Hong Kong leader: Democracy sucks dick guys you don't want it - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80251000/jpg/_80251869_0bc4a5fd-0df5-4d72-81b1-a9db69c0a8bd.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-30808735[/url] [quote]Hong Kong's leader CY Leung has said the need for economic growth outweighs calls for greater democracy, in his first annual policy address since last year's pro-democracy protests. Mr Leung said Hong Kong would "degenerate into anarchy" if it gave in to demands for universal suffrage. The speech was delayed as several pro-democracy MPs staged a noisy protest in the chamber calling for him to resign. Hong Kong's pro-democracy street protests came to an end in December.[/quote]

[quote]Mr Leung said Hong Kong would "degenerate into anarchy" if it gave in to demands for universal suffrage.[/quote] Wow, somebody is lining his pockets deep.

damn, times are tough in hong kong if the parliamentary chamber has roof so leaky that people have use umbrellas

[quote]Hong Kong's leader CY Leung has said the need for economic growth outweighs calls for greater democracy, in his first annual policy address since last year's pro-democracy protests.[/quote] No democracy? Democracy is the cheapest way to boost economic growth.

China has made it clear that the next election for Hong Kong’s chief executive, due in 2017, will be rigged. The only candidates allowed to stand will be those approved by the Communist Party in Beijing, half a continent away :( .

CY Leung is a puppet.

How the hell are economic growth and democracy mutually exclusive?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46930207]How the hell are economic growth and democracy mutually exclusive?[/QUOTE] China.

[QUOTE=Deng;46929524]No democracy? Democracy is the cheapest way to boost economic growth.[/QUOTE] Stalin begs to differ. Democracy may be "great" for the citizens, but is shit for anything authoritative.

commies.

Chinese cultures seems to go downhill since communism and durgs

Hong Kong is like the richest place on Earth, I don't see WTF they think different leaders would accomplish. World domination or something ? There are probably some frustrated individuals out there that are eager to get their hands on that power and wealth and that is why they want "democracy".

[QUOTE=Megadave;46931154]Stalin begs to differ. Democracy may be "great" for the citizens, but is shit for anything authoritative.[/QUOTE] All Stalin did was build a huge army, industry, and commit genocide. Otherwise he destroyed the good parts of the Russian economy (agriculture, light industry, services, etc) at the cost of heavy industry. Stalin didn't even industrialise Russia, the industrial revolution in Russia began in the 1890s and was really taking off on the eve of WW1.

Watch china run their largest money maker into the fucking ground

To be fair, pure Democracy in a large country sucks, as it's mob rule. Pure Communism sucks in large countries because there's no incentive to work hard, (besides a gun in your face), and your ruling body is always the upper class. Systems only really work if everyone in it is not corrupt (most of whom are) To be completely honest, America's Democratic Republic system works the best as it balances the power, so that the corruption happens more slowly. (the ORIGINAL system. Not what we have now)

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;46931638]To be fair, pure Democracy in a large country sucks, as it's mob rule. Pure Communism sucks in large countries because there's no incentive to work hard, (besides a gun in your face), and your ruling body is always the upper class. Systems only really work if everyone in it is not corrupt (most of whom are) To be completely honest, America's Democratic Republic system works the best as it balances the power, so that the corruption happens more slowly. (the ORIGINAL system. Not what we have now)[/QUOTE] that's like some middle school political theory right there

When we demanded democracy, china has responded by giving us a 5 stage plan which will be improved as time passes, sorta like a trial for a new system. However some delusional individuals interpreted it as the "End of Hong Kong" or something along that line to stir shit up, amplified by teenagers on social medias like facebook which leads to the riots. lol those so call senates who started it are now being investigated by independent commission of corruption because they literally received over 20 thousands dollars from some unknown source just before the whole movement.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46931699']that's like some middle school political theory right there[/QUOTE] "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson. True Democracy sucks, doesn't work as intended, and shits on the little guy. As defined in an old military training manual, DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. While some democracy is good, full democracy is a bad idea.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46932400]"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson. True Democracy sucks, doesn't work as intended, and shits on the little guy. As defined in an old military training manual, DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. While some democracy is good, full democracy is a bad idea.[/QUOTE] Can you define what "full democracy" is? What is "some democracy"? "True democracy"? What do you mean "doesn't work as intended"? You haven't even expanded on anything so this is a meaningless post that doesn't make any sense.

I was just thinking, imagine if China had free and open elections, national elections. It would require the most epic campaign to run for President, that country is huge! In the US we can do it because we've been using, thus developing, the system for a long time now. The first free elections in China are almost guaranteed to be a clusterfuck of massive proportions due to inexperience if for no other reason. So actually the sooner they get started, the better. They might need to redo their first elections a few times, putting it off will only prolong the agony.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46932486]I was just thinking, imagine if China had free and open elections, national elections. It would require the most epic campaign to run for President, that country is huge! In the US we can do it because we've been using, thus developing, the system for a long time now. The first free elections in China are almost guaranteed to be a clusterfuck of massive proportions due to inexperience if for no other reason. So actually the sooner they get started, the better. They might need to redo their first elections a few times, putting it off will only prolong the agony.[/QUOTE] india can do it well enough.... they're actually larger than china and even more rural than china

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46932486]I was just thinking, imagine if China had free and open elections, national elections. It would require the most epic campaign to run for President, that country is huge! In the US we can do it because we've been using, thus developing, the system for a long time now. The first free elections in China are almost guaranteed to be a clusterfuck of massive proportions due to inexperience if for no other reason. So actually the sooner they get started, the better. They might need to redo their first elections a few times, putting it off will only prolong the agony.[/QUOTE] I think they should start from the bottom up, with local and regional elections being democratic while the central government remains under control of the communist party. That way it can allow parties to experiment and develop and work on a smaller scale and gain experience before they introduce national level elections.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46932400]"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson. True Democracy sucks, doesn't work as intended, and shits on the little guy. As defined in an old military training manual, DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. While some democracy is good, full democracy is a bad idea.[/QUOTE] You ever consider a bill of rights? I mean seriously, right there goes every issues. Also don't mean to rain on your parade- Tommy J was a good liberal theorist but he was also a slaveowning aristocratic autist who likely didn't have a good conception of direct democracy because his exposure to political theory was Locke, Hobbes, and a century of English history.

[QUOTE=Deng;46932472]Can you define what "full democracy" is? What is "some democracy"? "True democracy"? What do you mean "doesn't work as intended"? You haven't even expanded on anything so this is a meaningless post that doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE] Full and true should be the same, my mistake. Some democracy, as in people having the power in elections, having the ability to be involved with politics, etc. True, or full democracy however you may call it, could devolve into mob rule, otherwise known as Ochlocracy. Essentially being mob rule, the majority has the say so while nothing protects the minorities rights. The Bill of Rights for instance is there in case of something like that. It guarantees everyone has certain rights that can not be taken away, no matter what.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46932626]Full and true should be the same, my mistake. Some democracy, as in people having the power in elections, having the ability to be involved with politics, etc. True, or full democracy however you may call it, could devolve into mob rule, otherwise known as Ochlocracy. Essentially being mob rule, the majority has the say so while nothing protects the minorities rights. The Bill of Rights for instance is there in case of something like that. It guarantees everyone has certain rights that can not be taken away, no matter what.[/QUOTE] But what /is/ "true democracy"? Why should /it/ descend into mob rule?

[QUOTE=Deng;46932638]But what /is/ "true democracy"? Why should /it/ descend into mob rule?[/QUOTE] i think he might be talking about the difference between democracy and a democratic republic

[QUOTE=Deng;46932638]But what /is/ "true democracy"? Why should /it/ descend into mob rule?[/QUOTE] True democracy is Direct democracy. Quite easily, actually. In Direct democracy, the people decide to vote or form consensus on things directly. Without a bill of rights in place, what happens to the minority voice when the majority comes to consensus on something? Do they still get a say? Not everyone gets to voice their opposition after something is chosen, leading possibly to tyranny of the majority, in which a majority places its interests above that of a smaller minority.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46932807]True democracy is Direct democracy. Quite easily, actually. In Direct democracy, the people decide to vote or form consensus on things directly. Without a bill of rights in place, what happens to the minority voice when the majority comes to consensus on something? Do they still get a say? Not everyone gets to voice their opposition after something is chosen, leading possibly to tyranny of the majority, in which a majority places its interests above that of a smaller minority.[/QUOTE] Switzerland has managed fine with a direct democracy for the past eight centuries.

According to Wikipedia, Swiss citizens are subject to three legal jurisdictions: the commune, canton and federal levels. The 1848 federal constitution defines a system of direct democracy (sometimes called half-direct or representative direct democracy because it is aided by the more commonplace institutions of a representative democracy). The instruments of this system at the federal level, known as civic rights (Volksrechte, droits civiques), include the right to submit a constitutional initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn parliamentary decisions.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46933264]According to Wikipedia, Swiss citizens are subject to three legal jurisdictions: the commune, canton and federal levels. The 1848 federal constitution defines a system of direct democracy (sometimes called half-direct or representative direct democracy because it is aided by the more commonplace institutions of a representative democracy). The instruments of this system at the federal level, known as civic rights (Volksrechte, droits civiques), include the right to submit a constitutional initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn parliamentary decisions.[/QUOTE] And how does this support the idea that direct democracy will descend into mob rule? Is it inevitable? A given? What are the causes and is there evidence supporting this?