China foreign ministry Wah Chun Ying response to the proposed Xinjing human rights bill! Great quote at the end. Please watch till the end!
Another diplomatic success story for POTUS. at the recent Nato summit, calling out Trudeau to be two-faced. Calling out Macon at being skillful for not answering press questions.
So what happened, world leaders talked about POTUS, and he came home early.
And this is really LOL!
nowthere's pretty interesting Xinjiang Chinese PR campaign ongoing, includes
The US cannot win the Xinjiang “fight” for China holds all the leverage
Source:Global Times Published: 2019/12/4 21:28:57
(video of kinda talk show inside)
Commentary: Xinjiang's righteous measure against terrorism
Xinhua| 2019-12-04 18:23:33
China urges U.S. to learn lessons from 9/11 attacks, stop double standards on anti-terrorism
Xinhua| 2019-12-05 01:23:52
and so on
The petty levels of game the US is using against China are just as childlike. Did we expect anything else? It's a democracy.
The United States is not a true democracy. The United States is a free standing Republic or a Representative democracy in which elected officials govern the country.
The United States is not a true democracy. The United States is a free standing Republic or a Representative democracy in which elected officials govern the country.
Very true. Democracy means rule of the people, it is not tied to any one form of political system. The true measure of democracy is not how many elections you have, it's how well the government responds to the needs of the people.
So in the absence of a perfect mechanism for this idealistic system of governance, no "democracies" can be considered pure? If that's the measure, then an authoritarian government can be more "democratic" if it responds to the needs of the people. I mean there is no natural force regulating this dynamic. Therefore even on principle, democracy may not be more democratic than any other system. Why not just go full anarchist and slim down the red tape further. After all that is directly getting to the individual needs of the people.
I would toss out all this political science BS and just get real. US is a democracy. Like Greece, or Japan. We should consider them democracies for the sake of semantic sanity.
Democracies are hugely flawed, just like any authoritarian system, capitalism is hugely flawed just like socialism. It's the people affecting the culture, affecting the people that is the important ingredient which set democracies like India apart from democracies like Sweden and separates PRC with Cuba. Obviously finer differences are abundant but everyone always carry on this conversation as if it's 100% the system and not what it really is, a complex and nuanced mix of near infinite factors. What can be said is Trump does behave like a child. Strategically or not, it doesn't win much respect from anyone on any side.
Your premise is flawed. A system of governance does not need to be idealistic or perfect to be democratic. In fact, the more idealistic a political system is, the less democratic it tends to be, as you cannot eat idealism. The needs of the people are wholly pragmatic, and there does exist measures by which we can measure how well those needs are being met. They are not, however, simple or easy to understand.
That therein lies the whole problem of labels. You want to have a convenient label like "democracy" vs "authoritarian" so you can make generalizations about countries that fall into your preconceived definitions. That itself is a fallacy.
China is no more "authoritarian" than it is "democratic", in that the two are meaningless terms in the absence of context. Compared to a Western country, such as Canada, the Chinese government has more control in certain aspects of society and has less control in other aspects. In Canada, you need a lot of red tape to start a small business. In China you just need to print out a QR code. In Canada, marijuana is legal. In China, it is illegal. How is one more "authoritarian" than the other?