American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

No one is trying to suppress this forum, but also no one but you seems to care enough to post in it. It is mainly a gaming forum after all. It's not the main reason I come here. Speaking of for people reading this I need ONE more for new pitboss! Charr it could be you!

I know diverting to Gaza is a fallacy. Its one I called you one CONSTANTLY. That is why its to "pull a Charr". See what I was dealing with? How many times did you do this to me? Thanks for admitting that you were in fact doing all the fallacies all those times.

1)
I'm talking stability vs not. NOT popularity. I'm talking effectiveness at stability. There are actually more autocracies than democracies by number of governments right now. Looking at all of history there have certainly been more. I'm not saying the factors you mentioned don't happen. But seriously take a look at history. Again, we typically only learn about successful periods of a country. But dive deep and its chaos most of the time. Generals and body guards trying to seize power. Sons trying to off their fathers to get power earlier (and in some crazy cases the father then having to pardon the son because he doesn't have another heir). Sons killing each other. Court factions trying to seize power. Putting children onto thrones for puppets. To name a few.

You are right that democracies can still suffer from instability and constantly changing political power trying to shift blame. But that is still MORE stable than autocracies. Again, you seem to be saying I'm arguing perfecting. I am not. I am arguing they are MORE stable because they do have a solution to "how do you determine power" problem.

Again, you seem to just be looking at the now (which I would still argue shows that many autocracies are unstable), but look at the historical destruction the struggle for power within countries has caused. We don't have the same historical record for democracies, but what we do have show relative stability even if they are flawed democracies. What happens throughout history when there is severe recession, famine, or other disaster the populace is unhappy with how the ruling class hasn't handled well. You get revolts and or brutal crackdowns. In democracies you get the party out of power. It might not even be there fault. Its possible the side taking powers solutions are wrong. But that still provides more stability.

2)
Again, you focus on the failures of democracies, ignoring the failures of autocracies.

So successes. You probably don't count women's rights as recent. But historically speaking IT IS. Do you know how shitty half of our population has been treated by most countries throughout history? Again, not recent, but workers rights. Our very flawed democracy at the time tried to stop those. Police beatings, killings, suppression. Still got change with enough work. I'm not saying its easy. There is plenty of corruption still going on especially now, but we had multiple democrats get charged for corruption while Biden was president. How many really bad Republican candidates have lost when they were in favorable overall races recently? There are those who won, but is it better than an autocracy putting whomever they want in. YES. Again, nonzero is more than zero. More recent: I'll file it under "chance for change" instead of accountability, but Wisconsin voted for Trump then voted for a liberal state supreme court candidate. Maybe that is economy preferences vs social, maybe its other factors, but has had effects. Wisconsin got at least state redistricting and struck down the abortion ban. Whatever your views on that, you can't argue voting didn't cause a change. Britain finally kicked out its conservative government, that is change. Again, depending on your viewpoint you could view these as accountability, but they are undeniable change brought on by voters. I'm not arguing voters are always right. Some voters look at those in congress giving an applause to those committing genocide, say they care about that genocide, then vote for that side anyways. Whoops I did it again. But you can't argue they CAN enact change. Some of that change is accountability for actions. I'm not saying it doesn't fail a lot. But how much change for accountability or other reasons can the populace do under an autocracy. some > 0 Again, this is where your arguments fail.

I mean part of America's success is 100% its democracy. And don't get me wrong we have been a flawed democracy all our history. Look at the history of the recent of new world to give a roughly equal time spam. We've had 1 civil war. Look at the everyone south of us and its a huge lesson. Heck part of how I came to my conclusions was by studying Mexican and South American history. There are a lot of historical factors specifically with how Spain set up its colonies vs England (which I count a constitutional monarchy as a type of flawed democracy), but yes even a flawed democracy provides stability. The struggle to get to a democracy for them and others has been REAL hard. Those struggles are the people wanting a chance for the powerful to be accountably. Those struggles are the fight for a chance for the people to to get change without revolting every time.

I will also note democracies tend to have good property rights, which is pretty essential for business. I could also point out the corruption indexes again. You like to focus on the US, which is fair as both of us are American, but there are better democracies out there even if I suspect more recent corruption studies might have had the US plummet in the rankings. But still over time, over multiple countries, you can see the difference.

As far as "hail to the King he will stop genocide" I will point out that autocracies are very capable of committing genocides throughout history even if we ignore more recent events you deny. Saying "a free press democracy which has a chance for change" is WORSE than "state run press that does whatever it feels like and can't be changed unless glorious leader says so" is a nonsensical logical argument.

I'm not excusing it. I never have. (deleted sentences to stay focused). Voters can be wrong, but at least you can change in a democracy. Once you have a "supreme leader" that is hard. Foreign policy change is not high on the list of voter preferences most of the time. Its better than autocracies just doing whatever they want, but it still isn't perfect. I'm not arguing it is. Your logic is flawed. Look at how much public pressure has grown. Its not enough yet; change takes work. Less work than doing a revolution, but still a lot of work. Look at how many NON US democracies WHO ARE OUR ALLIES. Who are afraid of a tariff happy Trump (or in some cases has threatened to take them over), are still putting pressure on the US and Israel. Its easy and geopolitically smart for those not in our orbit to criticize. Its pretty much mandatory for the Muslim countries. But what do our allies have to gain by it? Geopolitically nothing. Why are they doing it? Their voters are protesting about it. They know its polling well. So sure the US is failing at it atm. It could change here. We are sadly the ones who matter most. But are democracies failing at it everywhere? NO. Again, I'm not arguing perfection. I'm just saying some > 0. In this case its quite a few doing the right thing despite it not be geopolitically smart for them to do so. The UK used to be with the US on Israel a lot. They voted for a new government which has been changing direction. So yes, democracies not perfect, but you can see examples CURRENTLY of it working.

[superdeath]

Where, are we committing genocide?? Did we in the past? Yeah, so has quite literally, 99% of countries that have ever existed. Is it horrible? Yep. Is Russia, Israel, China, Iran, Turkey committing it as we speak? Probably.

[Charr Babies]

I know diverting to Gaza is a fallacy. Its one I called you one CONSTANTLY. That is why it's to "pull a Charr". See what I was dealing with? How many times did you do this to me? Thanks for admitting that you were in fact doing all the fallacies all those times.

Wrong. Invoking Gaza isn’t a fallacy - it’s a moral imperative. It exposes how we’re complicit in genocide yet shielded from accountability. What’s actually diversionary is dragging Trump or Biden into the conversation as if their relative guilt changes the fact: the US is committing genocide. That’s blame-shifting, plain and simple. A classic democracy tactic - pass the buck, dodge the reckoning. And you use it constantly.

change takes work. Less work than doing a revolution, but still a lot of work.

Sure, and it takes even less work to pretend change is happening while keeping everything the same. This country was built on genocide 500 years ago, and it’s still doing it.

Yes, autocracies are riddled with unaccountability also. But I’ am not trying to sell autocracy as a model of accountability. That’s your pitch for democracy. And that’s exactly why it’s so easy to tear down. Democracy markets itself as accountable, that’s its supposed moral edge. So when that promise collapses, the whole structure starts to tumble. It’s a house of cards, and you’re standing in it.

I bring up Gaza because it matters. You can’t sell me a system while it’s actively committing genocide, again and again, with zero consequences. But Gaza isn’t the only example.
There’s no accountability to its own citizens. No accountability for atrocities committed across the globe.

The American Illusion: Broke in the Land of Billionaires How does a supposedly global superpower with just over 330 million people, less than 5% of the world’s population, end up with nearly 2 million behind bars and over 770,000 experiencing homelessness?...

And zombies walk the pothole-filled streets.

The US has no problem invading sovereign nations, toppling governments, and dragging foreign leaders into court or killing them outright. But its own officials? Untouchable. From CIA-backed coups to drone strikes and torture black sites, American war crimes abroad are met with silence at home. And now, as ethnic cleansing and genocide unfold in real time, the architects and enablers in the US will walk free, untouched and unbothered.

Your entire defense of democracy rests on the myth of accountability. It’s not my job to prove autocracy is accountable. It’s my job to show how your version of accountability fails, spectacularly.

I was hoping you’d offer examples of real, transformative change. Not incremental tweaks that happen in every system. So what if abortion is legal… NOT… YES… NOT? So what if I can legally shoot up xylazine and stagger through the streets like a zombie? Where’s the accountability where it actually matters?

I especially love the excuse you often use: “nonzero is more than zero.” As if any movement, no matter how superficial, is a badge of accountability. Let’s not be hypocrites. Autocratic governments also make nonzero changes. That doesn’t make them accountable, it just means they’re not entirely inert.

So if we’re going to measure legitimacy by the mere presence of change, then we’re setting the bar so low that even the worst regimes can clear it. Accountability isn’t about motion, it’s about direction, intent, and integrity. Without that, “nonzero” is just a convenient shield for mediocrity.

When we talked about the genocide of Indigenous peoples, you brushed it off as history like the trauma ended when the textbooks closed. But survivors of residential schools are still alive. Their pain is ongoing.
And now, as genocide unfolds in Gaza, your response is a shrug: “We’re not perfect.” That’s not accountability. That’s moral bankruptcy dressed up as pragmatism.

Has accountability led to meaningful change? No. Has it masked moral collapse? Absolutely.

This nation was founded on genocide - and now we applaud it with standing ovations. Accountability isn’t the glue holding democracy together. It’s the illusion keeping it from falling apart.

---

[Mjmd]

I mean you brought it up even if the argument wasn't about it EVERY TIME. I love how it was all about Biden when Biden was in office, but now it doesn't matter who it is. Its almost as if mental gymnastics are involved and always were.

You yet again are only focusing on point #2 and ignoring #1.

You ignored all my examples except to dismiss one out of hand and you just dismissed it despite it impacting lives. Have you even specifically studied the history of women through human history. How can you just say "no meaningful change"? You dismissed all the other nations who are trying to do something BECAUSE they are democracies. There are multiple examples of democracies going against geopolitical ally and you just IGNORE. The literally counter example to your argument and you just ignored it. Good try, but even if one wasn't enough (and again autocracies I don't think you would get one), the number of our allies, despite facing repructions from us for doing so, are standing up to us, is a point YOU CAN'T IGNORE. I mean you can, you did, but it just proves your argument doesn't hold water. Yes its not a 100% success rate. Again, I'm not trying to prove democracy perfect. I'm not trying to prove the American democracy is or has ever been perfect. All I have to prove is that it is better. Again, you can be disappointed and angry. But the solution isn't autocracy.

To that point. WITHOUT going into America bad, do an argument FOR autocracy. You have to prove its MORE accountable (hard with corruption indexes showing the opposite or you know the fact that politicians do get voted out of office or all those examples of change you ignored). You have to prove its MORE stable (hard when history is littered with coups, revolts, and civil wars). When has what local people thought mattered (hard when the only avenue for change is protesting or rioting and those have so often been brutally oppressed / revolutions which always end with results obtained)?  Why haven't autocracies ended all their genocides (and there are MANY MANY MANY)? And mind you according to your logic if it has failed at stability or accountability at any point it isn't those things. You see how flawed your argument is? And I know you will just devolve into America bad, but that doesn't make autocracy good.

[Charr Babies]

I mean you brought it up even if the argument wasn't about it EVERY TIME. I love how it was all about Biden when Biden was in office, but now it doesn't matter who it is. Its almost as if mental gymnastics are involved and always were.

How delusional are you to think I should hold Trump accountable when Biden was the one in charge? I’m sure I’ve said '...WE are committing genocide...' just as often as I’ve directly used Bloody Joe’s name. Yes, now Trump is in charge, and he’s responsible for the fact that the genocide continues.

No, it doesn’t matter who’s in charge when we’re talking about the US committing genocide. The only difference it makes is that it lets you shift the blame. You want to pin it on the GOP, not the Dems, not the US. That’s not accountability, that’s blame-shifting. And it’s exactly what’s wrong with your democracy.

Claiming one side is worse than the other when it comes to genocide is just a tangent, your usual diversion tactic. As I’ve said multiple times, if you’ve cooked up another funky formula, like you did before, to prove Trump is worse, I encourage you to start a new thread. I promise I’ll respond."

Arguing over degrees of atrocity is moral rot

You yet again are only focusing on point #2 and ignoring #1.
You ignored all my examples except to dismiss one out of hand and you just dismissed it despite it impacting lives. Have you even specifically studied the history of women through human history. How can you just say "no meaningful change"? You dismissed all the other nations who are trying to do something BECAUSE they are democracies. There are multiple examples of democracies going against geopolitical ally and you just IGNORE. The literally counter example to your argument and you just ignored it. Good try, but even if one wasn't enough (and again autocracies I don't think you would get one), the number of our allies, despite facing repructions from us for doing so, are standing up to us, is a point YOU CAN'T IGNORE. I mean you can, you did, but it just proves your argument doesn't hold water. Yes its not a 100% success rate. Again, I'm not trying to prove democracy perfect. I'm not trying to prove the American democracy is or has ever been perfect. All I have to prove is that it is better. Again, you can be disappointed and angry. But the solution isn't autocracyThat.

That was my response to you, did you skip it? I at least have the courtesy to give you a TLDR when I skip over.

“I was hoping you’d offer examples of real, transformative change. Not incremental tweaks that happen in every system. So what if abortion is legal… NOT… YES… NOT? So what if I can legally shoot up xylazine and stagger through the streets like a zombie? Where’s the accountability where it actually matters?”

The changes you listed aren’t unique to democratic societies, though they may not follow an 'eye for an eye' approach. Try implementing changes (cough... cough... as some autocracies have done), like eliminating homelessness or tackling the drug problem. These examples may or may not be better or worse than the ones you mentioned, but the point is: positive change isn’t exclusive to democracy.

But it really doesn't matter if I have answered your points. When I do, you just keep moving the goal post.

And most of the time when you say that you only mean I didn’t agree with you.

To that point. WITHOUT going into America bad, do an argument FOR autocracy.

I did. Pretty sure that was my longest post yet on this thread. Read China vs India and the US. Just omit the part about the US unless you want a reality check.

You have to prove its MORE accountable (hard with corruption indexes showing the opposite or you know the fact that politicians do get voted out of office or all those examples of change you ignored).

My mom says I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to…
I don’t have to prove it is more accountable. That’s your pitch - Turns out your version of accountability isn’t justice - it’s theater. It’s propaganda masquerading as principle. Sure, they get voted out, just new faces in old frames - same shit, different piles. They say democracy gives you the power to change leaders. "What they don’t say is, you’re stuck with the same playbook."

You have to prove its MORE stable (hard when history is littered with coups, revolts, and civil wars).

… Mostly due to the US meddling. Still those are not unique to autocracy. We have turned many democracies and replaced them with dictators too. We are, at least fair in that regard, we've toppled democracies and propped up dictators with equal enthusiasm - Whoever refuses to submit to our tyranny or dictatorship. We sow chaos, ignite conflict, and commit atrocities abroad, only to mock the instability we helped create. It’s a grim kind of consistency.

When has what local people thought mattered (hard when the only avenue for change is protesting or rioting and those have so often been brutally oppressed  / revolutions which always end with results obtained)? 

Are we talking about the most recent events in the US? Anti-Iraq War protests, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Jan 6, No Kings Day, Columbia University? I get tired typing. We do the same here, the only difference is there is still no change.

Why haven't autocracies ended all their genocides (and there are MANY MANY MANY)? And mind you according to your logic if it has failed at stability or accountability at any point it isn't those things. You see how flawed your argument is? And I know you will just devolve into America bad, but that doesn't make autocracy good.

You guessed it! AMERICA BAD! You are a genius! No, that doesn't make autocracy good.

I see now how flawed my argument is.    Thanks for the correction!

Autocracy Bad! But that doesn't make democracy good. 

:drum roll:

---

[Mjmd]

I NEVER excused the dems or Biden. Saying who is worse MATTERS. IT LEADS TO MORE DEATH!!! Something you laughed at me for. You can't say you care and then with the other hand go "I don't actually care about the consequences". You talk about excuses. This was the major flaw before the election, I pointed it out, and I "won" by now getting to say "I told you so" I wish I had lost. Its like saying all people die and we might as well not try. 

Many democracies have also eliminated homelessness and tackled their drug problems. Again, you just use the US and IGNORE all other examples. Like you for the SECOND time ignored all the other democracies going against their geopolitical interests and pressuring the US. So much text and you haven't addressed a main counterargument. Its almost as if you don't have one. Its not that autocracies CAN'T do change. Its that its inherently HARDER. You can't just vote for someone new. SOMETIMES in autocracies protests work, but a lot of times they don't and sometimes when they don't the protesters are beaten or shot. And past that its just up to dear leader. The fact the leader CAN change in democracies is the point. 

All you said is China is better than India. You ignore the very complicated history and make up of India. Quite frankly I consider it a success of democracy that it hasn't broken apart yet. You also JUST use China as an example of a functioning autocracy, ignore anything negative on them (I'm assuming you don't even think the great leap forward happened or Tiananmen square happened), then use some of the worst democracies (which I count us as),dismiss anything we have done as not mattering, and only focus on the negative. Yes if you do all those things, then yes your argument makes sense. Again, workers rights are something trodden on in lots of autocracies, let alone other rights which you probably would also dismiss with a hand wave. You ignored one of the biggest changes in cultural human history of the rise of women equality across many countries. Sure there are autocracies that have done so in recent times, mostly due to pressure from democracies, but look at the vast majority of human history and autocracies have done poorly there. Mind you the US is still working on this, I'm not claiming perfecting. Its not democracy = instant perfection. I know you can't counter the corruption indexes other than saying "they are fake", which is always the sign of a good argument. So yes I expect a better argument then "China is the best if I ignore everything negative". Give me an argument across history. Give me an argument how what the people have wanted gets MORE changes in autocracies. You definitely haven't addressed stability still.

You actually do have to prove its more accountable if you are actually trying to do an argument and not just shit up the internet (? we will see how you answer to know this). This whole argument is about Democracy vs Autocracy. You dismiss all my arguments and all my examples on how democracy is more accountable. I have counters to that above. But you seem to be saying its equal. You seem to be saying its no better than in accountability. Same shit different piles. There are three problems with this argument from your side. 1) if they are equal, which one doesn't matter, so why not do the one "that has better feels" (to summarize your argument). 2) You haven't addressed #1 stability argument so democracy would still win there. If anything you seem to be arguing that Democracy is for show and placating the populace, which if nothing else does help with stability. So you've helped prove that point for me and mind you it wasn't one of the factors I brought up. 3) If I have misinterpreted what your argument and you ARE saying autocracy is better, then yes you have to prove it. Otherwise its a logical fallacy. You can't just keep saying "x thing is better and I will offer no argument on why it is".

I didn't realize US meddling had time traveling powers. I will note major powers messing with the governments of others is not something unique to the US even in modern times. And it certainly doesn't explain the stability issues of all modern autocracies. This is a cheap answer to avoid addressing the point.

Good thing all those womens rights protests never went anywhere. All those worker protests, no result. Equal rights protests never did anything. Vietnam protests nothing of course. Good thing the French never protest anything and it never results in change.  As I've pointed out and you've ignored protests in OTHER democracies has resulted in changed government stances towards genocide occurring in Gaza.

I mean the whole argument has been about ways democracy is better, not good. I probably should have said, democracy bad doesn't mean autocracy is better. You are correct. However, you have mainly been focusing on democracy bad as I pointed out many many times.

[Charr Babies]

I NEVER excused the dems or Biden. Saying who is worse MATTERS. IT LEADS TO MORE DEATH!!! Something you laughed at me for. You can't say you care and then with the other hand go "I don't actually care about the consequences". You talk about excuses. This was the major flaw before the election, I pointed it out, and I "won" by now getting to say "I told you so" I wish I had lost. Its like saying all people die and we might as well not try.

Keep trying. I am not letting you go off on a tangent. I DARE you to start a new thread if you really want to talk about who is worse. Please please, show me you new improved funkier formular 

Many democracies have also eliminated homelessness and tackled their drug problems. Again, you just use the US and IGNORE all other examples. Like you for the SECOND time ignored all the other democracies going against their geopolitical interests and pressuring the US. So much text and you haven't addressed a main counterargument. Its almost as if you don't have one.

You still don’t get it! Autocracy and democracy share some features and improvements as well as defects. What you are trying to do is split hair. It would be an endless argument if we list that autocracy does this too, and that democracy does this too. Once one question is debunked, you keep on moving the goal post and bring in inconsequential rhetoric.

Such as -

It’s the THIRD time you brought up all the other democracies going against their geopolitical interests and pressuring the US.”

What exactly are you trying to prove besides ‘U.S. BAD!’? Even your allies have had to speak up? Sure, they talk, but they're still wagging their tails, waiting for a command from their master. And you know they'll pay the price if they haven't already.

That’s right, I’m not here to answer every one of your stupid petty little questions. There's no need for cherry-picking or hair-splitting - a classic tactic you use to claw for the upper hand when you’ve got nothing. Are you going to ask me a FOURTH TIME!?

Its not that autocracies CAN'T do change. Its that its inherently HARDER. You can't just vote for someone new. SOMETIMES in autocracies protests work, but a lot of times they don't and sometimes when they don't the protesters are beaten or shot. And past that its just up to dear leader. The fact the leader CAN change in democracies is the point.

I already addressed that exact point in your last post. I gave you a counter, one you didn’t even bother to engage with. Instead, you just keep recycling the same tired line

Are we talking about the most recent events in the US? Anti-Iraq War protests, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Jan 6, No Kings Day, Columbia University? I get tired typing. We do the same here, the only difference is there is still no change.

Never mind the injured number, at least 7 people got shot is this random short sample I bothered to list amongst many more .

Founded genocide and again genocide under 2 more leaders.
It is these kinds of stupid statements you keep pushing and think that I have to answer again and again that makes it tiring. But I know, that's your tactic.

All you said is China is better than India. You ignore the very complicated history and make up of India. Quite frankly I consider it a success of democracy that it hasn't broken apart yet.

That’s because the US has been propping it up to contain China. Success belongs to those who survive the US’s dirty suppression at all. You ignore the very complicated history and make up practically all countries.

I consider it a success of democracy that it hasn't broken apart yet.

I wouldn’t have to call you out as a hypocrite if you applied that same logic to any country, democratic or autocratic. “consider it a success of autocracy/democracy that it hasn't broken apart yet” What garbage!?
Declaring 'it hasn’t broken apart yet' as a success is a pretty low bar especially when you're selective about who gets credit for simply holding together.

You also JUST use China as an example of a functioning autocracy, ignore anything negative on them (I'm assuming you don't even think the great leap forward happened or Tiananmen square happened), then use some of the worst democracies (which I count us as),dismiss anything we have done as not mattering, and only focus on the negative. Yes if you do all those things, then yes your argument makes sense. Again, workers rights are something trodden on in lots of autocracies, let alone other rights which you probably would also dismiss with a hand wave. You ignored one of the biggest changes in cultural human history of the rise of women equality across many countries. Sure there are autocracies that have done so in recent times, mostly due to pressure from democracies, but look at the vast majority of human history and autocracies have done poorly there. Mind you the US is still working on this, I'm not claiming perfecting. Its not democracy = instant perfection. I know you can't counter the corruption indexes other than saying "they are fake", which is always the sign of a good argument. So yes I expect a better argument then "China is the best if I ignore everything negative". Give me an argument across history. Give me an argument how what the people have wanted gets MORE changes in autocracies. You definitely haven't addressed stability still.

I asked for accountability where it counts. Like genocide, war crimes corruptions, and that's the best you (whatever your pronounce is) can do?

It’s the same tired garbage we’ve gone over again and again. You wave off the U.S. with a casual 'nobody’s perfect,' yet you press relentlessly on China where you can find many issues mirrored in the US (read above). And most of what you list is either steeped in Western bias or just plain fake. Honestly, in an age where the internet puts information at everyone’s fingertips, you'd expect there to be fewer fools. But whatever, let’s just say everything you claim is true…

To pull a Mjmd “Autocracy Bad! But that doesn't make democracy good.”

Still waving the women’s rights flag, as if that’s exclusive to democracies? That’s your big comeback after I’ve pressed you on accountability time and time again? Pathetic 

I'm not claiming perfection. Its not autocracy = instant perfection. 

I know you can't counter the corruption indexes

Oh I know a good source. Go to Wikipedia and search for "US war crimes" for just a long ass list, still not held accountable. Sadly, they only listed ones that absolutely sticks. 

other than saying "they are fake

That's like saying "honestly.." somehow give your words creditability. LoL

You actually do have to prove its more accountable if you are actually trying to do an argument and not just shit up the internet (? we will see how you answer to know this). This whole argument is about Democracy vs Autocracy. You dismiss all my arguments and all my examples on how democracy is more accountable.

No, I don't have to prove autocracy is more accountable. I’ve never tried to sell autocracy as a model of accountability. That’s not to say there is no accountability. That’s your pitch for democracy. And that’s exactly why it’s so easy to tear down. Democracy markets itself as accountable, that’s its supposed moral edge. So when that promise collapses, the whole structure starts to tumble. It’s a house of cards.

I'm making the case that autocracy can work. Nation building demands competence, vision, and control, not just ballots and slogans. Systems don’t build nations, people do. And clinging to democratic dogma while ignoring results is how empires decay and states collapse.

I'm curious, exactly what atrocities should China actually be accountable for over the past 13 years under Xi? Let's stack that against the last 13 years in the U.S. If you're serious about evaluating systems, then using Xi's tenure is absolutely valid. He's been the face, architect, and enforcer of China's current model. It's more than enough to gauge the trajectory, stability, and outcomes of that system. You don't need a century-long audit, you need to look at who's been steering the ship and what the results have been.

I have counters to that above. But you seem to be saying its equal. You seem to be saying its no better than in accountability. Same shit different piles. There are three problems with this argument from your side. 1) if they are equal, which one doesn't matter, so why not do the one "that has better feels" (to summarize your argument). 2) You haven't addressed #1 stability argument so democracy would still win there. If anything you seem to be arguing that Democracy is for show and placating the populace, which if nothing else does help with stability. So you've helped prove that point for me and mind you it wasn't one of the factors I brought up. 3) If I have misinterpreted what your argument and you ARE saying autocracy is better, then yes you have to prove it. Otherwise its a logical fallacy. You can't just keep saying "x thing is better and I will offer no argument on why it is".

Same tired garbage that I have answered again and again. All you are doing is grasping at straws

You also JUST use China as an example of a functioning autocracy,

JUST!? Really? So now using one of the most prominent, complex, and globally influential autocracies as a case study is somehow a flaw in the argument? You expect me to comb through all 195 countries on Earth just to cherry-pick fringe examples that suit your narrative? LoL. That’s not how serious analysis works. It’s entirely logical, and frankly necessary, to focus on the most representative and impactful examples when comparing political systems. China isn’t just 'an autocracy'; it’s the archetype of a modern, centralized authoritarian state with global reach, economic clout, and a unique governance model. Likewise, when discussing democracies, we don’t waste time dissecting microstates or unstable regimes, we look at the most established and influential ones. That would be our shining beacon of democracy, US! That’s how meaningful comparisons are made. So yes, I used China. Because if you’re going to evaluate systems, you start with the heavyweights. Anything else is just intellectual evasion dressed up as nuance.

If I have misinterpreted what your argument and you ARE saying autocracy is better,

Yes you have misinterpreted. On second thought, make that a no. You are only twisting my words to try and win a debate you are losing. Your usual tactic. I kept probing you to read the bottom line,

The Bottom Line

Let’s stop pretending
- Autocracy isn’t inherently wicked, and democracy isn’t some moral high ground.

- Autocracy isn’t a synonym for failure, and democracy isn’t a guarantee of progress.

That narrative is propaganda dressed as principle. Nation building demands competence, vision, and control, not just ballots and slogans. Systems don’t build nations, people do. And clinging to democratic dogma while ignoring results is how empires decay and states collapse.

MORE GARBAGE DELETED FOR OUR SANITY… You are correct. However, you have mainly been focusing on democracy bad as I pointed out many many times.

You have mainly been focusing on autocracy bad as I pointed out many many times.

Sigh. I only knocked down your fragile tower of 'accountability.' Didn't mean to rip the bandage off your bruised pride

Oh, before you spill more garbage, read the Bottom Line. You’re frothing like a rabid dog on a podium. 

---

[darrelljs]

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2...isfaction/

The TL;DR (now provided by AI) is:

This article from the Ash Center details a long-term survey on Chinese public opinion, conducted from 2003 to 2016. Here is a summary of its key findings:

High Satisfaction with Central Government: The study found a very high level of satisfaction with the central government in Beijing, with 95.5% of respondents in 2016 reporting they were "relatively satisfied" or "highly satisfied." This contrasts sharply with public opinion trends in the U.S.

Lower Satisfaction with Local Government: In contrast, satisfaction with local governments was much lower. The study suggests this is because local governments are responsible for providing most public services but have a declining share of tax revenue, leading them to resort to "ad-hoc" fees that erode trust.

Closing the Inequality Gap in Attitudes: The survey revealed that satisfaction levels among low-income citizens and residents of less-developed, inland provinces "closed the satisfaction gap" with wealthier, coastal residents over time. The researchers attribute this to policies that improved healthcare, welfare, education, and infrastructure.

Resilience of the Political System: The findings challenge the long-held assumption that rising inequality and corruption would lead to widespread unrest. While frustrations exist, the study indicates the political system is "remarkably resilient," as citizens are more likely to be satisfied when they see "real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."

Methodology: The survey was conducted through in-person interviews with 32,000 respondents in eight waves from 2003 to 2016, making it the longest-running academic survey of its kind by a non-Chinese institution. The researchers believe the results provide a more accurate picture of public opinion than short-term or infrequent polls.

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

The researchers believe the results provide a more accurate picture of public opinion than short-term or infrequent polls.

Unless one chooses to remain willfully ignorant

That is just one of the countless things one can easily fact-check, without demanding reading, and be entertained at the same time.

-   We can skip TikTok if you're concerned about propaganda or breaches of national security.  


-   Instead, Little Red Book, a Chinese social media platform originally designed for locals to share lifestyle tips, product reviews, travel itineraries, and personal experiences. It was made by Chinese developers for Chinese users, and only recently added English translations following the influx of TikTok refugees. My post about it in January


-   Go there yourself - China has now opened visa-free travel to 75 countries, inviting people from around the world to see the country for themselves.


-   Short on time or money? There are millions of YouTubers who’ve traveled to China and uncovered the lies they were once told. You’ll find videos from long-running, well-known global travelers who share the same truth:


A short list here if for those to lazy to do the search:
- 30 Amazing Days in China (Travel Documentary) offers a comprehensive look at life across Mainland China, from cities to countryside.

- 14 DAYS IN CHINA! (Movie Length China Travel Vlog) takes you through iconic landmarks like the Great Wall and Terracotta Warriors.

- The TRUTH about our trip to CHINA (What REALLY happened) reveals firsthand experiences that challenge Western narratives.

- Why is EVERYONE Going to CHINA? We Had to Find Out! explores the growing curiosity and positive surprises travelers encounter.

- China Was NOT What I Expected… (Full Travel Vlog) captures the emotional and cultural impact of visiting China.

- First Impressions of SHANGHAI, CHINA! Travel Vlog showcases the modernity and vibrancy of one of China’s most iconic cities.

---

[Mjmd]

Its your usual tangent, you can hardly blame me for pulling a charr.

I am going to ask a 4th time. So what that there are multiple counter examples? WTF. Yes the 1 that matters most is still failing, but that doesn't discount the many many democracies NOT failing. They ALSO know they will pay a price, you are right there. So why are they trying to pressure the US? BECAUSE their populace expects it of them. Just use derision and ignore the point.

Ya people still get hurt and killed protesting in the US. Its not Tianenman square level, but many of the examples I listed as success were bought with sweat and blood. But significant change was accomplished. You also dismiss anything recent I bring up as not mattering and then try listing other examples that haven't had as much success. Again, very easy to win an argument that way. Ignore everything contradicting. Again, a PRIME argument here is we both agree "yes autocracies can change if their leader wants". In democracies the leaders CAN change. If the leaders aren't changing the way the populace in an autocracy wants tough shit. In a democracy they can change that. That is MORE.

It's only recently that the US has started getting closer to India. While India was technically unaligned during cold war they bought a whole lot of soviet military equipment instead of US (and oil and still do). Saying they are only propped up thanks to the US ignores all the countries we have failed when trying to help prop up and you know the fact we weren't for a long time..... Look at the history of India before the British arrived. A) its a good example of the instability brought on by autocracies B) you will see it wasn't a previously unified country. That is an advantage that China had. Countries being told "you now exist and here are your borders" by colonial powers don't often last. That is why I said what I said and why its not a great comparison to China. You again, ONLY use China as a comparison (and ignore all negatives). You want to try the Russians / USSR instead? Probably ignore all those negatives too mind.

You can't call my history into question and then NOT know the history of women's rights under autocracies throughout history. Again, most of the autocracies who have adopted reforms have only done so BECAUSE of the pressure from democracies. Are you just ignoring all the other rights we have? You want to try some freedom of speech over in China or most other autocracies? How does freedom of religion go over in a lot of autocracies? You are also still ignoring all the other significant changes I brought up and all our other rights. You ignore countries OTHER than the US.

US war crimes somehow discounts corruption indexes. Lets pick apart how flawed that is A) you are only focusing on the US AGAIN B) it doesn't ALSO mean we don't have less corruption. Logical fallacy. Just because we fail in one area of accountability doesn't mean we don't do better in another C) its not like autocracies don't do war crimes...... You can pretend they don't exist, but throughout history there are plenty of counter examples. BUT there cannot be pressure from their populace to stop.    All you are proving is democracies aren't perfect. I've admitted that. Democracies often care far more about internal issues like the economy then what their government is doing overseas. And again, voters can be idiots or uncaring or faulty in their logic. They could say they abhor congress applauding genocide, ignore who invited them over, ignored whos doing more of the applauding, and then vote for them anyways. Ya voting isn't perfect. But even with voters like those, it is still better than autocracy.

If your argument is just that autocracies CAN work, I've already admitted that. There can even be "great" autocratic leaders (usually as long as you ignore humanitarian issues and this is true for many of the "greats"). I might need more explanation on the "systems don't build nations people do". I would argue systems even in autocracies are pretty key throughout history. The person in charge is too mind you, but the system they are overseeing 100% matters. There is a reason whichever conqueror ended up in Persia just tended to keep using their bureaucracy. Again, democracies tend to have strong property rights and that is a big deal for business success, that is system based. 

I'm just arguing democracies are better overall. Sure if you cherry pick the last 13 years, pick the metrics you want, ignore all the negatives, ignore other areas like population differences or relative starting points and only focus on the growth, you might win. Might. But lets take the last 150 of Russia/USSR and the US. China over same time period would be unfair as a lot of their issues were the Europeans meddling / Japanese invasion. But even still if you wanted to do US and China post WWII history you want to just ignore Mao? I mean you ignore a lot about China, so maybe. My point isn't that autocracies CAN'T work. I'm not even arguing they can't be better in the short term. There have been a handful of actual "good" (relatively or at least for their time) autocratic rulers in history. But that isn't the default for autocracies, those are the exceptions. Also, you are still ignoring my #1 point. STABILITY. What happens when they die? How many golden age histories have you read where it basically ended up "and then he died". How many successful autocracies has the world had at the same time throughout most of history? But take a look at the number of successful, stable, and less corrupt democracies do we have at the moment? Its a real historical oddity. 

I mean instead of restating my arguments, trying to write different ones, trying to go from different angles I could also just say "same tired garbage". I mean I do do that. US bad as only counterargument does get boring, so I do point it out. But I don't cross out your stuff and just say "garbage". Its almost as if you can't discount the points.

JUST!? Really? So now using one of the most prominent, complex, and globally influential autocracies as a case study is somehow a flaw in the argument? You expect me to comb through all 195 countries on Earth just to cherry-pick fringe examples that suit your narrative? LoL. That’s not how serious analysis works. It’s entirely logical, and frankly necessary, to focus on the most representative and impactful examples when comparing political systems. China isn’t just 'an autocracy'; it’s the archetype of a modern, centralized authoritarian state with global reach, economic clout, and a unique governance model. Likewise, when discussing democracies, we don’t waste time dissecting microstates or unstable regimes, we look at the most established and influential ones. That would be our shining beacon of democracy, US! That’s how meaningful comparisons are made. So yes, I used China. Because if you’re going to evaluate systems, you start with the heavyweights. Anything else is just intellectual evasion dressed up as nuance.

I'll actually quote this one. Again, quoting everything gets pretty long. But I wanted this here to try to catch all problems. 1) I am very willing to put current global democracies up against current autocracies. No cherry picking needed although agree on ignoring micro states. Again, I use the global corruption indexes, that is all countries including the US and China. But yes focusing only on recent and one example is a flawed way of looking at things. You wanted 13 years, and its not hard to see why that number. You just want the short term and ignore the long term even though my argument is for the long term. Just because something is "working atm" one place doesn't mean its a good system. You need MORE data. How many times in history have people gone "see that thing is working / worked over there atm", ignore all the times it hasn't or ignore that the situation is different elsewhere, and then it doesn't work long term. My argument is that democracies are more accountable and stable over time. I've admitted autocracies CAN be IF RARELY in the short term. 13 years isn't exactly long term. You also again ignore all negatives ( as well as all the postives on the other side) Not just the ones we've discussed. What are worker conditions in China? How is their current free speech rights? What happens when they try to protest? Russia / USSR was the major political power over a longer period of time post WWII (if I wanted to be generous although that isn't a long time period either, but they were very relevant even before that so probably the best comparison if you want to pick top over long period to compare to US). Wouldn't it make more sense to use them? But nope 13 years, two countries, and ignore all negatives. Or you could look at literally any point in human history, look at multiple countries, and see that autocracies have had a lot of corruption, lack of rights, coups, and civil wars.

I've pointed out that democracy better many times. That has kind of been my whole thing. Hopefully the book above has some additional angles you will ignore. 

Heh its almost a record amount of time before you started insulting me. A whole page!