美国网友:中式治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制?

楼主:盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:19:18 点击:16284 回复:239
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置

字体:

边距:

背景:

还原:

  1楼涯叔

打赏

0 点赞

主帖获得的天涯分:0
举报 | | 楼主
楼主发言:21次 发图:15张 | 更多
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:25:24
  John Wong, worked at China在中国工作
  a2a.
  Before answering this question well, we have to clarify what we are talking about.
  (Don’t just take my words for it, do some checking)

  谢邀。
  在回答问题前,我们必须先澄清到底在讨论什么问题。(别只听一家之言,要有点自己的思考)

  Godfree Roberts, Ed.D. Education & Geopolitics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1973) 马萨诸塞大学阿莫斯特分校(1973)教育与地缘政治专业博士
  Yes, the Chinese way of governing has proved itself as a better way of governing than American-style democracy–but we won’t see all the proof until June 1, 2021, when China will become the world’s first xiaokang society in which no one is poor and everyone receives an education, has paid employment, more than enough food and clothing, access to medical services, old-age support, a home and a comfortable life. Here’s a snapshot of that process:
  是的,中式治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制,但只有到2021年7月当中国成为世界唯一一个小康社会,不再有穷人,人人都有受教育的权利,有工作机会,衣食无忧,拥有医疗服务保障,养老保险能过上舒适惬意的生活时才能证明这一论点。以下就是这一经过的掠影:
  
  As you can see, they’re eliminating poverty while American-style democracy is creating poverty:
  如你所见,他们在削减贫困而美式民主制正在创造贫困。
  
  As a result, they trust their government a lot more. Even their rich people keep their money at home:
  结果是他们更相信他们的政府。即使富人也把财富保存在国内。
  
  They know it’s less corrupt than American-style democracy because it spends less of their money:
  他们知道自身体制比民主制更少腐败,因为运营这套体制的成本更低。
  

剩余 5 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:踩云之男人 时间:2018-06-12 14:26:27
  不 、 不 、 不、这不科学,崩溃中⋯⋯。
  • 无住心剑: 举报  2018-06-12 16:48:49  评论

    实际上,当世人不再谈论中国崩溃时,中国自巳倒要小心了! 实际上,中国崩溃一说,是出于当年的国内,90年代的中国公知和写小说的人,尽管他们的小说后来被禁了,但观念思想显然流传到全世界并影响了世人三十年。而正在90年代,上面在研究世界史中大国崛起的经验教训,后来出个电视片《大国崛起》.
  • xt832: 举报  2018-06-12 18:51:56  评论

    评论 踩云之男人:啊?!没事,美帝有几百位议员大人,绝对不会不让资本当家的,嘿嘿
剩余 3 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:27:10
  And more of them own their own homes:
  而且大多数中国人都有自己的房子。
  
  • 唱歌的张小鱼: 举报  2018-06-12 14:40:02  评论

    这一点到是对的,但为什么把这一条特意提出来说?难道说美国人大都没自己的房子吗?额
  • wodeai7720: 举报  2018-06-12 14:57:00  评论

    评论 唱歌的张小鱼:美国有使用权。没有产权,而且还要交高额的税
剩余 6 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:火烈文 时间:2018-06-12 14:29:17
  别别别,不建议别国跟中国学。
剩余 6 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:29:49
  And, unlike American-style democracy, most of them like the direction their country is headed:
  而且与美国人不同,大多数中国人支持当前国家走的道路。
  The Five Year Plans makes investing–from buying a car (electric?) to a house (new subway?) to stocks and shares (new industries?)–more predictable, and raises public support. Harvard’s Tony Saich reports that ninety-six per cent of Chinese are satisfied with the national government and Edelman’s 2016 Report says ninety percent of them trust it. World Values Surveys found that eighty-three percent think the country is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups–a remarkable testimonial given that inequality in China, though lower than American, is higher than France’s.
  That’s why it’s fair to say that the Chinese way of governing has proved itself as a better way of governing than American-style democracy, don’t you think?
  五年发展计划使得投资——无论是买车(电动车?)还是买房(新地铁?)还是买股票债券(买新产业股票?)都更精准,也更能获得公众支持。哈佛大学的Tony Saich研究报告显示96%的中国人对北京感到满意,而Edelman的2016年研究报告也发现90%的人相信北京。世界价值观报告发现83%的中国人相信国家为人民利益服务而不是为某些利益团体服务。有显著证据表明中国的不平等程度低于美国但高于法国。
  这也能解释为什么中式治理方式已被证明优于美式民主制,你不这么觉得吗?

  
剩余 3 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:巴格达2013 时间:2018-06-12 14:36:10
  选票制度最好,让他们继续玩
  • upcrain_upc: 举报  2018-06-13 17:35:14  评论

    愚昧妹名言:没有民主的空气,什么都是空虚。实际上她根本就搞不清楚什么是真民主。没有民主地方老嘴上挂着民主。呵呵,台民主是假民主。值得么?美国绝对拒绝华为,阿里巴巴云,绝对拒绝给你高科技,绝对给你推销美国假民主,为啥?推销了,对方混乱了,它就可以控制了。
  • upcrain_upc: 举报  2018-06-22 05:50:55  评论

    各有各的套路,美国有美国的长处,中国有中国的优点。相互套用都玩不转。
我要评论
作者:光烫苕 时间:2018-06-12 14:40:30
  弯弯表示这个思维错误,
我要评论
作者:蓝碎星 时间:2018-06-12 14:40:37
  我不管,不是崩溃论的都不听
我要评论
作者:1天圆地方 时间:2018-06-12 14:41:53


  极度自卑是不对的,盲目乐观更有害!

我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:42:22
  Thanks for the A2A.
  Short answer:

  首先谢邀。
  简短回答如下

  (2a) Clearly so, in forklifting the Chinese people from the low baseline of a Communist command economy, in blx time, to present day economic development prosperity. An economic miracle. That said, this addresses the lower reaches of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The Chinese ‘party state’ system juggernaut is well-suited to deliver in this economic context.
  The American system would have brought mayhem to China, and moved the dial back eons.

  很显然中国经济水准在GC主义指令型经济制度的规划下眨眼间就从很低的水平发展到了现在非常繁荣的水平。这简直是一个经济奇迹。也意味着中国在短时间内就解决了马斯洛需求层次理论中的较低层次需求。在这种经济背景下中国的经济体制确实很适合中国。
  美国这套体制则会给中国带来伤害,甚至对经济发展有反作用。

  (2b) Going forward, as the Chinese Middle Class compounds by leaps and bounds, the party will have to tweak the system, in consonance to addressing the higher range in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. These needs are abstract and more complex. Heroic macho juggernaut effort will not work. But, it will not be any system of governance, be it democratic or other, that we see on our planet today. The Chinese will wrought their own, guided by their 4,200+ years old civilization heritage (respect for authority, duties and obligations, primacy of education feeding into meritocracy and technocracy, shame-based morality, primacy of societal well-being, moderation, yin and yang balance), and then soberingly doused with high Pragmatism (an American invention, no less). Just as Deng turned economic Communism dizzily on its head, expect China to reinvent the same in the political dimension. China will yet surprise the world, as did Deng.

  展望未来随着中国中产阶级的飞速崛起,北京也不得不调整整套体制以满足国民越来越高的生存发展需求。这种更高级的需求很抽象复杂。简单的强权管理再也行不通。但现有政治制度满足不了未来中国的需要,无论是民主制还是其他制度。中国人将在4200+多年文化遗产(尊重权威,重视责任和义务,优先通过教育培育统治精英和技术官僚,基于耻感的道德观,注重社会福利,强调中中庸的哲学观和阴阳平衡的世界观)创造自己独特的治理制度。但这一进程被强烈的实用主义打断了(美国人的发明,同样如此)。
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:48:33

  Joseph Holleman, CEO of Magister Technologies Inc., Author of "The Prosperity Clock" book series. “繁荣的钟”系列丛书的作者,玛吉斯特科技公司首席执行官。

  All political systems go through their own long term cycles of development and decline.

  所有政治制度都在自身的不断发展和衰落中循环。

  The Chinese system is experiencing an upward trend right now but they will likely run into problems in another 50 years or so when their economy becomes more dominant, their people wealthier, and wealth inequality increases. At that point they will likely find increasing corruption seeping into the ranks of the CCP due to complacency and corruption. And the Chinese people have never been reticent about publicly expressing their dissatisfaction when their government is not performing for them. And at that point expectations will likely be so high that underperformance is a virtual certainty.

  中国体制目前正在走上坡路,但它也有可能在未来50年或者中国经济体制占据主导中国人越加富裕且贫富分化加剧时遇到问题。

  The American system is currently in decline as has happened to virtually every democracy, republican or otherwise, in the history of the world.
  The US system has devolved into an oligarchy disguised under the name “democratic republic” which is the usual pattern.

  而美国体制则像当前其他很多民主制国家一样正面临颓势。
  美国政治组织形式已经变成了以“民主共和”为名的寡头政治,但这也不罕见。

  Now we are seeing a battle taking place in the US to determine whether or not it can hold itself together to continue to move forward as the world’s leader or whether its current system of republican democracy has to be radically changed.
  What the US is experiencing now is similar to what happened when Protestants began to question the power of the Catholic Church which led to the Protestant Revolution.

  现在我们能看到美国内部正发生一场战斗,美国人在纠结是否坚持以世界领导人的身份推进世界发展,也在怀疑当前的共和民主制度是否需要彻底改变。
  现在美国面临的问题就好像历史上新教徒质疑意大利天主教领导基督教世界的正义性,并就此开始一场宗教改革一样。
  Or when Rome found itself in crisis after the death of Tiberius (even during the reign of Tiberius) when Caligula, Nero and Claudius rose to power.
  Rome survived and went on to even greater heights. The Catholic church was not so fortunate after the Reformation. It survived, yes, but was never again the dominant power that it was after the Reformation.
  What happens next to the type and form of government in the US will be determined over the next few decades, perhaps less.

  或者像提比略皇帝死后(甚至在提比略在任期间),卡里古拉,尼禄和克劳狄乌斯开始上台的罗马一样发现自身陷入危机。
  罗马挺过了难关并浴火重生走向另一个巅峰。天主教则没那么幸运在宗教改革运动影响下实力大减。它确实幸存了下来,但不再是宗教改革之后的基督教世界主导教派。
  而美国会发生何种变化则会在未来数十年内揭晓,也许用不着那么长时间。
作者:摸索的鱼 时间:2018-06-12 14:48:35
  中国制度还是建立在中国文化基础上的,别的国家不一定能适用。
剩余 2 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:52:58
  Mike Kayser, worked at Bolt, Beranek & Newman在博尔特,贝纳克和纽曼工作
  In order to answer this you need prior agreement on what constitutes a good outcome.

  为了回答这个问题,我们得首先就何种制度最优秀达成一致。

  If you think in the conventional way, as pretty much everyone on Quora does, you’ll say that a good outcome means economic prowess, as measured by indicators like GDP. In that case, the Chinese system of “firm and fast-footed guidance by winners of a somewhat meritocratic process” does seem to be doing great.

  如果你如quora上多数人一样以传统方式思考,会认为能带来以GDP衡量巨大经济收益的制度才是好制度。在这种情况下,中国“以某种程度上的精英决策做出坚定迅速发展指令”的制度确实表现良好。

  But there is another view on human history that is at odds with this perspective. In the alternate story, overpopulation and technologism spiral together ever upward until life becomes unrecognizably abstract, alienating, and dehumanizing.

  但历史上还有一种发展观与此相左。在另一套发展观中人口过剩和技术至上主义不断发酵并最终导致人类变得扭曲,疏远并最终失去人性。

  If we consider this alternate story, we might believe that the fast moving society is the one that shoots themselves in the foot the most. Technological progress turns humans into abstract commodities and robotic consumers. We optimize “metrics” because it distracts us from the terrifying freedom of living our lives with clarity and authenticity. The end result is automated people who follow deadening routines, stare blankly into screens, and consume without feeling.

  如果我们以这种发展观思考,我们相信过快发展会把自身带入囹圄。技术进步将人类转变成了抽象的商品和机器消费者。我们不断优化“质量标准”,因为它干扰威胁到了我们清晰真实的生活方式。结果是人变得机械化,因循守旧,只会茫然地盯着屏幕毫无感知地消费。

  The society that is most captivated with optimization is the society that has most deeply lost its soul.
  I don’t know which perspective is right. But I don’t believe it’s an easy question to answer.

  最痴迷于完美无缺的社会恰恰是灵魂最迷茫无助的社会。
  我不清楚哪种发展观才是对的,但我知道这不是个容易回答的问题。
  s this a picture of marvelous advancement — or of a tragic alienation from reality?

  这是非凡进步的表现还是与现实悲剧性的疏离?

  
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 14:55:58
  Adrian Lee Dunbar, China Hand 中国通
  China has been very successful and the United States has been exceptionally successful. But China’s system has been used only for early stage developing countries. I would say this system is better if your economy is just now developing, but it is totally untested for an advanced economy.

  中国一直很成功,美国则是非常成功。但中国体制只适用于处于发展早期的发展中国家。我能说的是如果你的国家处于快速发展期这套制度确实更合适,但是否试用与发达国家还不可知。

  All of the answers on this page presuppose a Chinese governmental system highly reliant on democratic countries for support. For example, the recent row over ZTE shows Chinese industry reliant on high-tech imports from the United States. Any system that relies on the American system to be successful cannot be said to have surpassed the American system. It can only be said to be a good way to catch up to the American system.

  这一页所有答案都表明中国治理体系高度依赖于民主国家得到支持。例如最近的中兴事件表明中国工业体系高度依赖美国进口产品。任何依赖美国体制才取得发展的制度怎么能说优于美国呢?只能说是种追赶美国的好制度。

  Second, it is not necessarily wise to boil down success to the GDP growth rate figure.

  其次,将GDP增长总结为经济成功并不明智。

  If you look at absolute GDP growth rate per capita, the United States is at $1,300 per year and China is at I understand about $800/year recently. China’s GDP per capita currently stands at just 15% of the United States’s. The absolute gap between each country’s GDP grows slightly each year, even while the percentage gap shrinks. Then there are environmental factors. New York’s air is clean and its tap water is pure. Beijing’s air will kill you and its tap water will also kill you unless you purify it. For ease of doing business, a USA limited liability company may cost $500 to form properly, but one in China might cost $5,000 or more, or in hours worked terms maybe a half day of an American business owner’s time or a month of a Chinese business owner’s time. These figures are all improving, but it just shows how advanced the United States still is.

  如果你看人均GDP增速,美国年均有1300美元而据我所知中国只有800美元。现在中国的人均GDP只有美国的15%。两国间GDP增速的绝对差距每年都在小幅增长,虽然差距变小了。还有环境因素也要考虑到。纽约的空气干净澄澈自来水就是纯净水。北京的空气则会杀死你,北京的自来水除非净化处理否则也会对你造成伤害。至于做生意,美国有限公司可能每单生意成本有500美元,但在中国可能要5000美元甚至更多。而且工作周期问题上,美国可能只要半天中国可能就要花一个月。这些数字成本都在不断改善,但依旧能显示出美国的先进程度。

  All this tells us is, both systems are highly successful, but the United States GDP figures are still doing better than elsewhere.
  However, due to the diminishing marginal utility of money, quality of life in China improves faster than anywhere else.
  Third, how do you even answer such a question? Almost all public sector Chinese data is classified a secret. How do you even analyze the effectiveness of a system that has no FOIA act?

  所有这些都告诉我们中美两套制度都很成功,但美国的GDP数字成绩还是比其他国家优秀。
  然而由于货币的效用递减定律,中国的生活质量提升速度远超其他国家。
  第三点,你到底该怎么回答这类问题?所有中国的公共部门数据都是机密。你要怎么分析一个信息不自由体系的有效性?
  • 温柔的贪狼: 举报  2018-06-12 16:56:45  评论

    抱着民主优越性不放?民主是一种不能自给的制度,因为西方技术领先,文化话语权大,导致西方在世界倾销,攫取额外的经济利益,这才使得西方的民主看起来光鲜,但中国等发展中国家的崛起,西方优势渐失,攫取额外利益的能力弱了,所以西方开始吵了,
  • 津歌贴码: 举报  2018-06-12 17:23:19  评论

    这个所谓“中国通”让我很无语,或许欧美人数学真不行,不了解什么是抛物线。
剩余 5 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 15:02:35
  Alan Chiu, I read many modern Chinese history books 已阅读很多现代中国历史书
  I’ll compare the two using 4 criteria:

  我将以4条标准对两者做对比:

  1. Efficiency in creating public good. China had the advantage since the power of government is unchecked. e.g. demolition of housing for public works is fast because nobody can hold it back with lawsuits or environmental concerns. I suppose this is the characteristic that attracts most attention.

  提供公共产品的有效性。中国在这方面有优势,因为权利不受限制。例如中国为公共项目拆除房屋的速度很快,因为没有人能通过诉讼或以环境问题为由保住房子。我认为这是最引人关注的一点。

  2. Fairness. US had an advantage because different interests are represented by different representatives, and the rule of law means minority rights are protected by law. I’ll include human right here, but it can be a separate item.

  公平性。美国在这方面有优势,因为不同利益代表代表不同利益团体,法制也意味着少数人群的权利也能受到法律保护。我也将人权涵盖其中,虽然人权可以单开一节论述。

  3. Transparency and oversight. US has advantage here. Freedom of press to expose government waste or bribery. The wealth of elected officials can’t be kept secret. Rent-seeking is more rampant in China.

  透明度和监督。美国也有优势,言论自由意味着公民可以揭露政府腐败受贿。竞选上任的官员财产也随时收到监督。权力寻租在中国则更普遍。

  4. Political stability. There are two aspects of political stability: stability of bureaucrats, and stability of the system. China had a complex system to promote bureaucrats, so the competency of bureaucrats are high. American system to elect officials don’t necessarily elect competent bureaucrats. On the other hand, American system can adjust faster by electing anyone, e.g. Trump, into office, while China’s system encourages conformity and less flexibility in the long term. So in terms of system stability, US had an edge.

  政治稳定性。有两方面的政治稳定性:官员任选的稳定性和制度本身的稳定性。中国拥有一套复杂的制度用以遴选官员,所以官员的能力毋庸置疑。美国竞选官员的体制则不一定能选出有能力的官僚。另一方面,美国体制能通过竞选迅速调整适应事态变化,就如特朗普当选总统,而中国体制则长期鼓励一致性和较少的灵活性。所以在体制稳定性方面,我们有优势。

  Jamie Cawley, Author of "Beliefs and the world they have created. Lives in China 信念和他们创造的世界作者,居于中国
  Of late China has clearly had a better economic performance as well as looking a little more dignified.

  近来中国经济明显向好,看起来也更有尊严了。

  At the last US presidential election voters were given the choice of two people they both largely disliked (each chosen by a tiny unrepresentative minority). One was elected with 26% of possible votes, substantially fewer than his opponent. Correct me if necessary, but this seems to bear no relation at all to the rule by the people that is what Democracy means.

  而在最近的美国总统竞选中,两个竞选者都不受选民欢迎(每个都是由少数不具有代表性的人选出来的)。其中一个得到26%选票的有可能当选,实际上仍大大少于其对手。如果有必要请纠正我,但这似乎和民主制宣扬的由公民管理国家没什么关系。

  If polls mean anything the Chinese government is consistently much more popular than the US government.
  If you, like me, Jawaun, think democracy is important we need to get organised: Abolish Elections NOW. Democracy for all.
  And I am not joking.

  如果民调结果有什么意义的话,那也只能说明北京比美国政府更受本国国民欢迎。
  如果你像我一样认为民主制很重要,则我们应该组织起来废除选举。这样才会有真的民主。
  而且我没开玩笑。

  John R, former Clergy, Hippie, Construction, Family Therapist (1963-2017)嬉皮士,建筑专家,家庭心理医生
  Contrasting with the U.S. which has clearly fallen behind and has failed to respond well to the needs of its citizens, a comparison can be made with our system of choosing leaders. Everybody here can vote, but barely half ever do. And only half of that decide who we can vote for during primaries.

  与此相比美国的表现表明美国已经落后,不能对公民需求做出积极回应。遴选领导人的方法也许可以作为参照,每个美国人都有权利投票,但几乎只有半数会去行使投票权。一半的人就决定了我们可以在初选中投票给谁。

  And when we vote, there are multiple candidates unknown by the vast majority. Yard signs and slanted advertising is all they can go on, and that only for a few on the ballot.

  而且在投票中有太多候选人不被大众了解。竖标志和打广告是他们唯一能做的宣传方法,而这种方法对获选也无甚益处。

  China’s system suggests limiting most voting to politically active cadres, open to all but required to do public service and in contact with governing individuals. Periodic votes of the general population on a few people or for approval/disapproval should be preserved as a check against poor choices by the cadres.

  中国的制度则将投票限制在少数活跃干部上,候选人对所有人开放但需要进行政务锻炼并与管理人员进行接触。普罗大众定期对少数人进行投票以此作为干部考评。

  Few of us have the time or interest to vote well and with the collapse of local media, even fewer have the necessary information. So organizing to create knowledgeable and responsible voters is a promising direction out of the current malaise.

  美国人几乎没时间或兴趣去投票,而且随着地方媒体的衰落少有人能获取候选人信息。因此组织起来培育一批见识渊博有负责心的投票者才是解决当前困境的唯一有希望方法。

  Min Yan, Knows China and experienced a lot of the world 对中国有所了解也经历了很多
  It only means that the current Chinese system is working better in China than the American style democracy in US.

  这只能说明当前中国体制比美式民主制更适应中国国情。

  This proves that there is no universal system that is inherently superior to all the others. One has to re-examine all the conventional wisdom about democracy. Perhaps Chinese way in China is closer to the real meaning of democracy than the American way in US.

  这也表明没有哪套政治体系天然优于其他体系。人们必须重新审视对民主制的内涵。也许中式民主制比美式民主制更贴近民主的本意。

  I am not advocating US to copy Chinese way, because this would suggest that Chinese way is the universal way, that I dismissed the existence above. However, the election based system may learn one thing from the Chinese way: Shouldn’t it be required that the candidates have some minimal background? For example, presidential candidates should have enough experience in governing enough people for long enough period. This does not deny people’s right to be elected, only that you need to work up step by step, and gained enough qualification.

  我并不赞成美国学习中国模式,因为我不认为中式民主制拥有普世意义。然而建立在竞选之上的美国体制也许可以向中国学习:候选者应不应该至少拥有一些从政背景?例如,总统候选人应该拥有大量人口的长期治理经验。这并没有否认人们当选总统的权利,只是需要你一步一个脚印获得竞选资格。
剩余 6 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 15:09:21
  Glenn Lee, chaotic rebel混乱的反叛者
  The Chinese way of governing is definitely better for China and the American way of governing is definitely better for the US.

  中国治理方式明显比美国好。

  The Chinese system is out of the gestation period and is on the up leg of the cycle; it seems more directed, confident, and purposeful. The US system is still in the gestation period, it’s revolution having been caused by the arrival of the post war baby boomers. The US system seems chaotic because it is still regenerating itself. This chaos creates a demand for a stronger defense against potential foreign aggression.

  中国治理体系已经脱离了酝酿阶段正处在上升周期。它看起来更有指导意义,更自信也更有目的性。美国治理体系仍处于酝酿磨合阶段,它本身是一场战后婴儿潮带来的政治革命。之所以美国体制看起来很混乱是因为它仍在不断更新再生。这种政治混乱也拉紧了美国人防御外国潜在政治渗透的敏感神经。

  Different societies, as with different cultures, can not be compared with one another. The purpose of government is to serve the people; as long as the people is happy with their government, their government is doing a good job.

  不同社会优于不同文化,不能互相做比较。政府的任务是服务国民。只要国民对政府满意,就表明政府干得不错。

  Roland Bruynesteyn
  Some good and knowledgeable answers here. A few observations:
  at what point in time do you judge a certain ‘way of governing’? The Cultural Revolution in China and Vietnam for the US were not the best of times
  and, even apart from concrete results at certain points in time, underlying (philosophical) principles, traditions, attitudes and laws are the cultural foundation on which a (local) civilization is founded. What would you prefer on a gut level? And on a rational level?
  on the whole, people tend to stay in their home country and may not be the best to judge their system: it’s simply the only system they’re used to. More interesting perhaps is to check how many people from abroad want to come to a certain country. Apparently, the US are way more popular than China for people to move to

  以下是我的一些观察思考:
  你以哪个时间段为参考评价“治理方式”的优劣?中国的文革和美国的越战对两国来说都不是什么好时候。
  而且即使是特定时间取得的特定成果也建立在哲学思想,文化传统和司法体系等文化文明根基之上。在本质上你支持哪个因素?在理性层面上你又支持哪个?
  总体来说人们都倾向于待在母国,所以他们自己可能不是评价自身制度的最好人选,毕竟他们习惯了这套体制。更有趣的是有很多来自国外的人用脚投票希望到特定国家定居。显然在这方面美国比中国更受欢迎。

  Xuan Su, I like to think I understand what democracy is better than you我认为我比你们更理解民主
  I would say No. In fact, it’s really futile and pointless to compare “way of governing” and say which is better. There is really only “working” or “not working” when it comes to way of governing.

  我认为并非如此。实际上简单对比“治理方式”更有效徒劳无功。评价治理方式的标准只有“有用”和“没用”。

  American style works for America. it works because that style of government fit the culture background and history of the country. Otherwise, American people would have found a different way of governing some time ago. Is it perfect and everyone is happy about it? Any honest person would have told you no. The last election was a clear evidence that there are issues.

  美国体制适合美国,因为这套体系适应美国的文化历史背景。此外美国人未来也许也会发展出一套完全不同的治理方法。但新体制会完美无缺每个人都满意吗?任何诚实的人都会对你说不。上次大选清楚地表明确实存在一些问题。

  Chinese style works for China. It works because that style of government fit the culture background and history of the country. Otherwise, Chinese people would have found a different way of governing some time ago. We made two changes of government in the last century, so we would have if the system clearly doesn’t work. Is the Chinese style perfect and everyone is happy about it? Of course not. Even the Chinese leadership would have told you they have a lot of issues to resolve.

  中国体制则适合中国。也因为这套体制适应中国的历史文化背景。此外中国人也可能发展出另一套体制。上个世纪我们进行了两大改革,所以如果现在的体制不起作用我们早就进行新的改革了。中国体制也完美无缺每个人都满意?显然也不。中国也毫不讳言他们还有很多问题需要解决。

  So let’s not get into the pissing contest of “we are better because we do this or that”. The government is functioning, is in general not getting in our way, and it is not going downhill. Then let’s consider it our good luck and try to keep it that way.

  所以我们还是别陷入“因为如此所以我们更优秀”的无聊辩论。目前运行的政府并没有妨碍我们,也没有让我们走下坡路。那么就把它看做难得的好运气继续保持吧。

  Katie Pedro,VP Operations, China at KSV eSports (2018-present) KSV体育用品中华区执行副总裁
  A2A. It proved it is very rewarding to design and formulate your own path to success other than blindly follow other countries success story. Every country has its own unique challenges and strength. The government of the country need to know itself first and foremost, learn from others, but choose your own path. What Chinese way demonstrated is a methodology, not a model. Deng Xiaoping described the methodology rather nicely: feel the stone when wade the rapid river. He is saying, take time to exam the situation, one step at a time, experiment to make sure each step is solid.

  谢邀。事实已证明独立规划本国发展道路远比忙于照抄已有成功经验回报更丰厚。每个国家都有自身独特的挑战和强项。政府首先需要了解自身,再向他国学习,但需要自己选择发展道路。中国的成功经验只代表一种方法论,而不是一种成熟的发展模式。邓对中国这一发展方法论的描述很生动:摸着石头过河。他的意识是,按部就班一步一步验证以保证稳固发展。
作者:喵丶咪兔 时间:2018-06-12 15:09:57
  我相信,大陸實現全面小康社會後,必定走嚮更高級的政治制度——政黨輪替
  所以,想統治大陸的台灣同胞不要急,時機還未成熟,再等等
  
  • 扯蛋一哥: 举报  2018-06-12 15:16:33  评论

    评论 喵丶咪兔:智障大学7分毕业生
  • 虎虎有声2015: 举报  2018-06-12 15:22:25  评论

    喵丶咪兔:台湾梦,不要醒!
剩余 20 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 15:10:55
  John R, former Clergy, Hippie, Construction, Family Therapist (1963-2017)嬉皮士,建筑专家,家庭心理医生
  Contrasting with the U.S. which has clearly fallen behind and has failed to respond well to the needs of its citizens, a comparison can be made with our system of choosing leaders. Everybody here can vote, but barely half ever do. And only half of that decide who we can vote for during primaries.

  与此相比美国的表现表明美国已经落后,不能对公民需求做出积极回应。遴选领导人的方法也许可以作为参照,每个美国人都有权利投票,但几乎只有半数会去行使投票权。一半的人就决定了我们可以在初选中投票给谁。

  And when we vote, there are multiple candidates unknown by the vast majority. Yard signs and slanted advertising is all they can go on, and that only for a few on the ballot.

  而且在投票中有太多候选人不被大众了解。竖标志和打广告是他们唯一能做的宣传方法,而这种方法对获选也无甚益处。

  China’s system suggests limiting most voting to politically active cadres, open to all but required to do public service and in contact with governing individuals. Periodic votes of the general population on a few people or for approval/disapproval should be preserved as a check against poor choices by the cadres.

  中国的制度则将投票限制在少数活跃干部上,候选人对所有人开放但需要进行政务锻炼并与管理人员进行接触。普罗大众定期对少数人进行投票以此作为干部考评。

  Few of us have the time or interest to vote well and with the collapse of local media, even fewer have the necessary information. So organizing to create knowledgeable and responsible voters is a promising direction out of the current malaise.

  美国人几乎没时间或兴趣去投票,而且随着地方媒体的衰落少有人能获取候选人信息。因此组织起来培育一批见识渊博有负责心的投票者才是解决当前困境的唯一有希望方法。

  Min Yan, Knows China and experienced a lot of the world 对中国有所了解也经历了很多
  It only means that the current Chinese system is working better in China than the American style democracy in US.

  这只能说明当前中国体制比美式民主制更适应中国国情。

  This proves that there is no universal system that is inherently superior to all the others. One has to re-examine all the conventional wisdom about democracy. Perhaps Chinese way in China is closer to the real meaning of democracy than the American way in US.

  这也表明没有哪套政治体系天然优于其他体系。人们必须重新审视对民主制的内涵。也许中式民主制比美式民主制更贴近民主的本意。

  I am not advocating US to copy Chinese way, because this would suggest that Chinese way is the universal way, that I dismissed the existence above. However, the election based system may learn one thing from the Chinese way: Shouldn’t it be required that the candidates have some minimal background? For example, presidential candidates should have enough experience in governing enough people for long enough period. This does not deny people’s right to be elected, only that you need to work up step by step, and gained enough qualification.

  我并不赞成美国学习中国模式,因为我不认为中式民主制拥有普世意义。然而建立在竞选之上的美国体制也许可以向中国学习:候选者应不应该至少拥有一些从政背景?例如,总统候选人应该拥有大量人口的长期治理经验。这并没有否认人们当选总统的权利,只是需要你一步一个脚印获得竞选资格。

  Mas Miwa, former Engineer at Hughes Space and Communications休斯空间通信公司前工程师
  It certainly has proven itself on economic and political efficiencies. China’s citizens might have complaints about personal issues and issues with the government, but as a whole they like what their government is doing and the direction they are headed. American democracy has much going for it, but the idealism gets watered down with reality.

  在经济发展和政策执行两方面已经证明了中国治理体系的有效性。中国公民也许对与北京相关的私人事务有所抱怨,但总体来看他们支持北京的行事和前进方向。美式民主制有很多事情要做,但显然理想主义被残酷现实击倒了。

  I think China can plan and implement better and more efficiently. They can make long range plans and stick to it. As long as the leader has the best interests of its citizens and the country, China’s socialist capitalist system seems to work well for them.

  我认为中国做计划和执行计划的能力更强。他们能做出长远规划并坚定不移地执行。只要领导人始终为人民和国家谋福利,中国特色社会主义看似就很适合他们。

  “A broad majority of Chinese (89%) think things are going well with their economy, making them the happiest on this measure compared with all other 43 countries surveyed this year. And they believe things will only get better. Eight-in-ten say the economy will continue to improve over the next 12 months. And 85% think the younger generation will be better off financially than their parents. This optimism stands in stark contrast to findings in Europe and the U.S., where widespread majorities believe their children will be worse off going forward.” China’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism

  “大多数中国人(89%)认为本国经济一片向好,在这方面的调查中中国人与其他43个国家公民相比最幸福。而且他们相信未来只会越来越好。80%的人认为未来12个月中国经济会继续增长。85%的年轻一代经济状况会比父辈更宽裕。这种乐观态度与欧洲美国受访者形成了鲜明对比,多数两地受访者认为他们孩子的未来只会更糟。”中国也许倾向于GC主义,但其国民倾向于资本主义。
作者:138klkl 时间:2018-06-12 15:23:20
  如果你如quora上多数人一样以传统方式思考,会认为能带来以GDP衡量巨大经济收益的制度才是好制度。在这种情况下,中国“以某种程度上的精英决策做出坚定迅速发展指令”的制度确实表现良好。

  But there is another view on human history that is at odds with this perspective. In the alternate story, overpopulation and technologism spiral together ever upward until life becomes unrecognizably abstract, alienating, and dehumanizing.

  但历史上还有一种发展观与此相左。在另一套发展观中人口过剩和技术至上主义不断发酵并最终导致人类变得扭曲,疏远并最终失去人性。

  If we consider this alternate story, we might believe that the fast moving society is the one that shoots themselves in the foot the most. Technological progress turns humans into abstract commodities and robotic consumers. We optimize “metrics” because it distracts us from the terrifying freedom of living our lives with clarity and authenticity. The end result is automated people who follow deadening routines, stare blankly into screens, and consume without feeling.

  如果我们以这种发展观思考,我们相信过快发展会把自身带入囹圄。技术进步将人类转变成了抽象的商品和机器消费者。我们不断优化“质量标准”,因为它干扰威胁到了我们清晰真实的生活方式。结果是人变得机械化,因循守旧,只会茫然地盯着屏幕毫无感知地消费。

  The society that is most captivated with optimization is the society that has most deeply lost its soul.
  I don’t know which perspective is right. But I don’t believe it’s an easy question to answer.

  最痴迷于完美无缺的社会恰恰是灵魂最迷茫无助的社会。
  我不清楚哪种发展观才是对的,但我知道这不是个容易回答的问题。
  s this a picture of marvelous advancement — or of a tragic alienation from reality?

  这是非凡进步的表现还是与现实悲剧性的疏离?



  好搞笑,这句是在没有任何正常发展理论指导下贬低中国的另一种新的贬低方式吗?
  西方世界这种变相思维导致将一种思考方式强行转变为另一种思考方式的手法,我相信中国没几百年是玩不转的
作者:云水雪绿 时间:2018-06-12 15:38:18
  中国的民主只是加入了西式民主没有的一样东西:对政客的遴选有时间与空间的双重考验,而西式民主只有“空间考验”罢了。林肯有句话:你可以在很短的时间欺骗所有人,也可以在所有时间里欺骗少数人,但你无法在所有时间欺骗所有人。
  中国的官员越大,越需要经得起“时间”的考验。从基层一步步上来,这个过程就是在接受考验的过程。曾经有台湾媒体讲到中共培养干部的优势,举了个例子:某个中国银行香港支行的行长,后来转任到内地去当了县市长。可想而知这种各角度从政的“锻炼”在台湾根本做不到。
作者:年届五旬的小老头 时间:2018-06-12 15:45:16
  美国虽然是蛙岛向往的民主社会,而且蛙民们整天东施效颦般去模仿,但美国人显然更有独立思考的能力,不像井底之蛙那样逢中必反,逢美必跪,逢日必舔。
作者:玉米4s 时间:2018-06-12 15:55:23
  我并不赞成美国学习中国模式,因为我不认为中式民主制拥有普世意义。然而建立在竞选之上的美国体制也许可以向中国学习:候选者应不应该至少拥有一些从政背景?例如,总统候选人应该拥有大量人口的长期治理经验。这并没有否认人们当选总统的权利,只是需要你一步一个脚印获得竞选资格。




  这么多,就这一条才是问题的关键,不然像台湾那样,只要故事讲得好,阿猫阿狗都可以当总统,国家会好才是见鬼了
  • 小丰满拉闸: 举报  2018-06-12 16:47:58  评论

    十1
  • Aihe66: 举报  2018-06-12 17:34:14  评论

    +1
剩余 2 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 15:59:37
  
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 16:09:00
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
剩余 3 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:地狱归来的 时间:2018-06-12 16:50:20
  每个国家都有自己的国情,所以找到或者自己创立适合自己的政治制度是唯一正确方向。可以学习但不要照搬外国模式。
作者:天黑了快捂眼 时间:2018-06-12 17:02:02
  中国这么好,欢迎移民中国。
  • 温暖的颜色123: 举报  2018-06-12 21:02:09  评论

    对不起,中国不是移民国家
  • 天黑了快捂眼: 举报  2018-06-12 21:30:01  评论

    评论 天黑了快捂眼:历史上,只要周边民族愿意归附,天朝都是乐意接受的吧?只不过现在,这里太过美好,以至于没人愿意来了?
剩余 7 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:九仙山雾凇 时间:2018-06-12 17:26:42
  幼稚极了。其实任何社会制度,都有优点和缺点的
作者:极地雅小糖 时间:2018-06-12 17:55:17
  中国制度也有漏洞,毛试图给补上,但功亏一篑。
剩余 1 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:二楼尊严被我丢光 时间:2018-06-12 18:05:34
  没有穷人富人,其余都不是事儿。我们保留科技,回到原始社会重新来过吧。
作者:短歌行2017 时间:2018-06-12 18:17:17
  有点意思,目前是半斤八两吧,接下来就看制度的学习执行能力吧,既得利益者会让美国学习执行能力不如我们的,有可能我们接下来会迎来第四次工业革命,物联网以及智能化,
  耐心等待吧,美国从工业生产总值世界第一到成为绝对的地球一哥花了50年的时间,而且期间还经历了对于美国有利的第一次和第二次世界大战,当时的情况简直就是天佑美利坚,我们成为地球一哥的时间最早也得2050之后了吧
剩余 15 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:cyi321 时间:2018-06-12 18:17:52
  留个记号。
作者:天然统2017 时间:2018-06-12 18:47:10
  中国现阶段的发展只是得益于朝代更替后整个社会重新洗牌之后百余年间,历史上无不如此。等到2050年之后再来回首阶级固化给经济带来的深层影响。中国现今的制度依然和过去几千年来的制度没有本质上的差别,这也是为何台湾迟迟不愿回归的一个很重要的因素。
  • 盛世中国统一2017: 举报  2018-06-12 19:29:10  评论

    历次朝代更替都是阶级固化,土地集中在少数地主手中,农民反抗,然后朝代更替,土地分散,然后土地再集中,再分散的结果。中国土地公有制,朝代更替的前提条件已消失。台湾迟迟不愿回归的一个很重要的因素是台湾地方豪申地主害怕公有制,不能继续剥削台湾人民
  • 天黑了快捂眼: 举报  2018-06-12 21:34:47  评论

    评论 天然统2017:你说的对,大陆目前的专制环境才是已经民主化的香港台湾闹独立的主因。
剩余 2 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
楼主盛世中国统一2017 时间:2018-06-12 19:21:52
  @天然统2017 2018-06-12 18:47:10
  中国现阶段的发展只是得益于朝代更替后整个社会重新洗牌之后百余年间,历史上无不如此。等到2050年之后再来回首阶级固化给经济带来的深层影响。中国现今的制度依然和过去几千年来的制度没有本质上的差别,这也是为何台湾迟迟不愿回归的一个很重要的因素。
  -----------------------------,
  历次朝代更替都是阶级固化,土地集中在少数地主手中,农民反抗,然后朝代更替,土地分散,然后土地再集中,再分散的结果。中国土地公有制,朝代更替的前提条件已消失。
  • aopen2012: 举报  2018-06-14 02:24:23  评论

    上升通道变小算不算阶层固化?新社会的财团能不能看作是新型的“地主”,当大大小小的财团掌握了大部分的社会资源后势必影响大部分金字塔底层普通阶层的上升通道,这个问题怎么破?未来可不可以加大国有化的比例来减小这个矛盾?
我要评论
作者:1qwertyuiop35 时间:2018-06-12 19:31:08
  专业无毛
作者:温暖的颜色123 时间:2018-06-12 19:32:06
  不,美式民主,是宇宙真理。
我要评论
作者:1qwertyuiop35 时间:2018-06-12 19:32:35
  不文明养狗能治理吗
作者:魔法义工 时间:2018-06-12 19:44:34
  中式体制不重过程只看结果:美式体制重过程轻结果 ,过程作秀太多结果遥遥无期。
作者:ty_ZZ655 时间:2018-06-12 20:43:59
  不妄自菲薄,也不妄自尊大。世界上没有万能的制度,根据形势不断改革才能不断发展。
作者:434455388 时间:2018-06-12 21:08:01
  中国模式欧美学不来啦!

  欧美民主现在看了只是流于表明,不过他们真的很重视自由!

  而中国更讲究团结一致!

  自由的同时就意味着很多问题无法契合,所有欧美的社会更像是狮子老虎!

  团结一致的社会异议分子更像是异类,所以中国的社会更像是蚂蚁蜜蜂!

  所以无论谁去转变自己迎合对方的模式,这要动刀的地方都太多了!搞不好手术没完就死在手术台上了!


作者:YH790214 时间:2018-06-12 21:12:31
  不按套路,楼主是想钓鱼还是想找骂?

作者:sss排名 时间:2018-06-12 21:45:38
  说的对,大陆目前的专制环境才是已经民主化的香港台湾闹独立的主因。
  =================================================================
  然后咧,你能保证比现在更好?就台湾那逼样,没人同意台湾那套,在大陆这边来看,美国是美国,海地是海地,别人成功不代表你能成功,台湾就和海地差不多,是个失败者,仅此而已,没人同意那套的,也许香港还能看看,台湾根本没有存在价值的,灭掉更好,起码80%大陆人就是这共识,制度不代表所有,别人能成功,不代表你能成功。
  • sisuotihui: 举报  2018-06-19 21:38:17  评论

    发展中国家没有一个通过“民主”发展起来的。台湾地区、韩国的高速发展时期都是在民主化以前。“四小龙”的另外两个——新加坡、香港,到现在也不算“民主”。最民主的典范是印度,多党制、议会制、联邦制,可以说是“民主”的最高程度。
我要评论
作者:潮叔55 时间:2018-06-13 02:17:37
  不尽然,各国依循符合自身发展的体制模式,同时体制模式是在发展中不断调整变革以适应发展需求,模板化不是忽悠人就是害人。
作者:skj27797572 时间:2018-06-13 03:16:17
  多少问题被淹没在这种洗脑文章中!!
  • sisuotihui: 举报  2018-06-19 21:39:50  评论

    你仔细看看,里面大多数观点是不认为中国制度比美国优越,认为中国体制也有自身问题。
我要评论
作者:kundah紫 时间:2018-06-13 04:59:43
  有点悬啊,美国一边对中国各种捣乱,一边着急拉中国小弟。是忍不住想要对中国动手?而我们的新式军备也感觉在赶时间。演习也多了好多。
作者:leeyln 时间:2018-06-13 06:20:18
  就算曾经有一个成功的中式治理方式,
  这种方式也已证明不能保证它自身的稳定性。
  既然你无法定义中式治理方式的内容,那么证明这种方式优越就是个伪命题。
  比如说,公有制的国家失败的也一大堆啊,比如我们的那个小邻居。怎么定义我们的治理方式和我们邻居的治理方式啊?
作者:无有之师 时间:2018-06-13 06:43:41
  这种言论过脑子了吗?
作者:凤梨曲奇 时间:2018-06-13 07:19:15
  @云水雪绿 2018-06-12 15:38:18
  中国的民主只是加入了西式民主没有的一样东西:对政客的遴选有时间与空间的双重考验,而西式民主只有“空间考验”罢了。林肯有句话:你可以在很短的时间欺骗所有人,也可以在所有时间里欺骗少数人,但你无法在所有时间欺骗所有人。
  中国的官员越大,越需要经得起“时间”的考验。从基层一步步上来,这个过程就是在接受考验的过程。曾经有台湾媒体讲到中共培养干部的优势,举了个例子:某个中国银行香港支行的行长,后来......
  -----------------------------


  你说的对,但你忽视了一点。
  遴选制度的差异,本身就是中西方制度的最大本质差异。也是西方一直诟病大陆的重点。但殊不知遴选才是他们自己最大的问题。


  另外,大陆的正确之处,在于,从不认为自己的政治体制是全世界通用的,也不致力于推广它。中国认为这是一种建立在自己文化上,只适合自己的制度。求同存异,包容其他的形态,不得不说这是一种智慧。


  这导致中国没有犯美国宗教传播式的错误。美国传播西方政治体制的逻辑,其实就类似于宗教传播。世上真神唯一,你必须信,如果你不信这个神,你就是有罪的异教徒。


  但中国认为,强迫一个人必须信一个神的想法,本身就是一种罪过。这样的一般都是邪教。








作者:amme2015 时间:2018-06-13 07:31:01
  其实经济快速发展的并不是只有中国,日本韩国等都经历过长期高速发展。主要是我们人口多,所以增长量巨大。印度近几年也发展比较好,不能保证印度不是下一个中国,所以我觉得我们不能盲目自信,要谦逊要审视问题,不断进步才行。而不是在感叹发达国家也不怎样,又感叹印度为什么那么穷厕所没有。
作者:石头的记忆2020 时间:2018-06-13 07:55:35
  美国网友:中式民主集中制治理方式已经被证明优于美式民粹制
我要评论
作者:坐家老弘 时间:2018-06-13 08:27:03
  前几天国台办已提出要与台比制度竟争,台至今都不敢吱声。
我要评论
作者:ww360843689 时间:2018-06-13 08:36:13
  只有最合适。没有最优秀
作者:陆海之心 时间:2018-06-13 08:53:17
  中国一直很成功,美国则是非常成功。但中国体制只适用于处于发展早期的发展中国家。我能说的是如果你的国家处于快速发展期这套制度确实更合适,但是否试用与发达国家还不可知。

  这句话值得探讨。
作者:空气微冷研 时间:2018-06-13 08:58:07
  最优?你只是看到它的现在的开始 没看到崩溃时的恐怖 呵呵 鼠目寸光
我要评论
作者:汉不清 时间:2018-06-13 09:06:06
  空气污染雾霾太重,空气香甜,治理得不错!
作者:ty_只愿沉醉 时间:2018-06-13 09:57:34
  在中国,说实话是要付出代价的,我们家有一个生意伙伴,十年前,孙子触电而亡,十年后,爷爷众叛亲离,无人赡养,含恨逝去,而他们家,开了一个工厂,仅此而已,摊上仇富的政府,你咋活?
  • ty_只愿沉醉: 举报  2018-06-18 18:23:05  评论

    刚说了实话,店里电器就坏了几件,打击,恐吓马上施展,很有效率,破财是很心痛,但有些事,还是要让所有人知道,总有人要站出来
我要评论
作者:LHKLY 时间:2018-06-13 10:25:51
  路过,顶下
作者:chrissism 时间:2018-06-13 10:28:32
  此贴把绿帽党工,杂轮,精日,美分都炸出来了
我要评论
作者:谷谷小P 时间:2018-06-13 10:32:51
  看了老美的评论,很多人对中国发展的认识那是相当的浅薄啊。
作者:月耀星闪 时间:2018-06-13 10:33:01
  美国现在国内问题一大堆,现在精英达成共识,转移国内目标,对准国外大打贸易战,尤其是中国,就算是盟友也在所不惜。
作者:小明的哥 时间:2018-06-13 10:55:52
  这种无关湾湾的帖就不要在这发了。
作者:换了马甲 时间:2018-06-13 11:17:53

  
作者:帝国骄熊2018 时间:2018-06-13 12:50:20
  少吹牛,改变做官发财的社会氛围,向科学进军,形成全社会热爱科学的氛围,再努力50年吧
作者:武汉中年男人 时间:2018-06-13 13:04:30
  记号
作者:在你家跳广场舞 时间:2018-06-13 17:32:36
  美国的体制再怎么low,人家纠错能力还是很强大的
剩余 3 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:zyh4064 时间:2018-06-13 17:35:54
  原文标题是有问号的!!
作者:快刀117 时间:2018-06-16 06:29:22
  @y200824
  我们株洲市两个常务副市长都困脑溢血死在任上,年纪都只五十多岁。倒是普通百姓七八十岁了还老而不死,实在有愧于党和国家。
我要评论
作者:chongqing3344 时间:2018-06-17 12:07:21
  这只是个别见解吧!别太当回事
作者:lijiaxing263185 时间:2018-06-17 12:44:18
  感觉都没说到点上,一直认为说不管是上级派任还是选举,问题的关键不在于是不是选举和非选举的问题,而是说政策的长期性和一贯性,国家层面的政策的成效期有可能在10年或是20年以后,我国经济为什么能这么多年高成长,就在于政策的长期性和一贯性,下一届领导人必须遵循这一原则,看看那些选举国家或地区(明显的例子就是弯弯)吧,上来一个领导人就推翻上一个领导人的政策,花费的无数的人力物力,最后面一切归零,有多少自愿能供你这么消耗的?
作者:我是yjf777 时间:2018-06-19 20:38:43
  支持这种说法,单应该加暂时!曾经日本也有一样的待遇,结果呢?
作者:圣水神牛2015 时间:2018-06-19 21:26:30
  记号!
作者:sisuotihui 时间:2018-06-19 21:51:14
  @在你家跳广场舞 2018-06-13 17:32:36
  美国的体制再怎么low,人家纠错能力还是很强大的
  -----------------------------
  纠错能力很强大,那我问你,警察击毙无辜民众(以黑人青年为主)事件发生多少次了,怎么还不纠错?
  重大枪击死亡事件发生多少次了,多数民众、尤其是年轻人强烈要求限枪,国会却无动于衷,怎么还不纠错?
  选举人团制度,导致获得普选票少的一方当选总统(如特朗普,比希拉里获得的普选票少,却能当选总统),早就说要修改,怎么还不改?
作者:ty_如人饮水788 时间:2018-06-19 22:26:40
  在中国谈“大多数”意义不大,因为即便真是少数派,实质数量也非常庞大。
  所以中美比较只能一小部分一小部分的比较,大而化之的比毫无意义
作者:著名时政评论员 时间:2018-06-22 03:15:27
  吹牛逼就吹牛逼吧,还搞个中英版,显得高大尚???虽然我不知道美国咋样,但一个中兴就被掐住脖子了,优越感从何而来?
  • 盛世中国统一2017: 举报  2018-06-22 03:22:14  评论

    美国只能欺负中兴这种没有芯片核心技术的公司,你让美国掐华为,小米看行不行?而且苹果公司每年向华为支付几亿美元的专利费,优越感就是从这里而来。
  • 著名时政评论员: 举报  2018-06-22 07:25:42  评论

    澳大利亚政府预计将基于国家安全理由,禁止中国电信企业华为参与该国的5G网络建设竞标,小米就更不用说了,组装厂而已,高通不给货,小米难道再出个联发科版的MI8出来?
剩余 6 条评论  点击查看  我要评论
作者:goodhearts 时间:2018-06-22 04:35:16
  100个人里就有一个是吸毒的??
作者:非职业灌水6 时间:2018-06-22 11:15:09
  这贴里的弯弯党工真是多啊
发表回复

请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规