[ethbr1]

> I'm also not really sure what's wrong with the moral compass of the Chinese communist party? From what I can see at the moment it is authoritative, but not necessarily venal?

It's certainly corrupt. Xi didn't launch major, disruptive anti-corruption drives for no reason, but because he saw it as an existential threat to the CCP's legitimacy (after all, it did torpedo the Soviet Union).

Granted, an alternate rationale was internecine power struggles within the party and removing political enemies, but there was some real corruption.

The strongman argument against the CCP's moral compass is that it has no concept of or respect for individual rights: the party is above all.

Historically, this has always ended tragically because eventually it will be abused to either justify suffering or party gain at the expense of people.

Authoritarianism only works until someone bad grabs the reigns, and single-party non-democratic systems have a way of rewarding sociopaths.

[jaggs]

I think stones in glass houses comes to mind right now? :)

[ethbr1]

The fact that the US still has functioning separation of powers is counter evidence.

People may gripe about fuzzy areas being stepped on and norms pushed (and they should gripe!), but there's a huge chasm between separation of powers in democracies and China.

[jaggs]

Calling in the marine guard without congress approval seems a little bit un-separate, but I'm not an expert so I'm not going to continue this conversation. You have an opinion and I have my very inexpert one too.

[ethbr1]

The Marines were rebased within the bounds of Constitutional and legal powers, as was the National Guard federalization and deployment.

Not agreeing with a thing doesn't make it illegal.

If Congress wants to prohibit Presidents from pushing these areas, then they're free to do so. (And expect they will once the clock tocks)