The Chairman of the Central Military Commission is the head of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and the commander-in-chief of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the People’s Armed Police (PAP) and the Militia. The officeholder is additionally vested with the command authority over China’s nuclear arsenal.
Access to the nuclear arsenal seems like excessive power for a figurehead. Xi Jinping holds that office.
He might not have absolute power in the state but your comparison with a common employee is frankly laughable. He is the agenda setter for the highest tiers of Chinese Government, he has the power to appoint multiple executive positions and he is the supreme military leader. He’s not just a random cog in the machine like the grocery clerk, he has real, actual, abusable power and democratic systems must limit any person’s access to abusable power, even if you believe there hasn’t been abuse yet. The issue is not that, the issue is that some day, a person with ill intent might maneuver themselves into holding Xi Jinping’s office and abusing said power, hence the need for the newcomer’s terms to also be limited.
For the record, though, I think the fact that Xi has managed to remove his term limits is in and of itself an abuse of power, regardless of what else he has done.
It is not merely about doing a good job, it is about the ethics of power. Power corrupts, so the only reasonable recourse is to share it with as many people as possible and wield it for a limited amount of time. And it’s also about ethics, what gives one person the right to have power over others for a limitless amount of time?
Frankly, you seem like you’re about to argue for people just doing as they’re told and not worrying their pretty little heads with this, which is against any sane left wing ideals.
All European democracies have term limits too. Heck, even ancient civilizations had term limits, and disregarding those has always lead to worse outcomes for the common man.
A good indicator is not having the same leader for decades. Term limits are a democratic safeguard and China has mostly abolished them. That does not bode well.
Yup. You constantly fight the UI and some of the mechanics are very unintuitive.
I don’t think most atheists would hate to be proven wrong. Most don’t have an issue with other people believing either, unless they try to push their beliefs on other people.
By that logic, someone wealthy should never be allowed to date someone poor, it would create a power imbalance. Nor should a disabled person date an abled person, power imbalance again. So on and so forth. Ultimately, what goes on between two (or more) consenting adults is none of anyone’s business as long as no minor is involved at any point, simple as.
I thought this was about the other neurodivergent urge, to rush B cyka blyat
And yet, it has proven to be an adaptation that has greatly increased their success as a species. In the end, it doesn’t matter to the plant whether it is eaten or not as long as it gets to reproduce - and we’ve spread it around the world.
You cannot persuade fascists not to be fascists, the only language they know is this. As much as it saddens me that this is the way it has to be, the same logic applies to Kirk as to the CEO, it might make fascists think twice before systematically dismantling democracy and promoting hatred against minorities.
I’ve never understood why people pick on drivers under the speed limit. It’s called a limit, why do we expect people to be over it?
The other countries have a term limit for who wields that power.