Aight if you think China is a democracy and the US isnt i think were done here.

I don't think either are, but any definition that includes the US that is reasonable will likely include china.

if you don't want to have a dialog with people you disagree with and just close your ears what good will that accomplish?

if you're not even willing to engage with that question how can you be certain it's correct? why don't you just have a throwaway copy-paste ready to fight against it? would be more fruitful if you actually care about dismantling that idea? what you did right now won't convince anyone.

I think Russia poses a threat to anyone no matter how deep a hole they are currently in, they are a nuclear power, and even though the most likely people on the planet to use a nuke are the US in Iran or Israel in Iran, the threat of a nuclear powered nation engaging in offensive war is terrifying.

No matter how well the EU would be able to defend, and I have very very little opinion there, my info is extremely low with EU matters, Russia testing Nato directly would show that the agreement effectively doesn't exist. I think it's just as likely that Nato/EU does as much about Russian aggression as they did with Ukraine, no matter where it happens.

I could be totally wrong there, I'm willing to be totally wrong there.

I think drones as a fundamental technology of war have changed the game in a way you wouldn't call air supremacy. Air supremacy used to rely on incredibly expensive pieces of flight equipment, even the drones. Now the tech involves things that cost pennies in comparison (basically consumer drone tech with military grade explosives tapes to them) that can take out a piece of equipment which is nearly irreplaceable. War has changed right under the nose of the US and Russia. At least Russia is trying to catch up, the US is rejecting this tech and trying to put more pieces of 7-8 figure equipment in the air.

Ok, well I'm slightly encouraged that you don't think China is democratic, that's why I thought this discussion was a lost cause.

My definitions for a democracy are pretty straightforward, the people get to either decide the laws of their policies of their government (i.e. ballot initiatives, which are a major part of US government, at least at the state level), or decide who represents them in that government by voting. The elections should be free and fair, and candidates should not be restricted based on their platforms or ideologies. I think that's a pretty uncontroversial definition.

I strongly disagree with your statements about China being freer than the US on the policies I mentioned. I figured you wouldn't like whatever expert rankings I provided... I didn't actually know Freedom House was funded via the state department, but as far as their impartiality goes, consider that per Wikipedia they got their funding through USAID which has since been slashed, and also conservatives in the US don't like them because they think they're anti-conservative. But anyways, here's another few for you:

https://patrickrhamey.com/saturday-research/2025/8/14/2025-state-of-world-liberty-index EDIT: this one at least partially uses Freedom House damnit

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2025

https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/

I'm not cherry-picking these, I'm literally just searching for civil liberties rankings. They're all fairly consistent. If you can find one that shows China above the US with independent authors, I'd be interested to see it.

Just to be clear, I don't think these indices are of any value at all? This isn't something that can be measured by a single value, you have to go point-by-point and use actual arguments, but no on Cato

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[5] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.[nb 1] Cato was established to focus on public advocacy, media exposure, and societal influence.[6]

I'm having trouble finding v-dems actual arguments about this

I again have to ask how you think elections in china work, do you deny the existence of their elections? Which parts of your definition does china not meet? I'm not saying they obviously do meet them, i'm wanting to know what you're really saying about china, obviously they have a preference for ccp for example, i'm not denying this, just asking you how china works, according to you.

I don't really like that definition because it ignores what's really important: are the majority getting what they want? Your definition is more like guidelines for achieving that and thus puts the cart before the horse, I could accomplish all of these things, and still make it such that the majority don't get what they want.

I’m having trouble finding v-dems actual arguments about this

Not sure what you mean by that. You can select any single value you want, select the country, and then see the scores over time. Or see the by-country scores with different sections broken out here.

I again have to ask how you think elections in china work, do you deny the existence of their elections?

I certainly deny they have free and fair elections, yes. There's only one party on the ballot - that's a hell of a lot more than a "preference". Elections in the People's Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[1][2] By law, all elections at all levels must adhere to the leadership of the CCP

"The majority getting what they want" is way too vague of a statement to quantify, but generally speaking I would agree that people in America and most of the Western world are dissatisfied with their governments. That doesn't make them undemocratic. I get your argument - you're saying that if people aren't happy with the decisions their government is making, is their government really representing them at all, and therefore democratic? But politicians making unpopular decisions has always and will always be a thing, and to a certain extent it's necessary - it doesn't even mean the politicians are corrupt for doing so. With that said, overall, I'd say that most major government policies are politically popular.

Not sure what you mean by that. You can select any single value you want, select the country, and then see the scores over time. Or see the by-country scores with different sections broken out here[1].

that's just a number? what objective measures did they use?

I certainly deny they have free and fair elections, yes.

How do you know they aren't free/fair? Remember the goalpost is more free/fair than the US. A country that uses the spoiler effect and a two party system to ensure minimal change happens.

There’s only one party on the ballot - that’s a hell of a lot more than a “preference”.

  CCP and Nonpartisan (2,478)

Democratic Parties (369)
JS (61)
CPWDP (60)
CDL (55)
CAPD (54)
CNDCA (44)
RCCK (43)
CZGP (39)
TDSL (13)

^^ these are the seats for the non-ccp parties. there is not just one party on the ballot, but, I want to be clear here, I don't think it would be a problem if there were, I oppose political parties being the way things are decided because I view them as undemocratic, political parties allow people to not properly judge candidates based on policy and actual thought put into decisionmaking, this is also what the founding fathers of america believed. Political parties should be banned, and having one political party is equivalent to banning them. What political beliefs are you actually required to hold to join the CCP? I actually don't know and the answer to that would be enlightening.

“The majority getting what they want” is way too vague of a statement to quantify, but generally speaking I would agree that people in America and most of the Western world are dissatisfied with their governments. That doesn’t make them undemocratic. I get your argument - you’re saying that if people aren’t happy with the decisions their government is making, is their government really representing them at all, and therefore democratic? But politicians making unpopular decisions has always and will always be a thing, and to a certain extent it’s necessary - it doesn’t even mean the politicians are corrupt for doing so. With that said, overall, I’d say that most major government policies are politically popular.

the paper I linked quantified it, no?

It's crazy because even lenin claimed the ussr was state capitalism, and anyone that thinks stalins take over fixed that is an idiot. There were socialist and communist in some power there just like China now, but they are at best a check on the otherwise unchecked capitalist system that those countries primarily are.

South Korea went so hard on Capitalism and work culture, it makes Japan blush, but I'd still take what they have over what North Korea is offering.

that’s just a number? what objective measures did they use?

Here are the questions they answered and what the scores mean. Here is more information about their methodology if you are curious.

A country that uses the spoiler effect and a two party system to ensure minimal change happens.

I don't like the two-party system either, but the US doesn't "use" the 2-party system to do anything, it just happened organically because of the winner-take all election system. The founding fathers did not anticipate the rise of political parties; its worth remembering how old the US constitution is. There was not a lot of information to go off of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China

Elections in China occur under a political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[1][2][40][41] with all candidate nominations pre-approved by the CCP.[1][10][4][8][42] CCP regulations require members of the People's Congresses, People's Governments, and People's Courts to implement CCP recommendations (including nominations).[43] Elected leaders remain subordinate to the corresponding CCP secretary, and most are appointed by higher-level party organizations.[43]

There are a small number of independent candidates for people's congress, particularly in neighborhoods of major cities, who sometimes campaign using Weibo.[44] Independent candidates are strongly discouraged and face government intervention in their campaigns.[6] In practice, the power of parties other than the CCP is eliminated.[44] Because none of the minor parties have independent bases of support and rely on CCP approval for appointment to positions of power, none have true political power independent of the CCP.[45][46] Whereas there are CCP committees in people's congresses at all levels, none of the other parties operate any form of party parliamentary groups.

The performed elections in China do not meet free and fair election criteria such as ballot access and political media access.

What political beliefs are you actually required to hold to join the CCP? I actually don’t know and the answer to that would be enlightening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party#Members

To join the party an applicant must be 18 years of age, and must spend a year as a probationary member.[73] In contrast to the past, when emphasis was placed on the applicants' ideological criteria, the current CCP stresses technical and educational qualifications.[73] However, applicants and members are expected to be both "red and expert".

So it seems like, just to be a member of the CPP you need to at the very least put on a good show of being a communist. That absolutely does not meet the standard of a free election to me.

And I want to make one other thing clear - even if there were zero ideological requirements to join the CCP, there is still a huge difference between 1 party and no parties. With 1 party, you are completely at the mercy of party leadership. If I joined the CCP and make comments critical of, say, President Xi, party officials could simply kick me out of the party, no elections necessary. The same thing could happen if I opposed some policy or if they simply didn't like me.

I was gonna reply to some of your numerous messages - but this one takes the piss.

“Sucking Up”? Seriously - are you 5?

How I was brought up is if someone does something for you that is of no charge and you benefit from it - you at least say thanks, even if you don’t like the cunt.