Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

We didn't, because FDR was the first president to break the two-term precedent. Immediately thereafter (in constitutional terms) came the amendment to say that nobody could ever do that again.

China created their two-term limit rule (not just precedent, if I understand correctly) after the experience of Mao. Xi repealed it. That raises the kind of red flags that would be raised if Trump had the 22nd amendment repealed. It doesn't make a dictatorship, by itself, but it's a step along the road...

View on HN

Sure, and that's a troubling change. But I would rather have debate involve facts rather than hyperbole and appeal to emotion. As far as I know China still has elections every 5 years. There are plenty of real facts about China that are concerning. Let's focus on those rather than invented ones.

Sure, they have elections. And the probability of Xi losing is exactly 0% - and not because the people love him so much. "Democracy without a choice" isn't democracy. It's a favorite trick of dictators to make themselves look like they are democratically elected.

Now, if I understand correctly, local elections in China are much more real elections. But for the national leadership? No.

I didn't claim China is a democracy. I said it's not a dictatorship. The elections for president are by senior party members, not like the local elections. It's a hierarchical system.

I'm not defending the Chinese system of government. I'm saying that criticisms of it should be accurate, and there are plenty of legitimate things to criticize. Calling it a dictatorship is an exaggeration, at least at this point in time.

It's... kind of a dictatorship? But not so much of a man. It's a dictatorship of the party. Does that count as a dictatorship? Maybe, depending on your definition...

Angela Merkel doesn't have a term limit, and has been in her office about twice as long as Xi Jinping. Is Germany a dictatorship?

You seem to be completely ignoring my point. It's not the term limits or the absence of term limits. It's the removal of term limits that is concerning, because it is an expansion of the leader's power. Worse, it's done to extend the power of the person currently holding power. It is therefore a bad sign about the person holding power who makes the extension happen.

So because China aligned their term limits to Germany's they're now moving to be a dictatorship?

Or Germany's not a dictatorship, because they never had term limits in the first place?

What part of "It's the removal of term limits that is concerning" don't you understand?

What part of "changing their laws to match other countries that you'd never call a dictatorship" don't you understand?

I believe what AnimalMuppet is trying to say is that it raises concern when you think about the motivation behind removing limits for the current incumbent, vs a situation where there were never limits in the first place.

Even if you think it's not cause for concern, you have to admit it's at least a different situation with different parameters.

The part where that's relevant to what I said. You said that like it was a reply to my point. It's not. You keep trying to reply to me with arguments that are beside the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com