https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.amp.html Jobs, Houses and Cows: China’s Costly Drive to Erase Extreme Poverty 跟闽宁镇这样的故事有关联的一篇采访报道可以了解扶贫的背景故事，这个文章写的很中立。 China has spent heavily to help its poorest citizens, an approach that few developing countries can afford and even Beijing may struggle to sustain. JIEYUAN VILLAGE, China — When the Chinese government offered free cows to farmers in Jieyuan, villagers in the remote mountain community were skeptical. They worried officials would ask them to return the cattle later, along with any calves they managed to raise. But the farmers kept the cows, and the money they brought. Others received small flocks of sheep. Government workers also paved a road into the town, built new houses for the village’s poorest residents and repurposed an old school as a community center. Jia Huanwen, a 58-year-old farmer in the village in Gansu Province, was given a large cow three years ago that produced two healthy calves. He sold the cow in April for $2,900, as much as he earns in two years growing potatoes, wheat and corn on the terraced, yellow clay hillsides nearby. Now he buys vegetables regularly for his family’s table and medicine for an arthritic knee. It was the best cow I’ve ever had,” Mr. Jia said. The village of Jieyuan is one of many successes of President Xi Jinping’s ambitious pledge to eradicate abject rural poverty by the end of 2020. In just five years, China says it has lifted from extreme poverty over 50 million farmers left behind by breakneck economic growth in cities. But the village, one of six in Gansu visited by The New York Times without government oversight, is also a testament to the considerable cost of the ruling Communist Party’s approach to poverty alleviation. That approach has relied on massive, possibly unsustainable subsidies to create jobs and build better housing. Local cadres fanned out to identify impoverished households — defined as living on less than $1.70 a day. They handed out loans, grants and even farm animals to poor villagers. Officials visited residents weekly to check on their progress. We’re pretty sure China’s eradication of absolute poverty in rural areas has been successful — given the resources mobilized, we are less sure it is sustainable or cost effective,” said Martin Raiser, the World Bank country director for China. Beijing poured almost $700 billion in loans and grants into poverty alleviation over the past five years — about 1 percent of each year’s economic output. That excludes large donations by state-owned enterprises like State Grid, a power transmission giant, which put $120 billion into rural electricity upgrades and assigned more than 7,000 employees to work on poverty alleviation projects. The campaign took on new urgency this year as the country faced devastation from the coronavirus pandemic and severe flooding. One by one, provinces announced they had met their goals. In early December, Mr. Xi declared that China had “achieved a significant victory that impresses the world.” But Mr. Xi acknowledged further efforts were needed to share wealth more widely. A migrant worker in a coastal factory city can earn as much in a month as a Gansu farmer earns in a year. Mr. Xi also called for officials to make sure that newly created jobs and aid for the poor did not fade away in the coming years. Gansu, China’s poorest province, declared in late November that it had lifted its last counties out of poverty. Just a decade ago, poverty in the province was widespread. Hu Jintao, China’s leader before Mr. Xi, visited people living in simple homes with few furnishings. Villagers ate so many potatoes that local officials were embarrassed when a young girl initially refused to eat yet another one with Mr. Hu in front of television cameras because she was tired of them, according to a cable disclosed by WikiLeaks. Though many villages are still reachable only by single-lane roads, they are lined with streetlights powered by solar panels. New industrial-scale pig farms, plant nurseries and small factories have sprung up, creating jobs. Workers are building new houses for farmers. Three years ago, Zhang Jinlu woke in terror when the rain-weakened mud brick walls of his home gave way. Half the roof timbers came crashing down with slabs of dirt, narrowly missing him and his mother. Officials in Youfang village built a spacious new concrete house for them, complete with new furniture. Mr. Zhang, 69, now receives a monthly stipend of $82 through the poverty program. His original house was rebuilt for him as a storage shed. “This house used to be dilapidated, and it leaked when it rained,” Mr. Zhang said. The government helps private factories buy equipment and pay salaries if they hire workers deemed impoverished. At Tanyue Tongwei Clothing & Accessories Company in southeastern Gansu, about 170 workers, mostly women, sewed school uniforms, T-shirts, down jackets and face masks. Workers said that several dozen employees received extra payments from the poverty alleviation program in addition to their salaries. Lu Yaming, the company’s legal representative, said Tanyue receives at least $26,000 a year in subsidies from poverty alleviation programs — out of which $500 a year was paid to each of the 17 villagers deemed impoverished. But the viability of these factories without ongoing aid is far from clear. Until the subsidies arrived, the factory frequently had trouble paying wages on time, Mr. Lu said. Inevitable questions swirl over whether some families have used personal ties to local officials to qualify for grants. Corruption investigators punished 99,000 people nationwide in connection with poverty relief efforts last year, according to official statistics. At local eateries in communities like Mayingzhen, where a heavily seasoned platter of fried donkey meat costs $7, the talk is all about who received what, and whether they really should have qualified. While the poverty alleviation program has helped millions of poor people, critics point to the campaign’s rigid definitions. The program assists people classified as extremely poor at some point from 2014 to 2016, without adding others who may have fallen on hard times since then. It also does very little to help poor people in big cities where wages are higher but workers must pay far more for food and rent. According to the government’s complicated criteria for determining eligibility for aid, anyone who owned a car, had more than $4,600 in assets or had a new or recently rebuilt house was excluded. People hovering just above the government’s poverty line continue to struggle to make ends meet, but are often denied help with housing or other benefits.Zhang Sumei, a 53-year-old farmer, earns $1,500 a year growing and selling potatoes and had to use her savings to build her home in concrete. She says that she should have qualified for aid for the extremely poor. Farming Gansu’s notoriously infertile soil is hard and difficult. this society, poor families are designated by cadres, and we have nothing,” she said bitterly. The party’s campaign-style approach also fails to tackle deep-seated problems that disproportionately hurt the poor, including the cost of health care and other gaping holes in China’s emerging social safety net. Villages provide limited health insurance — only 17 percent of the cost of Mr. Jia’s arthritis medicine is covered, for example. Hefty medical bills can ruin families. Yang Xiaoling, a 48-year-old worker who works at another government-subsidized factory in Gansu, wept uncontrollably as she described the crippling debt she faced after paying medical fees for her husband, who suffered kidney failure. Three years ago, she borrowed $7,700 at zero interest from a bank affiliated with the poverty alleviation program and was supposed to invest the money in buying livestock. But instead she borrowed more money from relatives and then spent all the money on a kidney transplant and medicine for her husband. Now the entire loan is due and she has no money to repay it. Follow-up medical treatments for her husband consume her entire salary. So the couple and their three children and her husband’s invalid parents subsist on monthly government poverty assistance payments of less than $50 per person. “I don’t have the ability to pay it back. I can’t help it,” Ms. Yang sobbed. “I have already borrowed a lot of money, and now no one lends me money.” Despite the challenges, the poverty relief program may have a long-term political benefit that helps to ensure some of it survives. Gratitude for the program seems to be reinforcing the political power of the party in rural areas. In Youfang, Mr. Zhang was quick to praise not just the poverty program but also Mr. Xi, comparing him to Mao. It is good for the country to have Xi Jinping,” he said, “and the national policy is good.” Chris Buckley contributed reporting from Sydney. Liu Yi, Amber Wang and Coral Yang contributed research.
谁是她女儿啊？
B站up主谁敢做吐嘲视频估计要被失踪。
想到是给庆丰帝歌功颂德的就怎么也嚼不下去。你们捧吧以后估计就只有这种剧能播了。哈哈YouTube底下肯定是没有各国友人欢乐追剧的盛况。诸如样板戏之类只能墙内开花墙内香
这剧是好剧，就酱。
而且伟大领袖名字根本没出现都是小人物故事，拍的很有感情，除了后面几集差点意思全剧总体都是感人向上的。
+1，那个江山如此多娇，同是扶贫剧就死活看不下去
这个故事make sense吗？那个地方值得投入这些人力物力去开发？开发以后如何持久，比如早年大量开发水电站，一群年轻人或者说是廉价劳动力艰难困苦建个水电站最后就走人了留下一个荒废破烂水泥废墟小镇和永远回不来的生态环境。是不是这事儿是深思熟虑还是领导的面子工程？当然我还没去翻翻这个电视背后故事所以不能下结论。只是这些想法会影响我对这个剧的看法。
话说大炼钢铁时期上山下乡时期估计也也很多感人小人物故事。但是放在历史长河里回头看不是都是瞎搞对老百姓有啥好处？抗美援朝也是，死了那么多人扶持起了三胖家族。
你看了就知道了，如果电视剧都没看带着主观偏见评论也缺乏客观性嘛。就跟大江大河一样一堆人电视都没看就跟风骂宋运辉，我总觉得你要不就不评价如果评价一个作品至少要看了才评价才会比较客观。我觉得这部作品后面几集不那么好看，总体还是向上的
实话讲我看完了觉得不太make sense，那地方极度不宜生存，开发了这么多年投了这么多钱也不过如此，种不了庄稼只能种葡萄枸杞。我理解这是改善西部生态环境整个计划中的一环，国家需要人去戈壁滩垦荒治沙，这块地区应该算整个戈壁滩比较适宜生存的一块了，所以划出来当试验地。不过开发这块地方倒不是伟大领袖的主意，开发的计划更早，他是带领福建定点扶贫了这个地方，不然这地方估计搞不下去。这剧还算低调，剧里没有领袖，剧名也改了，观众要不去特意搜索是不会联想到他的。
你觉得没有意义，是你没在当地，没有那么贫穷过。你没有经历过，有什么资格把别人的努力说得一钱不值
人家没有把这个努力讲的一钱不值。只是提出个很好的问题，这种努力金钱和人力投入和成效比是否值得？是否sustainable？就加州东边valley农业区种植灌溉nuts需要大量消耗水，不也有人提出疑问是否值得是否sustainable？
你说的对。我引用错了，nosiaqs网友的答复并没有把别人的努力说的一钱不值。我本来是要引用你先前的答复的
我也没把这努力说的一钱不值，当地老百姓日子过好了当然是件好事，我只是提出一些疑问。这种沙漠变绿洲听起来都很美的，但代价是多少？种经济作物，水源就是个大问题。是不是因为是大大的project所以得到特别重视不惜代价也要成功？
没必要逢中必反吧，而且当年包子只不过是个地方官而已，怎么可能不惜一切代价。你可以去搜一下吊庄移民的历史，扶贫是从1982年就开始的，一直持续到2008年，闽宁只是其中一个部分。西海固之所以迁到戈壁滩是因为靠近黄河灌溉区。这部剧刻画的都是基层扶贫干部和贫困农民的奋斗史，包括福建来的农业专家，比农民还能吃苦，还有牺牲的基层干部，他们是如何在极端困难的生存条件下，用自己的双手改变了自己的人生，改变了恶劣的自然环境。
你怎么就觉得我逢中必反？难道我的每个帖子你都浏览过得出结论？献礼剧本身就带有特殊性质。在中国不能质疑，在美国还不行吗？你解释的似乎有道理，但是所有的报道还是一边倒的夸。长期的cost benefit 没有足够的信息可以得出结论。
现在夸这个剧是zzzq，一批评就很多id来拍，华人还算可以我才敢说几句，其他地方我就闭嘴了。可能跟制作公司跟导演也有关系，倒不是真的有那么多人爱领袖。 移民戈壁滩有好多试验点，其他点似乎还可以，闽宁可能是最艰难的，我看了地图，这个地方是几个点里地理位置最差的，离黄河最远，离市区最远，离沙漠最近，在贺兰山口没有山脉庇护，这地方算不上黄河灌溉区，引水不算难，但那里土质不易种植庄稼，他们研究了这么多年发现种葡萄枸杞可以。当初好像也是因为最惨才被领袖看上定点扶贫。能不能sustainable估计得看以后会不会继续往西部开发，如果容易当地人肯定会继续往西部推进的，西部大块大块的空地呢，如果不容易估计这里也就是前沿阵地了。看新闻是很难判断的，搜出来的新闻都带着宣传味，很多时候还自相矛盾，无非就是当初有多苦现在有多甜，这剧也是这风格，至于你所说的深层次的cost benefit分析没见过，可能内部资料有，老百姓看热闹只有时间能说明一切了。
评价一个剧，至少应该看过再评价吧，质疑应该是有理有据的，没必要用政治的意识形态来冷嘲热讽。我的生活跟西海固，跟扶贫相隔十万八千里，从没想过会被主旋律剧吸引，这部剧拍的很好，原因就是所有情节都有真实原型，我会为剧中人的喜怒哀乐而感动，也有怒其不争的时刻，在另外一个楼，有很多关于真实原型的资料，我对那些无私奉献的人表示敬意。
我没觉得这个剧突出什么领袖，倒是黑这个剧的总是想方设法往包子身上贴
剧是好剧，演员们演得都很好，故事也正能量。但看着吊庄户们没电没水，为浇个田求爹爹告奶奶，他们受的那些苦呈现出来，只为了服务某个主题抒发某种情怀，我就很撕裂，enjoy不了。
谢谢你的一手反馈，这样的结果真的太好了。
但确实是因为他才让对这部剧的批评几乎完全噤声，这本身也是不正常的，这剧制作上并非无懈可击，政策也并非完美，但现在这些声音都听不到了。观众要么根本不感兴趣不看，要么看完跟着感动一番也不琢磨，一部分看完有疑惑的观众也只敢默默疑惑，不敢发声。
这是我在油管子上看到的留言
国内的政治环境怎么能苛责一部电视剧，并且不是没人讨论，讨论的人很多，你知道剧中说贪污挪用导致扬水站停建，实际金额是2亿元，有很多相关讨论。另外如果没有这部电视剧，我敢说99%的人不知道地球上存在一个叫西海固的地方，更不知道这段历史和这样一群人，从这个意义来说这部剧已经很成功了，更何况这部剧的制作和演员演技全面吊打近期的其他剧，不论是流量古偶，还是中年少女宫斗。说陈金山是包子，到底有没有看剧，陈金山是剧中的搞笑担当好吗。
这剧真好看！
RE
我不管他目的是为了歌颂谁.我只看到了让我感动的普通人的奋斗.
也不用跪成这样吧,没有洋人追的剧就不是好剧了?
历史都是MAKE SENSE的吗? 不合理的地方可以拍出来,才更真实.
扶贫的珍珠鸡被农民抓来吃了, 小年轻们扒火车偷东西挣钱, 这些剧情都没有要歌功颂德粉饰太平的意思, 还是比较尊重现实的.
有的人真的是时时刻刻不忘阶级斗争的弦啊,啥都要往政治上靠.
这些现实的东西剧里敢于呈现出来,已经是很好了. 如果说要歌颂啥抒发啥,这些现实情况恐怕只起到了抹黑的作用,谈何歌颂呢.
观众都很容易开上帝视角. 放你我在那些部门主管的位置,在那个年代, 必能够做得更好. 我还是狠敬佩那些基层的人们做出的不谢的努力.隔壁推荐楼里面的原型都狠让人动容.
那照你这么说，涌泉村那些世代受穷的人就该一直穷下去呗？
扶贫扶贫，就是为了让这些人有好日子过。古人还说过，穷则思变呢！怎么变，怎么改，大家也都是摸着石头过河，一边做一边总结经验教训啊！历史上好多事情放到现在来看确实弊大于利，但是当年的人也没有上帝视角，犯了错误可以再改啊！
本剧的最后一集，大家回到了涌泉村，当年的满眼黄沙，已经被青山绿水所取代，我不知道真实性有多大，可是这不正是符合我们现在的保护环境科学发展理念的么？金滩村也找到了种植葡萄这样的适合当地气候又有很大经济效益的产业模式，这不比一直窝在当年那个穷山沟里强上一万倍？！
不好意思，让你失望了，youtube的频道下面，不知道有多少喜欢看的观众在由衷的赞美这部剧呢！
你没有调查就随便乱说，我觉得你的出发点有问题吧！
强RE！
看看是谁喜欢上纲上线，YouTube上追华语剧的很多第三世界国家，印尼，马来，菲律宾，印度，巴西，南美的，好剧不分国界不分阶层。一天到晚惦记洋大人的只有自尊自卑极度矛盾综合的某些人群吧（没有按头，请勿对号入座）
你这是在强词夺理。从对一个剧的合理质疑引申到凡是对剧有疑问的就是不怀好意希望人家穷人永远穷。你不去中宣部可惜了
这是影视版，你剧都没看，瞎评论啥呀。 要是你要聊政治，请去相关版面。谢谢
我无感啊，一部没看过的剧有什么失不失望呢。你们喜欢就好啊。反正这种献礼剧要看五年呢。慢慢享受吧。我看你们这么激动，好像一点点质疑就是不爱国，就是舔洋人。这几年中宣部没有白洗脑。
剧都没看看过评论啊，很多时候就是先看评论怎样再决定看不看剧。剧没看就比别人低一等吗？就不能发言了？你这个帖子或是这个版面是exclusively只有看过剧的人才能说话？这剧是献礼剧。何为献礼剧？跟政治没关系吗？你搞搞清楚
献礼剧不就是跟政治有关吗？电视剧跟政治有关为什么不能聊。你为什么扯到阶级斗争？我的帖子可都没提起，这个片子估计没有什么阶级斗争的东西，你是不是想象力太丰富？
没看过的剧你瞎评论什么，还张嘴就来“给庆丰帝歌功颂德“，捕风捉影，指鹿为马，你才是得了大纪元真传。
评价一个剧不一定要先看过。很多关于剧/电影的buzz 都是很多人还没看过但口口相传generated。当然我承认我对这类剧会有先入为主的看法，尤其楼主说过是跟庆丰帝有关。不过这么多人群起攻之上纲上线说明这剧还是有很多粉丝的
为什么不能评论？这个扶贫剧跟庆丰帝没关系吗？庆丰帝这几年所作所为对文字影音媒体的铁腕控制有目共睹，我为什么不能是一部跟他有关的剧质疑。你说我得了大纪元真传，我也可以说你这口气像个气急败坏的五毛。
It was the best cow I’ve ever had,” Mr. Jia said. The village of Jieyuan is one of many successes of President Xi Jinping’s ambitious pledge to eradicate abject rural poverty by the end of 2020. In just five years, China says it has lifted from extreme poverty over 50 million farmers left behind by breakneck economic growth in cities.
But the village, one of six in Gansu visited by The New York Times without government oversight, is also a testament to the considerable cost of the ruling Communist Party’s approach to poverty alleviation. That approach has relied on massive, possibly unsustainable subsidies to create jobs and build better housing. Local cadres fanned out to identify impoverished households — defined as living on less than $1.70 a day. They handed out loans, grants and even farm animals to poor villagers. Officials visited residents weekly to check on their progress.
We’re pretty sure China’s eradication of absolute poverty in rural areas has been successful — given the resources mobilized, we are less sure it is sustainable or cost effective,” said Martin Raiser, the World Bank country director for China. Beijing poured almost $700 billion in loans and grants into poverty alleviation over the past five years — about 1 percent of each year’s economic output. That excludes large donations by state-owned enterprises like State Grid, a power transmission giant, which put $120 billion into rural electricity upgrades and assigned more than 7,000 employees to work on poverty alleviation projects. The campaign took on new urgency this year as the country faced devastation from the coronavirus pandemic and severe flooding. One by one, provinces announced they had met their goals. In early December, Mr. Xi declared that China had “achieved a significant victory that impresses the world.” But Mr. Xi acknowledged further efforts were needed to share wealth more widely. A migrant worker in a coastal factory city can earn as much in a month as a Gansu farmer earns in a year.
Mr. Xi also called for officials to make sure that newly created jobs and aid for the poor did not fade away in the coming years.
Gansu, China’s poorest province, declared in late November that it had lifted its last counties out of poverty. Just a decade ago, poverty in the province was widespread. Hu Jintao, China’s leader before Mr. Xi, visited people living in simple homes with few furnishings. Villagers ate so many potatoes that local officials were embarrassed when a young girl initially refused to eat yet another one with Mr. Hu in front of television cameras because she was tired of them, according to a cable disclosed by WikiLeaks. Though many villages are still reachable only by single-lane roads, they are lined with streetlights powered by solar panels. New industrial-scale pig farms, plant nurseries and small factories have sprung up, creating jobs. Workers are building new houses for farmers.
Three years ago, Zhang Jinlu woke in terror when the rain-weakened mud brick walls of his home gave way. Half the roof timbers came crashing down with slabs of dirt, narrowly missing him and his mother. Officials in Youfang village built a spacious new concrete house for them, complete with new furniture. Mr. Zhang, 69, now receives a monthly stipend of $82 through the poverty program. His original house was rebuilt for him as a storage shed. “This house used to be dilapidated, and it leaked when it rained,” Mr. Zhang said. The government helps private factories buy equipment and pay salaries if they hire workers deemed impoverished.
At Tanyue Tongwei Clothing & Accessories Company in southeastern Gansu, about 170 workers, mostly women, sewed school uniforms, T-shirts, down jackets and face masks. Workers said that several dozen employees received extra payments from the poverty alleviation program in addition to their salaries. Lu Yaming, the company’s legal representative, said Tanyue receives at least $26,000 a year in subsidies from poverty alleviation programs — out of which $500 a year was paid to each of the 17 villagers deemed impoverished. But the viability of these factories without ongoing aid is far from clear. Until the subsidies arrived, the factory frequently had trouble paying wages on time, Mr. Lu said.
Inevitable questions swirl over whether some families have used personal ties to local officials to qualify for grants. Corruption investigators punished 99,000 people nationwide in connection with poverty relief efforts last year, according to official statistics. At local eateries in communities like Mayingzhen, where a heavily seasoned platter of fried donkey meat costs $7, the talk is all about who received what, and whether they really should have qualified. While the poverty alleviation program has helped millions of poor people, critics point to the campaign’s rigid definitions. The program assists people classified as extremely poor at some point from 2014 to 2016, without adding others who may have fallen on hard times since then. It also does very little to help poor people in big cities where wages are higher but workers must pay far more for food and rent. According to the government’s complicated criteria for determining eligibility for aid, anyone who owned a car, had more than $4,600 in assets or had a new or recently rebuilt house was excluded. People hovering just above the government’s poverty line continue to struggle to make ends meet, but are often denied help with housing or other benefits.Zhang Sumei, a 53-year-old farmer, earns $1,500 a year growing and selling potatoes and had to use her savings to build her home in concrete. She says that she should have qualified for aid for the extremely poor. Farming Gansu’s notoriously infertile soil is hard and difficult. this society, poor families are designated by cadres, and we have nothing,” she said bitterly. The party’s campaign-style approach also fails to tackle deep-seated problems that disproportionately hurt the poor, including the cost of health care and other gaping holes in China’s emerging social safety net. Villages provide limited health insurance — only 17 percent of the cost of Mr. Jia’s arthritis medicine is covered, for example. Hefty medical bills can ruin families. Yang Xiaoling, a 48-year-old worker who works at another government-subsidized factory in Gansu, wept uncontrollably as she described the crippling debt she faced after paying medical fees for her husband, who suffered kidney failure. Three years ago, she borrowed $7,700 at zero interest from a bank affiliated with the poverty alleviation program and was supposed to invest the money in buying livestock. But instead she borrowed more money from relatives and then spent all the money on a kidney transplant and medicine for her husband.
Now the entire loan is due and she has no money to repay it. Follow-up medical treatments for her husband consume her entire salary. So the couple and their three children and her husband’s invalid parents subsist on monthly government poverty assistance payments of less than $50 per person. “I don’t have the ability to pay it back. I can’t help it,” Ms. Yang sobbed. “I have already borrowed a lot of money, and now no one lends me money.” Despite the challenges, the poverty relief program may have a long-term political benefit that helps to ensure some of it survives. Gratitude for the program seems to be reinforcing the political power of the party in rural areas. In Youfang, Mr. Zhang was quick to praise not just the poverty program but also Mr. Xi, comparing him to Mao. It is good for the country to have Xi Jinping,” he said, “and the national policy is good.” Chris Buckley contributed reporting from Sydney. Liu Yi, Amber Wang and Coral Yang contributed research.
影版的各位都是就事论事讨论剧好不好看。你爱上纲上线到政治不如去闲话或者政治版发贴，那里有更多恨国党会和你有更多共鸣。你根本没看剧，甚至连这剧主线是什么都懒得搜，就把它往政治风向带。
你就是对扶贫剧这个剧种有意见吧。拍点扶贫剧，尤其用好班底好导演名演员来拍扶贫剧挺好的。至少可以吸引广大观众看剧，知道基层扶贫工作多辛苦艰难，知道扶贫工作者的不容易。我追过几集也在播的扶贫剧《江山如此多娇》，那部剧每集片尾还有真实扶贫工作人员的小片断。我也是第一次看扶贫剧。和剧种无关，关键看编剧、导演、演员各方协调，能不能拍得好看。
拜托，你们不是已经有一个剧楼了吗？楼主这个标题就提到庆丰帝，怎么不行讨论？你要申请把这个帖子转到政治版随你。我看爱上纲上线的是你们。我对庆丰帝就是有保留意见所以当然要吐嘲一下。你觉得说对庆丰帝歌功颂德是上纲上线随你了。我觉得是通过扶贫主题非常smart不显山露水的歌功颂德这样可以吧。我主要质疑这样的扶贫能否持久，这是个合理的质疑为什么你们都觉得我在批判这个剧？我什么时候说到这个剧表演和导演水平差了？
还有我最多算是恨党党不恨国。其实恨党也谈不上，嫌弃吧更合适点，所以不要随便给人盖帽子。
既然已经不是在讨论剧本身了，那我就转到政治版吧！你接着好好讨论。
转过来了，看来是你是影视版版主，亲自动手，怪不得这么快，连原楼主意见都不用问的？你喜欢这个伟大扶贫剧也不要这么明显吧？
豆瓣山海情小组有西海固当地村民上来发皂片证实退耕还林的确有成效，不知道这里自以为是阴阳怪气的人🈶️了解多少。
我看没什么，去年对大统领chinese virus说法不同意，对大统领抗疫表现不满意的不都被打成ccp了么，全世界不都黄金兰了么
退耕还林自然是好事啊，有成效我自然替他们高兴。但是是否sustainable仍旧是一个valid question，我不觉得是阴阳怪气。你就凭豆瓣上几幅照片你又能全面了解那里的情况吗？
看了半天网上99%是正面报道。这篇2018年澎湃新闻的报道是比较全面的描述，从方方面面讲述了很多水的难题。现在新闻控制如此之严。这样全面详实的报道恐怕很难看见了。
http://m.thepaper.cn/renmin_prom.jsp?contid=1612951&from=renmin
其实也是的，哪里都有一刀切的头脑发热的，不过作为版主因为自己的偏好亲自下场操作我以前是没领教过，闲话里面那么多政治贴还有很多扯东扯西就扯到政治的帖子可没看到版主因为哪个不顺眼就搬家的。这个版主都没过问过原楼主意见我感觉不妥，不过这估计是版主特权，不用过期作废。