American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

I mean women's rights not being significant accountability is just a laughable argument. I should win just by you saying that sentence. Oh HALF the population doesn't have the same rights as men, no big deal. 

Sorry for giving recent examples. Again, I never said democracies didn't do atrocities. But there is NOTHING stopping atrocities from doing the same. There is no way for that behavior to stop or get better. I've made this point before. BTW just to go back to your post I tried to let you have last word on, I did state that the autocracies who were calling the US out constantly were our geopolitical rivals (or Muslim countries who then still support Israel when missiles are coming their way). Our allies doing it is different; easy to see a difference right? 

Comparing women's gains in rights to drugs is a laughable comparison. Also, there are many democracies that don't have the same addiction problems the US does. I'll also note you ignored my point on where people are choosing to live (IE immigration numbers) and ignored that Hong Kong is doing worse now.

China is currently doing genocide in its own borders. A fact most of the world recognizes. Sure YOU don't. You think concentration camps mean happy fun time is occurring. What can stop that? Xi. ONLY Xi. I don't know if Kamala would have stopped US to support to Israel, we don't know. But the US public (including you) chose someone who wasn't going to stop and instead increase support. That is sadly a truth of democracy; we don't always get it right (even if it was blindly obvious). We know pressure at least made Biden pull back on sales of some of the larger bombs (which Trump then released) and made Biden supply food (which meager that is going in is now being weaponized). Assuming our democracy stands up, we have a chance to change leaders again in 3 years. Who will be leader of China? Xi. Baring a coup or death, still X. And this holds true for any autocracy doing anything. History has TONS of examples of autocracies committing atrocities. How many times have they stopped without international pressure? Whom has been doing the pressuring? Mostly democracies with free press medias that can influence public opinion. Its not to the same oppression, but Jim Crow laws in the south were oppressive, we changed them. We had an oppressed population segment (which even you can see China currently has even if you dont' want to admit more), and the people were able to change it. Can the Chinese people do the same?

I don't know if I can argue with someone who really thinks "smaller population = more resources per person". I've argued pretty extensively with Greenline on this forum that population is actually a boon for economic activity, which then tends to raise overall prosperity. It isn't the whole story, but it can be helpful. I actually haven't gone into GNP / pop or anything like that in my arguments for democracy vs autocracy as I don't consider it a main issue. I think the most I've mentioned is that democracies tend to have strong property rights, which is helpful. Also, the long term stability of democracies is a helpful factor. While policies can swing pretty wildly between democratic administrations which isn't helpful, not imploding every once in a while, along with the autocratic governments tendency towards more corruption, does make up for it.

Since WWII how many times has America easily changed leadership? How many times has that changing leadership brought change? How many protests have we done? Not all of them brought change, but some did. If the population hasn't liked the direction America was going in were we able to oust our leaders in a fairly simple manner? Yes. I'm not claiming we've been perfect. But have we been able to do change our leaders thus impacting policy? Yes. Have the people of China been able to? No. Many of their leaders served until death. Hell we recently forced out an old guy by public pressure. A few have been forced out, but by the communist party, not the people. Do you think a democracy would have kept Mao? I mean there were two coup attempts, but didn't succeed. But you see how they didn't have a better and easier option? How many of their protests have been brutally oppressed? Heck some of their "better" (depending on your viewpoint) leaders have their histories censored or heavily "have had their images rehabilitated". Which countries people have had more rights over that time frame? Have the people of China been able to change that? Sure their leaders have made SOME changes, again, that isn't my argument. But have the people been able to make changes? No.

I mean all I'm trying to prove is better. That the people have been able to bring about change. That over time democracies are more stable.

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.

Agreed. But WHEN autocracy does bad things there is no way for change to occur except via the leader. Democracies there is A chance the leader changes. 

Agreed and agreed. But autocracies do tend to be more unstable. This is where looking overall history comes in as well.

Competence isn't something democracies or autocracies do that well. The main competence in both is political survival. In democracies that means at least pretending to care about that people. In autocracies its all about a small group of people with power and how to survive around them (both if you are the head honcho / if you are below). Vision in autocracies is more consistent, but again can't be changed. This has pluses and minuses. But democracies having the chance for change is one of my key arguments. Again, sometimes short term a consistent vision of autocracies can be useful and arguably better. But if the vision is bad, there is no way to change it. Autocracies have more control most of the time, but then WAY less when shit hits the fan. And the control often comes at the cost of the populace being able to make changes except via revolt. Again, its kind of an argument against their populace being able to make changes, so that helps prove my argument. 

Sidebar, I would argue again systems 100% matter. The people do as well, but even in autocracies what systems they have matter. Does your country have a history of bureaucratic excellence? That will probably help (or hinder if you are Germany) either a democracy or autocracy. Again, I think Persia to give a non current / hopefully non controversial example is a good one of the people changing, but their overall system was so good the changing people kept using it for a long time. 

I think my description of democracy was "the worst system except all others that have been tried". So yes I agree no system is perfect.

I never claimed China wasn't currently working. I've never claimed autocracies can't work / function. That has never been my argument. My argument is 1) democracies are more stable. IE they have less coups and have less revolts / civil wars. This is a point you continue to ignore. Do I win at least this point? 2) Democracies have more accountability because they can be changed by the people. This is where the bulk of the argument has been. You've ignored significant examples and only point out the failures (see next bulk of following text). Its not that I haven't had examples, its just that you say they don't matter. You have to. I get that. It disproves your argument, but when literally every vote changes who is wielding power / how that power is wielded you have an impossible argument to make. So just denying that the changes matter is your only out. Whereas all I have to show is change has happened due to the populace, which is very easy. Showing when we've failed isn't enough, you have to dismiss all the successes as "not relevant" even if they are obviously laughably relevant. Have people protested for it, probably relevant to them. It can be relevant without protesting just to be clear, but putting your body in danger through a lot of history along with the time and inconvenience to do so probably means they considered it relevant.

[Charr Babies]

Charr:
There’s no value in dragging this debate any further. The absence of substance wasn’t incidental, it was revealing. Any attempt to salvage your argument now with retroactive gestures is too late, and too hollow.


You didn’t lose this debate because autocracy triumphed. You lost because you couldn’t defend democracy beyond its slogans

You used it to try and go off on a tangent, again, again, and again. Now that you have lost this debate on democracy VS autocracy 

This would be the 5th time I dare you to show us your funky formula how Trump is worse than Biden on genocide. 

Mjmd:
Democracies have more accountability because they can be changed by the people. This is where the bulk of the argument has been.

That would be an awesome example how your vote made positive meaningful changes - not just same shit different pile


Go ahead, show us your funky formula how Trump is worse than Biden on genocide.

---

---

[BING_XI_LAO]

Why are Chinese families sending their daughters to our universities? This was true in my class and I know it was an overall trend for a long time. That is substance. That is Chinese families deciding that maybe womens rights in America are better than China's. That their daughters have a better future here. That is matters. Xi has shut down many feminist organizations and censored feminist platforms. He has put in place more obstacles for divorce. And mind you if we go back in time too much farther I could add a whole lot more.

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/152004467

From a gender perspective, studying in the UK is more preferred by girls, with 47% of girls choosing the UK among those intending to study abroad, compared with 37% of boys.

And among international students who tend to the United States, 41% are boys and only 34% are girls.

...According to New Oriental analysis, this proportion is related to the fact that British international students choose more business, media, and art majors. Most of these majors are girls; in addition, girls generally prefer the British short-term education system.

In contrast, the proportion of students studying in the United States majoring in science and engineering is higher than that in the United Kingdom, and there are generally more men in such majors.

Chinese students in the US are male-skewed, but it's because of the degree subjects involved. Why would they really care about the host country's culture as regards feminism? What matters is the quality of the universities. It's not like they are going to fit in with democratic Western culture by becoming fat, gay etc.

How well is Hong Kong doing? We have a direct comparison to a democracy within China transitioning to just another autocracy controlled Chinese area.

Hong Kong has never existed as a fully standalone civilisation, only as a port whose relevance is its connection to the rest of China. If what you care about is China as a whole, rather than a privileged colonial barnacle, then the decline of Hong Kong may even be a good thing. There are countless other cities and ports which are on an upward trajectory, without the weird butthurt antifa of Hong Kong, "fleeing" nothing to go work minimum wage jobs in the UK because their brains got melted by Radio Free Asia.

Imagine if there was some city in your state which for centuries had been used as a launching-pad for foreign military invasions and financial parasitism, and even the cartoonish evil of the Opium Wars, forcing your country to accept drug imports. How much care would you feel for its ability to maintain its relative advantage over the rest of the country after it's finally reclaimed? With the locals having an arrogant stuck-up attitude thinking they are better than you because of their association with the foreign imperialists?

Anyway,

What is overall immigration like between the countries. China has a state run media to hide anything they do to their people, up how awesome they are, and say how shitty we are. We have free access to how awesome they are; see all your posts. Which way do you think immigration is going? I wonder if we've had trouble (at least pre Trump) with a lot of illegal Chinese illegal immigration as well as a lot of legal Chinese immigration.

The US is still richer than China for now, which means there is a draw of labour and careerism from China to the US. But the contrast is constantly declining, and the willingness to return to China is constantly increasing.
China now has a longer life expectancy than the US, which is a more substantive measure than what people want or choose. Admittedly though, part of the lifespan difference is just racial genetics, so come to think of it, you'd have to standardise what that difference is. The US also has the inherently shorter-lived, quicker-to-puberty african population.

Anyhow, China now uses more electricity per capita than Europe does, as an example of the levelling of the wealth disparity.

Where do people want to live?

North Korea, but I'm not deserving enough and they won't let me.

[BING_XI_LAO]

China is currently doing genocide in its own borders. A fact most of the world recognizes.

This is one of those times where "most of the world" actually means "most of NATO".
https://archive.ph/ak3VF

I don't know if Kamala would have stopped US support to Israel, we don't know.

I have a pretty firm opinion that she and her Jewish husband would have done nothing substantive against Israel itself. I guess they might try to topple Netanyahu... but this is his and Israel's big moment, exploiting the Oct 7th atrocity as much as possible to create their Middle Eastern empire based on espionage and assassination, before overt support for Zionist wars becomes too difficult to maintain in the Western regimes.

My argument is 1) democracies are more stable. IE they have less coups and have less revolts / civil wars.

If you want change - then coups, revolts and civil wars are the real deal. Violence is the essence of progress and life. "One must die that another may live" applies to ideas as much as peoples. If an idea is not worth fighting for... then this explains why all democratic discourse is fake and asinine.

2) Democracies have more accountability because they can be changed by the people.

When is the last time this actually happened?

When literally every vote changes who is wielding power / how that power is wielded you have an impossible argument to make. So just denying that the changes matter is your only out. Whereas all I have to show is change has happened due to the populace, which is very easy. Showing when we've failed isn't enough, you have to dismiss all the successes as "not relevant" even if they are obviously laughably relevant. Have people protested for it, probably relevant to them. It can be relevant without protesting just to be clear, but putting your body in danger through a lot of history along with the time and inconvenience to do so probably means they considered it relevant.

Well your main example seems to be that it's somehow a good thing that American blacks were unleashed to ruin public transport etc, while in China it's somehow a bad thing that Uyghur ISIS-style islamism was suppressed. Are you even aware of the mass participation of Uyghurs in ISIS in Syria?

But to return to the point, to change policy in a dictatorship one of three things must happen:
1) The dictator changes his mind - and obviously it's pretty easy for one man to change his mind, especially if he is a sovereign, an origin of propaganda narratives and laws, rather than being constrained by them. Democratic westerners have immense amounts of Stockholm Syndrome from the constant churn of other people's opinions, and have no concept of what it's like to be able to genuinely change your mind on something. That's why they think it has to be a consultative process, like you're only allowed to slightly change your point of view if millions of people urge it, with billions of words expended.
2) The dictator is replaced - obviously this always happens eventually. In contrast, it is completely impossible to change a democratic regime's ruling class without a revolution.
3) The dictator bows to public pressure.

Public pressure is vastly more effective in dictatorships than in democracies for a few reasons:
- People actually understand that only the threat of violence can change government policy. When they've had enough, they go for the throat. That's why Jan 6th was so exciting, it was a rare instance of superior autocratic-type politics breaking through the enervating miasma of democracy.
- The dictator bears responsibility for the government. In contrast, democracy is designed to be a massive blame-shifting exercise.
- The dictator stands to benefit from good policies or suffer from bad ones. Whereas in a democracy, the 4-year see-saw means that good policies' benefits arrive under the next government, as do bad effects, so you might as well sabotage and stall everything and laugh as the opposition gets blamed for it a few years later. Which is exactly what democratic regimes constantly do.

Which is easier, persuading 1 masculine dictator or a ruling class of 100 feminised conformist popularity contest participating bureaucrats? Obviously the dictator is willing to hear respectful petitions, because he is secure in his position.
But democratic leadership is inherently cowardly and effeminate and is therefore incapable of addressing novel ideas. Which is why the West is so completely stagnant.

[BING_XI_LAO]

https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/

In regard to propaganda the early advocates of uni­versal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democra­cies -- the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.

The political merchandisers appeal only to the weak­nesses of voters, never to their potential strength. They make no attempt to educate the masses into becoming fit for self-government; they are content merely to manipulate and exploit them. For this pur­pose all the resources of psychology and the social sciences are mobilized and set to work. Carefully se­lected samples of the electorate are given "interviews in depth." These interviews in depth reveal the uncon­scious fears and wishes most prevalent in a given so­ciety at the time of an election. Phrases and images aimed at allaying or, if necessary, enhancing these fears, at satisfying these wishes, at least symbolically, are then chosen by the experts, tried out on readers and audiences, changed or improved in the light of the information thus obtained. After which the political campaign is ready for the mass communicators. All that is now needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look "sincere." Under the new dispen­sation, political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The person­ality of the candidate and the way he is projected by the advertising experts are the things that really mat­ter.

[Charr Babies]

China is currently doing genocide in its own borders. A fact most of the world recognizes.

This is one of those times where "most of the world" actually means "most of NATO".
https://archive.ph/ak3VF

Lies like this when someone throws around “a fact” and “most of the world” is when I know they’re not debating in good faith. That’s when I lose respect, and my words get blunt, or don't bother with.

---

[Charr Babies]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Trump Eyes China’s Military Parade: “I Want the Bigly Missiles”

Beijing, China — September 3, 2025 In a move that surprised absolutely no one, former U.S. President Donald J. Trump has reportedly expressed interest in attending China’s upcoming military parade, calling it “the most tremendous, most powerful, most well-choreographed thing I’ve ever seen — maybe even better than my inauguration, which was also huge.”

The parade, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, will feature over 10,000 troops, cutting-edge weaponry, and enough synchronized marching to make a Swiss watch blush. Chinese officials say the event will showcase “peace through strength,” while Western analysts describe it as “a flex with fireworks.”

Trump, never one to miss a chance to photobomb history, nudged for an invite like a guy trying to sneak into a royal wedding with a selfie stick. “I throw the best parades,” he allegedly told aides. “But I want to see how the communists do it. Maybe they’ve got better hats.”

Sources close to Chinese President Xi Jinping say he’s “mildly amused” by Trump’s enthusiasm. “If he behaves, we’ll let him wave a flag,” Xi reportedly joked, adding, “but only the small one.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, also attending, was less diplomatic. “We’ll give him a folding chair near the back. He likes loud things and attention. This should satisfy both.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is expected to join the festivities as well, prompting speculation that the trio may form a new boy band called “Axis of Swagger.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s Team Is Already Brainstorming Parade Upgrades

Inspired by the lessons he hopes to learn from watching how real strongmen throw a military parade, Trump’s team is hard at work designing his next spectacle — one that will “make China jealous,” according to a leaked memo written entirely in gold Sharpie.

Plans reportedly include:
- A marching band that only plays Kid Rock, Lee Greenwood, and a remix of his rally speeches set to dubstep.
- A float modeled after Mount Rushmore, but with Trump’s face replacing Lincoln, Roosevelt, and the mountain itself.
- Fireworks programmed to spell out “TRUMP 2028: BACK, BIGGER, AND STILL NOT INVITED TO NATO.”
- A golden eagle drone that screeches “USA!” every time someone says “fake news.”
- And of course, a VIP golf cart motorcade — because, as Trump clarified, “I don’t march. I glide. Like a patriot on wheels.”

Sources say he’s also considering a “Freedom Fountain” that shoots Diet Coke instead of water, and a closing ceremony where he personally pardons a bald eagle for tax evasion.

Enough AI humor ?

Everyone should watch this.

On September 3, China will host a massive military parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Trump successfully nudged his way onto the guest list, though it remains unconfirmed whether he’ll appear on the day or make a grand entrance later. 

In my view, showing up on 9/03 would be a smart move. It’s a golden photo op, a chance to reframe the event from a strictly communist celebration into a broader global spectacle, with Trump photobombing the moment.

More importantly, it opens the door for a serious sit-down - an opportunity to hash out key issues with the world’s most powerful players, face to face.

Not to mention, it’s a chance to learn how to throw a military parade.

For those of us not into politics, this is still a must-watch. If you appreciate cinematography, design, or engineering, it’s a goldmine. The camera work, the staging, the sheer logistics, it’s jaw-dropping. Think of it like watching a blockbuster movie, except it’s real, and it’s happening live. It’s rare chance to see new toys and a glimpse into cultural insight on a spectacular scale.

And we know: China knows how to throw the world’s most fantastic celebrations. From Olympic openings to national parades, they turn choreography into diplomacy and pageantry into power.

---

---

[Boro]

the only thing you are achieving with AI slop is making Mjmd look good by comparison. And you've achieved that without AI already.

[BING_XI_LAO]

The "Uyghur genocide" is a US government narrative - it's quite easy to follow the money with the various NGOs that peddle it.
Abu Ghraib demonstrates that the US is not concerned with the human rights of Islamists. Gaza demonstrates that the US also doesn't mind collective punishment of civilian populations that produce Islamists.
So why does the US claim to take an interest in China's security policies in Xinjiang?

The Uyghur genocide narrative could be motivated merely by a desire to weaken China's reputation. That's not a very compelling or dramatic explanation, but spinning up propaganda is cheap.

If you want a more dramatic explanation, it could be they are working with the Turks to develop networks of Central Asian, turkic islamists, in order to sabotage transportation networks and cause general instability in the future.
Why? Because this area connects all three of the US' enemies - Iran, China, and Russia, through territory inaccessible to the US Navy.



See also the recent "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity", also known as the Zangezour Corridor. Beneficial for Turkey and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is a turkic state which will literally connect Turkey to Central Asia. Turkey is a middle power between Russia and the West, so when Russia and the West are at odds, Turkey is at great liberty to pursue its own agendas, such as Turanism. Azerbaijan was likely used as a staging ground for drone strikes by Israel in the recent bombardment conflict with Iran. This is about moving pawns up the board towards Iran. And the Uyghurs, as mentioned, fought against Assad in Syria, which means they were fighting against Iran and Russia, and for Israel and the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/a...-in-region

So this "human rights" concern about events in Xinjiang, actually comes right back down to the core warmongering agenda of the Zionist democratic capitalist regimes, alongside the aforementioned Turkic sphere of influence agenda.

Jolani, the new puppet ruler of Syria, is a perfect example of the Zionist-Turkic alliance of convenience. Backed by Turkey, under his government Syrian airspace is fully open for Israeli airforce operations against Iran.

[Charr Babies]

the only thing you are achieving with AI slop is making Mjmd look good by comparison. And you've achieved that without AI already.

AI - the next BigThing™. Learn to cope.

Thanks, such insight from the one who wants to ban this forum (but secretly lurking in the dark  ). It’s time for a fabulous coming-out party!  



I can't wait to see who claims to have political memory and a deep understanding of politics, to share a few words of wisdom. 

---

---