No, that’s if you use their hosted service. It’s free to self-host.

This onion has way too many layers. I’m lost.

Extremely sensitive towards different ethnic groups? You mean, only the ones they care about? Cause the Uyghurs, amongst other ethnic groups, have something to say to that

I’m not saying they have no good ideas, and they do have good social policies… But let’s not forget that they also repress like hell, using military force if necessary, only allow one party: their own, control the media, jail political opponents (funny, that’s what you were complaining about earlier) and journalists… Guess what, all of this is a bunch of fascist traits.

Fascism doesn’t forbid to inplement policies that are good for the population.

And well, yeah, we’re discussing concepts that protect democracy, so I’m expecting you to show examples of democracies. Democracy implies… voting, yeah.

You’re clearly not here in good faith, so I’ll leave you to your propaganda! Cheers! Hope you manage to move to China someday.

A fascist usually rises to the head of the executive or the military, not the legislative.

Then again, it is not only the separation of powers that prevent fascism, but it definitely has helped slow down and stop the rise of fascism, especially in the 30s. Didn’t always work, obviously, but it is certainly better than no separation at all (I’m still waiting for you to answer my question, by the way: How would no separation of power be more effective?).

And no, I’m not about to waste my time giving you a history lesson about how the separation of powers helps fight fascism. And I’ll remind you that it is a commonly accepted fact, and that if you wish to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

China? Really? Yes, they have a fascist problem as they fit a lot of the traits that define fascism, and no, they have no separation of power. Is that what this is about? You’d like to see the CCP model all over the world?

Because the alternative has already been tested thoroughly throughout history?

Because the alternative makes it that much easier for an aspiring fascist to take full control of every branch of power?

In what world do you think that not separating powers can have a more democratic outcome?

…Then it’s also shittily implemented in Spain. Separation of powers doesn’t mean you can’t have a better system than nomination in the adjudicative branch, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have assholes at the head of branches. It means you don’t grant all branches of power to the same assholes. Which would be worse in any case.

Bottom line: It’s a great and essential principle to maintain democratic institutions, but of course not enough by itself.

No, it’s great. It’s just shittily implemented in the US.

Election interference? Nah, it’s endorsement

Corruption? Nah, it’s lobbyism

As a French, I’ll never understand how this shit is legal in the USA. We’ve sued presidents for much less than that.

You missed the point.

The criticism here is that the EU is decising for the member states what they can be in debt for.

I personally am a federalist so I don’t care much about EU overreach, all the opposite, but this is what the article criticises.

Yep, although not as white but that’s because we’re not massive fans of all these whitening stuff.

I have answered, and had to put “Other” in employment status because I am self employed. An option for self employment would have been useful in my opinion!

It’s not even irony, it’s just willful projection at this point. And it works.