unlikely he would be able to serve a third term.

As far as the nightmare authoritarian possibilities, people have been prediction those for every president from Clinton onward.

Re:Consider his age

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bet on it. Anyone ask for a no limit is foolish, especially if one does not have the inkling to do that. Once the rule is in play, someone down the line will abuse it, and you will be known as the one person that ruin the country for good in everyone history book.

Re: Consider his age

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fanatical alt-right Nazi Trump supporter, I would pick up arms to prevent any president from such an attempt, including him.

Few Democrats would say the same. They'd have welcomed a 3rd illegal Obama term.

Re:Consider his age

[JaredOfEuropa]

Aren't there some South American countries where even the topic of no limit on terms is outlawed? And I don't mean in the Chinese sense that criticism is censored, I mean in the sense of a constitutional rule that says any politician who proposes it (formally or informally) is automatically ejected from office; all the judge needs to do is establish that they did in fact propose a removal of term limits.
Seems like a sensible precaution.

Enjoy your Strawman?

[Hasaf]

Let's see. . . how many replacements will I need to make? . . . Looks like three (with one of this being a "replace all").
Oh, and this version is still nothing but a straw-man, just like yours .

American Conservatives (including the local Slashdot Conservatives) admire the Chinese Communist System.

Economic growth and Despotism all in one package.

They'd like to censor things like the Chinese do.
They'd like to make social policy, like the Chinese do.
They'd like to oppress Islam, like the Chinese do.
Many of the Eugenicists would buy into the One Child policy in a heartbeat.
And of course the whole idea of the oligopies controlling the economy just makes their panties wet.

Re: Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

100% incorrect. This behaviour comes from the left. Deal with it.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[lucasnate1]

And what is so wrong with One Child policy? Is it better to handle overpopulation by creating wars and sending people to die in them? While there are many things in which one can argue that the left doesn't make sense (equality no matter what, welfare, etc), it is a simple matter to understand that something must stop the breeding humans. It will either be a war or careful planning, and frankly, I'd prefer the second, because I want some people to be left.

Re: Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Libertarians and Republicans are leftists now?

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[crimson tsunami]

And what is so wrong with One Child policy?

Apart from halving your countries population every generation...

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend you open a history book and read up on what was wrong with the one child policy if you don't see what was wrong with it.

I'll give you a hint, in Chinese culture, boys are greatly preferred over girls, so if you're only allowed one child, and it was a girl, want to guess what happened to them? It was one of the biggest humanitarian crisis in history.

Now, of course I think it's stupid to prefer boys over girls, but when creating policies like this you have to step outside of your own morals and values and consider what others are likely to do. It's great that you wouldn't do that, but many others did. And good policy has to accommodate people, not force them in to your values.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[sycodon]

Holy Fuck.

You just made the AC's point.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[lucasnate1]

So what? I don't mind having only one child as long as me and that child are not forced to enlist into the war while AC is.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[lucasnate1]

Ok, then two child policy after population becomes small enough or unlimited child policy if there is a natural disaster. What I'm trying to say is that I think it is better to have society limit birth instead of society having to cull out people with wars.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[sycodon]

You are free to do what you want.

You are not free to impose such a policy on others.

In China, that policy has been responsible for infanticide.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[BlueStrat]

You are free to do what you want.

You are not free to impose such a policy on others.

In China, that policy has been responsible for infanticide.

See my sig below for my reply.

Strat

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is so wrong with One Child policy?

Well it's better than starving 50 million to death. I'll give the communists that.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[syn3rg]

Countering a strawman with projection, I see.
Very original...

Re: Enjoy your Strawman?

[Type44Q]

And what is so wrong with One Child policy?

Are you stupid?? That question has already answered itself.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[crimson tsunami]

Society already limits it via education. People in educated countries realise it's too expensive to have too many kids so they don't. Even in China, they removed the policy but not as many people as they had anticipated had the second child. It's too expensive and most people are smart enough to realise.

Re: Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go suck another chink dick faggot!

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

"in Chinese culture, boys are greatly preferred over girls"
That's not a problem with One Child, that's a problem with the culture. Solution: fix the culture by shooting anyone who prefers boys until no such preferrers remain.

Re:Enjoy your Strawman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was the idea.

Re: Enjoy your Strawman?

[Reverend Green]

leftist = rightist = centrist = authoritarian financialist

Meh. That's just China for you

[WindBourne]

No doubt we will see the paid trolls come here today and defend Chinese gov on this . Mao, part 2, here we come.

Re:Meh. That's just China for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Long live Emperor Pooh !!

Re:Meh. That's just China for you

[trybywrench]

No doubt we will see the paid trolls come here today and defend Chinese gov on this . Mao, part 2, here we come.

indeed, they were all over hackernews the other day. The Chinese economy is slowing, now this. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Re:Meh. That's just China for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we at least acknowledge that "Mousey Tongue" is a good name for a cat? Or at least "Chairman Meow"?

Re:Meh. That's just China for you

[Anonymous Coward]

That's for sure "happy is the country with no past"

I wonder how many people even know about the Cultural Revolution given the social proclivity toward avoiding "disharmonious" conversation.

Re:Meh. That's just China for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering there must be hundreds of millions of people that lived through it and are still alive, I'd say quite a lot...

Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB).

[alternative_right]

We've seen this since the French Revolution. The rebels seize power, immediately screw up the economy, then become totalitarian in order to keep the system from failing further, then embark on a series of disastrous wars in order to keep the population motivated. After the French Revolution and the orgy of civilian murder that it brought about, the society was far worse off economically than it had been before. Thus, we got the Napoleonic Wars, the crusade/jihad to convert the world to... Leftism! China is following the same arc. They would not be taking this step had they not noticed serious problems in the economy.

Re:Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB).

[frazamatazzle]

Found the dumbass

Re:Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB).

[Anonymous Coward]

Xi is the rebel now?
become totalitarian?
System falling apart == 30+ years of rapid growth bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty.
Series of disastrous wars...
Chinese population needs motivating...?
You must be the most uninformed person on the Internet. Congratulations.

No, he's a typical Communist

[alternative_right]

Xi is a fucking fa[s]cist.

He's doing what all Communists do. A Right-wing regime may jail you for attacking the regime, but the Leftists will jail you for not being enthusiastic enough in your support of the People's Revolution.

Re: No, he's a typical Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

FU

They don't practice Communism anymore, you asshole. They practice Chinese Nationalism, only now they do it on the backs of the American middle class.

Idiot. If you go to China or Russia right now, everywhere you look or listen they are attacking "the left" or "liberalism". You chumps don't know the difference between crap or shit.

Re: No, he's a typical Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

And you clearly don't know the difference between a regular Scotsman and a True Scotsman.

Re: No, he's a typical Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Well gee, I wonder why? Have you ever noticed that the Communists, who are supposed to be all about equality for all, keep setting up dictatorships? Oh, they're not TRUE Communists or whatever, sure, but they make Communist noises and get the Communist-leaning masses to support them because "it'll be better for everyone" so whatever.

It's funny how they keep using such an unequal government to establish "equality" no? This is why most Communist revolutions fail. Instead of setting up a more-equal government, like democracy, where the power is spread out rather than one guy being dictator for life, they keep doing power grabs to seize private property to "equalize" things, never mind the unequal government.

The few places this sort of thing almost worked were oil-supported states where the government could just distribute the oil money to everyone--a pretty reasonable idea, actually. Of course, Venezuela then failed because corruption led to the loss of said oil money and they're going down the drain quickly now. Our Nordic friends happened to invest their money in the stock market, so they're probably better protected against such a failure mode, but you see how much more pragmatic that decision was. They're so far just about the only experiment to get things right.

Re: No, he's a typical Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Need some cream for that butthurt, snowflake?

US Censors attempt to temper Russiagate hysteria

[anyaristow]

The guy who exposed the Russian troll farm in 2015 thinks the hysteria is overblown. If you report on that you get your live streaming ability cut.

https://youtu.be/m6IeEldlcFE

I any

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not authorized to view this comment citizen.

In an seriousness before you think this is unique to China, I'd point you to Pepe. I'd also point you to several platforms including TWITCH, whom are censoring even their own official chat emoticons. Expect it to get worse as round two of their TOS becomes live (it was delayed until March due to the backlash).

Capatcha: sexist

Just wait..

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump see how efficient his budy Vladimir, Erdrogan and Xi is handling this so he will try this soon also.

1st post bs = forums sliding... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

1st post crap's done by /. to forums slide bury what you don't want seen that adversely affects your rotten agenda (mostly SJW bullshit vs. tech that this site USED to be founded mostly on) that /. is now...

Pitiful & transparent boys. You're only fooling yourselves.

* Nice part is, you're VERY easy to see thru & DEFY (I do it everyday for a year now, JUST ON PRINCIPLE, to show everyone how powerless you really are - right "whipdouche"?)

APK

P.S.=> I love it, lol - I had to put it out there as whipslash has been trying to snuff my posts & can't + filter vs. my ability to post here @ all - HE HAS FAILED (it's what "his kind" does in this existence, lol)... apk

Re: 1st post bs = forums sliding... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

You should research the difference between YOU'RE and YOUR.

Faggot.

Flesh Pie

[frazamatazzle]

Hey. If the Chinese people have any backbone they'll stop this from happening. It's not like they'll be gunned down, run over and turned into a flesh pie if they object.

Re:Flesh Pie

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

   

Holy shit!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're acting just like Twitter or Youtube!

Xi does not have to be the "official" President

[SysEngineer]

What many western people do not understand that in China's politics, often the true leader does not have to be the "official" leader. That is why I do not think Xi will have a third term, he does not need to be official the still maintain control. One reason for Xi to have a third term is "war". China would need a popular and strong President to be able to maintain social order is rough times.
This action of removing term limits may be an indication that China is expecting a confrontation in the 2020s and they are preparing the government for the possibility.

Efficiency wins in economics. So which governance model is more efficient? Corporations fight to control the government or the government controlling the corporations? Which is America and which is China?

Re:Xi does not have to be the "official" President

[phantomfive]

It took Mao 20 years to unify the country. It took Deng Xiaoping 20 years to revolutionize the economic system. The common thought is it might be a good idea to give Papa Xi 20 years to really bring the economy into the first world.

No one knows for sure if that's a good idea or not, and obviously to western sensibilities it looks dangerous, but that is the common reasoning. Hopefully it works out for them.

Google controled by libs

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well know fact that google are to be working with deep state to destroy conservative values in our america. The NSA and FBI and CIA are all working against amazing president trump and WITH clinton and soros to bring about a global new order of extremist liberal leftist rule and poeple who speak out are branded as russia citizens and ignored. We honest americans are being destroyed too.

Fascist government does fascist thing

[nagora]

What a shock.

He'll probably die in office

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't look healthy and he'll have a heart attack running towards a school to stop a mass shooting.

The FCC would allow this kind of censor ship, indeed they have to: They just pass regulation authority over to the Federal Trade Commission and nothing about trade would disallow this. The courts might intervene but they can't even make up their minds over whether a public business can refuse to bake a cake for a class of citizens

On the otherhand, nothing would stop twitter or facebook from doing this either other than the stock holders.

Sounds Familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when the Liberals, and most vocally, the Hollywood Liberals, said that the Presidential term limits should be scrapped so that Obama could run again. In fact, he himself said that if he were to run for a third term, were it allowed, he would be elected again.

Liberals... Communists... You decide.

And, yes, before you bring out the "Trump is a Nazi" flag, Adolph Hitler was a National Socialist, so, yeah, no, Trump's not.

Re: Sounds Familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

Another idiot found!

Re: Sounds Familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop looking in the mirror.

1st post bs = forums sliding... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

1st post crap's done by /. to forums slide bury what you don't want seen that adversely affects your rotten agenda (mostly SJW bullshit vs. tech that this site USED to be founded mostly on) that /. is now...

Pitiful & transparent boys. You're only fooling yourselves.

Nice part is, you're VERY easy to see thru & DEFY (I do it everyday for a year now, JUST ON PRINCIPLE, to show everyone how powerless you really are - right "whipdouche"?)

* LASTLY - I SEE YOU TRIED TO effetely & vainly "DOWNMOD HIDE" THIS LAST TIME I POSTED IT TOO https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11801505&cid=56199687/ lol - weak, just like YOU 'whipdouche'!

(Keep blowin' your useless 'downmodpoints' - I've already shown I can nullify them w/ ease...)

APK

P.S.=> I love it, lol - I had to put it out there as whipslash has been trying to snuff my posts & can't + filter vs. my ability to post here @ all - HE HAS FAILED (it's what "his kind" does in this existence, lol)... apk

President for life

[Anonymous Coward]

All hail preident Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong the VI.

Feel free to vote for any candidate on the list.

1. Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong
2. Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong
3. Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong
4. Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong

Turning in a blank ballot gets you arreseted.

News: Xi Jinping-pong-wing-wong VII elected again!

In a way this could be a good thing

[Solandri]

I've met a lot of native Chinese who, when the topic drifted to systems of government, insisted that they were OK with the Communist party's monopoly on power in China. That yeah it had a lot of downsides, but they were ushering in a lot of improvements too. I had a really hard time trying to convince them that those improvements probably would've happened even without the Party.

A move like eliminating term limits lays bare the truth about the motivations of the people in power. And will probably do more than any outsider ever could to convince the people that single-party control is wrong.

To quote the old Battlestar Galactica series: The opposite of war is not peace. The opposite of war is slavery. Democracy just tries to keep the fighting confined to verbal attacks in a legislative building. And a move like this could convince a lot of Chinese that they're living as slaves instead of at peace, spurring them to fight for their freedom.

Re: In a way this could be a good thing

[Type44Q]

spurring them to fight for their freedom

Didn't work out well in '89; it sure as hell won't now...

Re:In a way this could be a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

What were the reasons you used to try to convince them that improvements would have happened without the CCP? The thing is all the five tigers/dragons of Asia rose with pretty much a dictatorship or a one party rule. You may say Japan was a democracy, but only once, for a year did they actually have a different party rule.

Re: In a way this could be a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic part about '89 is that Mao wouldn't have let Tiannanmen happen. When leaders saw students gathering like that, arguing for the roughly the same things they did back in '67, it looked like CR all over again.

12 years of Obama or 8 Obama, 4 Trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly this is because the next contenders for leadership of China just aren't up to snuff.

To put this in context..

IF Obama saw that Trump was going to be the next candidate and had no faith in Hillary, changed the term limit to (say) 3 terms, who would be unhappy with that when the other alternative is Trump?

Gotta Say...

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems unlikely. It seems unlikely in principle and it has thus far been unlikely in practice.

The most "positive" spin comment here I see is one dude/dudette who was neutral and didn't know what to think. So no, not some avalanche of support for Mao Part 2. Quite the opposite in fact.

I farted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bronx cheer!

10 year/2 Term Limit and they want to bypass it...

[X!0mbarg]

Population goes *Boom*!

Seriously, their constitution has that limit put in there so that the people would only have to deal with a lunatic for maximum 10 years, thus protecting them from this kind of thing.

If their not careful, there's going to be a large-scale revolt on their heads!

Jeezus!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that comment was posted with sarcasm, because any other angle it reads batshit crazy.

"amazing president trump", would that be our hero, the guy who would personally and without benefits of being armed, would rush an active shooter?

"deep state", AKA "balance of powers among the 3 arms of civil society", as intended by the Founding Fathers? As coded into the Constitution?

"Clinton and soros", yeah, that's the mark of a true conspiracy theorist. Care to tell us about the black helicopters? How about the chemtrails? I really need an extended rant about the HAARP system to get my day going!

Also, even my editor autocorrect can properly capitalize proper names. How come you can't? Or did they not cover that in your Grade 3 class?

Re: You think like a Mainlander Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

How long have you been working as a spy in the west? Still snorting Rhino horn trying to grow your micropenis?? Go suck some Red Army cock faggit.

Greetings, my Chinese comrades

[civilwaradvocate]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Tiananmen Square 1989
limit Jintao
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Dear ILLITERATE DUBAI controlled whipdouche

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Take your own poor advice you projecting california homo - there's nothing wrong w/ what I wrote.

* You PITIFUL little narcissistic punk mama's boy that can't even READ, lol!

Yea, I read that about you on glassdoor FROM YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES (it's what they think about you shitbrain)!

Shall I post a link you little never did a THING yourself trustfund baby OR perhaps this is the REAL CASE that YOU are paid off by DUBAI globalists which your BizX site pretty much proves (world summit was there recently for 'global control' meetings by globalists) you disgusting HELPLESS little fucking powerless vs. me WORM!

(In case you try to EDIT my post you complain of in error? I have a screenshot of it as I do the times you DELETED MY POSTS before (& "slashdot NEVER deletes posts" (wrong)).

APK

P.S.=> That's right - I am calling you WHAT YOU ARE you disgusting tin plated wannabe dictator ILLITERATE imbecile - tell us - HOW DID YOU GET THE MONEY TO START YOUR WEBSITE(s)? I already KNOW but I want YOU to admit it punk... apk

It's unfortunate you feel that way

[alternative_right]

Looks like politics is a dead end for conversation. What's your favorite classic death metal band?